These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

[Proposal] Reworked Mining.

Author
Nathan Shavit
Shavit Risk Management
#21 - 2014-11-04 20:54:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathan Shavit
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
LiquidDreams, fix your translator because what you post is like r2d2 on crack.

And you are wrong about CODE and their funny permits because only idiots pay for permits. Use your brain and dotlan to find nice and quiet system where all you have to worry about is how to crunch all those belts before DT (hint: you can't). Pro tip: you don't really need to have a station in system you mine in. Try it and suddenly not only no CODE but also much less competition.

And mining is not broken in terms of bugs or quirks like corp stuff, it's broken in terms of lacking gameplay and engagement it offers. People are saying "oh I love how I can mine and read my book in the same time". Seriously? You pay for a game that is so boring that you need to have sth else to do? How can anybody consider it a good game when it doesn't need your attention?

Alts is not a solution to a problem of very poor gameplay, it's just multiplication of actions in that gameplay so you don't have time to feel boredom creeping in. Alts shouldn't even be a subject of discussion when engagement is considered.


Can't agree more. Although I have to say that AFK mining does have a purpose. It allows for those who can't or don't want to pay for gametime to generate enough ore to trade for a PLEX.
This may sound boring (I'd rather jump off a cliff) but allows players to use the non-AFK time for some actual fun PvP, funded by their mining expeditions.

Schmata Bastanold wrote:
r2d2 on crack.
This made me chuckle :)

There is no problem an air strike cannot solve.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#22 - 2014-11-05 13:31:35 UTC
Nathan Shavit wrote:

Can't agree more. Although I have to say that AFK mining does have a purpose. It allows for those who can't or don't want to pay for gametime to generate enough ore to trade for a PLEX.
This may sound boring (I'd rather jump off a cliff) but allows players to use the non-AFK time for some actual fun PvP, funded by their mining expeditions.


That really shouldn't be a "purpose" of mining. If everyone AFK mined to buy PLEX, not only would mineral prices decline, but PLEX cost would sky rocket.... kind of like we are seeing right now. Highsec mining is too safe causing people to multibox mining fleets in CONCORD-provided safety, and without adding any significant content to the game - just massive botting or ISBoxing Skiff fleets floating in space, silently out-competing any active miners in the system, and which among other things, jacks up the price of PLEX in return for no active game play. This just isn't good game design.

Perhaps there is a place for some passive income in a mining revamp, like PI - in fact maybe you could just add "mining facilities" to the existing PI system - but in a way where risk scales with reward like the current PI system and allow people to fund their PvP that way. Or clone PI to be AI - asteroid interaction - and have the ability to build facilities on large asteroids using the same mini-game. Or build something completely new, but explicitly passive. But from a game design perspective, the effort and activity of being a miner in space should scale with the reward. The current system doesn't have that since it is basically press F1 and walk away for 20 minutes, so as a result the best strategy for a player is to multibox as many miners as they can, and to do this in the free safety of highsec. Not only this, but even worse, it actively encourage players to not be actively engaged with the game. Miners who spend more effort and/or take more risk should be much better rewarded for that style of play.

Make active mining more risky and require more effort (like the OP's proposal although I haven't really looked at in detail), and develop other, less lucrative (in highsec at least) passive income sources for those who treat AFK mining as such now.
Navie
LoneStar Dynamics
#23 - 2014-11-05 13:46:41 UTC
My proposal is more active, but less risky where modules can be used (low/nul/wspace) the base asteroid yield still needs to be addressed to offer a real incentive to goto nul/low exclusively to mine but I'm not addressing that here. Just mainly focused on the gameplay.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#24 - 2014-11-05 14:42:21 UTC
Navie wrote:
My proposal is more active, but less risky where modules can be used (low/nul/wspace) the base asteroid yield still needs to be addressed to offer a real incentive to goto nul/low exclusively to mine but I'm not addressing that here. Just mainly focused on the gameplay.

The risk in non-highsec can be lower than it is now for miners - in fact that might even be a good idea to get more people to do it, as long as as you say the reward is higher there so risk still scales with reward. But the risk in highsec should be higher than the near 0% it is now for a tanked Skiff/procurer operation.

Ideally, like ship fittings, you would want there to be also a series of tradeoffs where mining operations can be fit for more yield, more storage or more defense to make for more interesting game play.
Navie
LoneStar Dynamics
#25 - 2014-11-05 15:01:00 UTC
Thats basically what the proposal is... In the form of a mining platform.
LiquidDreams
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2014-11-11 23:31:35 UTC
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
LiquidDreams, fix your translator because what you post is like r2d2 on crack.

