Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I little off topic but I don't thing Iain is the reason EVE hasn't changed much in 12 years. I think it's because the game came out of initial development as an awsome game and didn't need much more than tweaking here and there over the years. Yes there have been major game changing designs but all the ideas submitted here are for player review. More or less a popularity contest. If a lot of people like the idea, then the DEVs will look into it. If a lot of people think it's crap, then it probably won't be looked at.

The game has survived as well as it has not because of popular player ideas, but despite a lack of popular ideas.
To be popular, something has to be simple enough for most to understand and recognize, as well as not already existing.
A rare combination in many places, EVE included.

Many players, if not most, can recognize something they like in a game. They can see how it works by direct observation.
These same players are often unlikely to be able to describe these desirable mechanics until they actually see them working.
That is perfectly normal, not everyone is an engineer after all.

People often describe those who create the great ideas as being visionary, and refer to them as if their creativity was something few others could grasp or comprehend.
AND, they are quite often correct.

Because until they see that great idea live and working, the description alone is something they can neither grasp or comprehend fully, so is not recognized.

If you're going to add the scan inhibitor effect to asteroids I believe that the distance between them (and also their size and unit content) need to be increased as well to create a more diverse terrain. Similar to how moving through a forest has trees obstructing the view for periods and you only catch glimpses of the bear/yeti walking by. It also more accurately reflects how real world asteroid fields are in respect to distances between them.

E: also, the above posters do have some merit in relation to secondary grids spawning without some way to find them without relative difficulty. I believe simply having each new grid spawning a secondary warp in point might be a viable temporary solution to that concern until grid code is reworked into a better position to handle it.

And in addition to above posters sonnets on the d-scan invulnerability, it can work both ways. While the miner may not show up on d-scan neither will the aggressor. So hiding in a non cloaky/recon ship is a more viable tactic. However the power of that may need to be addressed as well. I'm basing all of these assumptions that scan inhibiting works externally as well as internally and does not include scan probes.

Agreed. But give ORE ships special niche sensors that can pinpoint mining signatures directly, as if they were anomalies.

As a dirty stinking miner, I approve.

Actually, I'd like to do one or two better and clump all of a system's current belts into two or three major concentrations, with maybe some kind of scanning system to localize each day where 'orbital motion' has formed up a particularly large or valuable cluster, or multiple such clusters. And actually having sensor clutter that could cause transient contacts or obscure small hulls from sensors would do wonders for scaring all the veldespar out of my holds. Right now, a combat hull jumps in and I jump out, even if it might be just somebody battleship mining or something else stupid like that. Best not to take the risk. But, if you, say, go to a higher concentration spot, and the local starts going out intermittently to prevent you from seeing possible hostiles coming in, it would be an interesting way to increase the danger and the cat/mousiness without it becoming cheap mechanics.

I am fascinated by the idea that a miner can fill their ore hold, and either need a indy nearby or some other ship to offload to.

The potential for self transport is defeated, if you are trying to mine something remote enough to require lengthy travel time.
(I think this is a good thing, and may even create justification for use of orcas and rorquals beyond what we have now)

Perhaps we can establish leapfrog bookmarks, where a player can BM a new grid, and pass that on to their buddies, so they can follow the trail.
(A short warp between neighboring grids being possible, or simply warping from one can to the next, I dunno)

Just something that converts effort, but is wiped when the next daily downtime resets the belt grids for the following day.

So you're proposing that we make miners travel hundreds of km in New Eden's slowest ships? It's not just that mining ships will have to travel huge distances to get to get to the 'good' ore, but you're suggesting that Orca pilots do so too *repeatedly*? I don't honestly see how it would make the Orca more useful if the fleet can't access it's hangers for the vast majority of the time because it is having to crawl at sub-light speed to meet up with them. Plus Orcas are not large ships, 4 mackinaw's will fill up the Orca's hold in one go. Really this change would force fleets to require freighters in order to reduce the negative impact of the huge distances as much as possible, so screw small fleets and solo pilots who can't financially support a freighter I guess?

As for the miner vs ganker mechanics, doesn't this just encourage even more AFK mining? If I'm invisibly tucked away at the end of a huge belt with giant asteroids and freighter support then what incentive is there to be actually present in game? Also doesn't this unreasonably punish gankers if you take away a major source of prey? Or will they be able to use the same hiding mechanics to launch stealth attacks on us with such ease and regularity that mining in high sec will become as hazardous and pointless as it is everywhere else? A Catalyst is considerably faster than a mining barge after all, so it'll eat up those long boring km's!