And you are wrong about CODE and their funny permits because only idiots pay for permits. Use your brain and dotlan to find nice and quiet system where all you have to worry about is how to crunch all those belts before DT (hint: you can't). Pro tip: you don't really need to have a station in system you mine in. Try it and suddenly not only no CODE but also much less competition.

And mining is not broken in terms of bugs or quirks like corp stuff, it's broken in terms of lacking gameplay and engagement it offers. People are saying "oh I love how I can mine and read my book in the same time". Seriously? You pay for a game that is so boring that you need to have sth else to do? How can anybody consider it a good game when it doesn't need your attention?

Alts is not a solution to a problem of very poor gameplay, it's just multiplication of actions in that gameplay so you don't have time to feel boredom creeping in. Alts shouldn't even be a subject of discussion when engagement is considered.



i diden pay isboudt they have the full control in high sec -10 standing concord are useless an people less then -5.0 standing need to get attack by concord if not the come in a pod.
Gefen Orion
Icebox Industries
#27 - 2014-11-12 01:36:29 UTC
This should be in F&I section. ISD move this to the proper venue so it could receive more attention please.
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#28 - 2014-11-12 11:20:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Ria Nieyli
Black Pedro wrote:
That really shouldn't be a "purpose" of mining. If everyone AFK mined to buy PLEX, not only would mineral prices decline, but PLEX cost would sky rocket....


Mining is in no way tied to PLEX prices. It does not produce any ISK, so indexing mining output vs PLEX price is nonsensical at best.

Black Pedro wrote:
Make active mining more risky and require more effort (like the OP's proposal although I haven't really looked at in detail), and develop other, less lucrative (in highsec at least) passive income sources for those who treat AFK mining as such now.


If you mine you run the risk of getting ganked. Moreso if you afk mine. Afk mining income is literally zero. Active mining already requires more effort than being afk, by definition, so I don't see what your problem with the process is. Maybe you should try mining yourself for educational purposes.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#29 - 2014-11-12 11:48:44 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Mining is in no way tied to PLEX prices. It does not produce any ISK, so indexing mining output vs PLEX price is nonsensical at best.


Of course the ease of AFK activities is tied to PLEX accessibility. If you make valuable resources (or ISK) more easily available to one type of game play, those players will more easily afford the PLEX on the market. It's true that overproduction of ore will self-correct some as ore prices crash, but still these players who are gaining resources with no/low effort will distort the PLEX market, allowing them to buy the PLEX on the market, rather than people earning their ISK from other game activities.

And that doesn't change the fact you just crashed the ore market by making AFK highsec mining completely safe.

Ria Nieyli wrote:
If you mine you run the risk of getting ganked. Moreso if you afk mine. Active mining already requires more effort than being afk, by definition, so I don't see what your problem with the process is. You should try mining yourself to educate yourself a bit.

Mining is not balanced properly. First, I can fit a ship to mine nearly invulnerable to ganks while I am still AFK. Second, something called "active mining" does not exists - you press a button and there is nothing you can do to improve your yield. I will concede that something like "active defense" does so I can fit slightly more yield if I forgo any tank and defend myself by paying attention which is something, but there is nothing I can do actively when I am in the belt to increase my yield. As a result, the best strategy is to multibox as many tanked ships as my hardware can handle, which I suggest is bad game design.

Adding a true active component would make this approach impossible, and put the emphasis back on profit flowing from player effort where it should be, not on who can afford the most accounts/computing power.
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#30 - 2014-11-12 11:59:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Ria Nieyli
Black Pedro wrote:
Of course the ease of AFK activities is tied to PLEX accessibility. If you make valuable resources (or ISK) more easily available to one type of game play, those players will more easily afford the PLEX on the market. It's true that overproduction of ore will self-correct some as ore prices crash, but still these players who are gaining resources with no/low effort will distort the PLEX market, allowing them to buy the PLEX on the market, rather than people earning their ISK from other game activities.


There's a single factor that's driving PLEX prices as of current: supply.

Black Pedro wrote:
And that doesn't change the fact you just crashed the ore market by making AFK highsec mining completely safe.


Being AFK in space leaves you entirely at the mercy of others players. There's no safety in it.

Black Pedro wrote:
Mining is not balanced properly. First, I can fit a ship to mine nearly invulnerable to ganks while I am still AFK.


How? As long as you remain afk in space, people can take as much time as they please to get you off the field.

Black Pedro wrote:
Second, something called "active mining" does not exists - you press a button and there is nothing you can do to improve your yield. I will concede that something like "active defense" does so I can fit slightly more yield if I forgo any tank and defend myself by paying attention which is something, but there is nothing I can do actively when I am in the belt to increase my yield. As a result, the best strategy is to multibox as many tanked ships as my hardware can handle, which I suggest is bad game design.

Adding a true active component would make this approach impossible, and put the emphasis back on profit flowing from player effort where it should be, not on who can afford the most accounts/computing power.


Ok, so pressing buttons, paying attention to local & dscan is being afk.

Your understanding of basic mechanics is appaling at best. You really shouldn't be suggesting gameplay changes.

Edit: Now that I reread your post, you're just complaining about PLEX prices. I'm sorry that you can't afford one, but if in your eyes mining's at the root of the prices, you really should start mining too. I mean, it's so easy to do, right?
Mr Quest
Doomheim
#31 - 2014-11-12 12:29:47 UTC
Here's a mining platform for you.

I would like to propose that the mining community get a revamp in the form of at least one (1) - T3 mining vessel. Additionally, I would like to see a T3 mining vessel that is designed to both mine and fight back simultaneously. My vision of a T3 mining mining vessel would combine the defensive capabilities of a Skiff, with the mining capabilities of a Hulk, and be capable of Cruiser or Destroyer level combat.

I believe such a ship could be designed to incorporate T3 mining crystals as well... having the capability of shooting both rocks and ships alike, thereby eliminating any need for additional slots to accommodate offensive weapons.

I have played this game now for the better part of six years... and there has always existed an unjust and unparalleled division among miners and PVP pilots with regards to combat role-play. PVP pilots have continually enjoyed the favor of CCP's game designers in so much as... they have been allowed to unleash utter havoc against miners and their defenseless ships without any form of repercussion from the miners themselves. So why is that?

I mean... if you give any credence to the entire back drop of the New Eden story... I find it just a little hard to believe that Eve's all powerful corporations and the scientific organizations would not have developed a counter-terrorist version of the mining vessel. Hell look at our own history... when British and Spanish galleons sailed the seven seas... filled with gold and untold treasures, while they were armed to the teeth with cannons along their port and starboard sides as were the pirate ships that pursued them.

I do not necessarily advocate taking anything away from PVP pilots, but I do think it is way past time CCP leveled the playing field somewhat in that respect. The majority of miners in this game do not enjoy the luxury of dedicated roaming fleets and/or 'protected' mining ops., and from my own personal experiences... its just plain too boring sitting around 'baby-sitting' miners. As a normal 'mode' of game play... are pretty much loners... and in my mind very much likened to 'wildcatters' back during the oil boom. I would imagine they were a rough & tough crowd too much like gold miners who did not take too kindly to claim jumpers.

You might consider this fact as well... nearly ship in the world of Eve... has some sort of offensive capability... except mining ships. And don't talk to me about drones either. I am talking about real combat capability.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#32 - 2014-11-12 15:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Ria Nieyli wrote:

There's a single factor that's driving PLEX prices as of current: supply.


No, supply is the single factor that is driving the number of PLEX on the market (actually, that is the definition). The price is a complex function of various realities of the total economy (current wealth and earning potentials) of New Eden and the utility of PLEX. Clearly PLEX are desirable and useful for all types of players and thus the relative distribution of wealth in the greater economy will determine who ends up with this scarce resource.

If you make AFK highsec mining more lucrative (in terms of effort-to-earnings) than other more active play, more PLEX will end up in the hands of these players.

Ria Nieyli wrote:
How? As long as you remain afk in space, people can take as much time as they please to get you off the field.


If you are unprofitable to gank, you are very, very safe even AFK in space. I can easily fit a ship to be unprofitable to gank. If you just sit there in space, no harm is done. But, if you can sit there AFK in space, invulnerable to a profitable gank but earning resources, something is broken.

Ria Nieyli wrote:

Ok, so pressing buttons, paying attention to local & dscan is being afk.


I think you are missing the point friend, so let me try again. Your strategy to fit yield and use dscan is a good one, and it indeed active behaviour, but I am afraid if you are using it you are doing it wrong. If that were the "best strategy" then mining would be fine. However, the correct solution to making the most as a miner (earnings/effort), is to multibox as many tanked Skiffs as your hardware will handle. This is poor game design.

I have ganked hundreds of mining vessels and know exactly what gank ships are required, and what profit I can expect. If a ship requires me to bring in friends, or even worse, will not turn me a profit, it is essentially perfectly safe from me performing a gank, and is only vulnerable to bumping if I am feeling a little mischievous. From a game balance point of view, this could be fine (trade yield for safety), but when this is circumvented by the scalability of multiboxing, you have problem. The simplest way I see to fix this is to make mining more active so that earnings again scale with effort.

So if you want to characterize my post I guess it is really railing against ISboxer.
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#33 - 2014-11-12 16:45:49 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:

There's a single factor that's driving PLEX prices as of current: supply.


No, supply is the single factor that is driving the number of PLEX on the market (actually, that is the definition). The price is a complex function of various realities of the total economy (current wealth and earning potentials) of New Eden and the utility of PLEX. Clearly PLEX are desirable and useful for all types of players and thus the relative distribution of wealth in the greater economy will determine who ends up with this scarce resource.

If you make AFK highsec mining more lucrative (in terms of effort-to-earnings) than other more active play, more PLEX will end up in the hands of these players.

Ria Nieyli wrote:
How? As long as you remain afk in space, people can take as much time as they please to get you off the field.


If you are unprofitable to gank, you are very, very safe even AFK in space. I can easily fit a ship to be unprofitable to gank. If you just sit there in space, no harm is done. But, if you can sit there AFK in space, invulnerable to a profitable gank but earning resources, something is broken.

Ria Nieyli wrote:

Ok, so pressing buttons, paying attention to local & dscan is being afk.


I think you are missing the point friend, so let me try again. Your strategy to fit yield and use dscan is a good one, and it indeed active behaviour, but I am afraid if you are using it you are doing it wrong. If that were the "best strategy" then mining would be fine. However, the correct solution to making the most as a miner (earnings/effort), is to multibox as many tanked Skiffs as your hardware will handle. This is poor game design.

I have ganked hundreds of mining vessels and know exactly what gank ships are required, and what profit I can expect. If a ship requires me to bring in friends, or even worse, will not turn me a profit, it is essentially perfectly safe from me performing a gank, and is only vulnerable to bumping if I am feeling a little mischievous. From a game balance point of view, this could be fine (trade yield for safety), but when this is circumvented by the scalability of multiboxing, you have problem. The simplest way I see to fix this is to make mining more active so that earnings again scale with effort.

So if you want to characterize my post I guess it is really railing against ISboxer.


Look, the lower the PLEX volume on the market is, the higher the price, which lowers the volume even further. Granted, there's some speculation going on, but that's not as effective as you might thing. People that stockpile PLEX are a minority, just as those who use it and those who seed it within the economy.

And I do happen to enjoy the lower mineral prices that isboxing brings us. There's nothing wrong with flooding the market with cheap resources :)
Black Pedro
Mine.
#34 - 2014-11-12 19:46:23 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:

Look, the lower the PLEX volume on the market is, the higher the price, which lowers the volume even further. Granted, there's some speculation going on, but that's not as effective as you might thing. People that stockpile PLEX are a minority, just as those who use it and those who seed it within the economy.

And I do happen to enjoy the lower mineral prices that isboxing brings us. There's nothing wrong with flooding the market with cheap resources :)

I still maintain that setting up the game and the game economy so that one of the most profitable activities is to AFK multibox a solo and risk-free profession, rather than an active, dangerous and difficult activity, is a failure of game design.

But to each their own. :)
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#35 - 2014-11-12 20:05:36 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:

Look, the lower the PLEX volume on the market is, the higher the price, which lowers the volume even further. Granted, there's some speculation going on, but that's not as effective as you might thing. People that stockpile PLEX are a minority, just as those who use it and those who seed it within the economy.

And I do happen to enjoy the lower mineral prices that isboxing brings us. There's nothing wrong with flooding the market with cheap resources :)

I still maintain that setting up the game and the game economy so that one of the most profitable activities is to AFK multibox a solo and risk-free profession, rather than an active, dangerous and difficult activity, is a failure of game design.

But to each their own. :)


And what activity is that?

EvE lends itself to multiboxing, no way around that as of now.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#36 - 2014-11-13 11:03:47 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:

And what activity is that?

EvE lends itself to multiboxing, no way around that as of now.


Yes there is. Make mining more active - like this proposal. People don't multibox exploration sites for example.
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#37 - 2014-11-13 16:06:40 UTC
I don't think you understand the humongous task that reworking EvE as to not be appealing to multibox would be. It's a core tenet of the game.
Previous page12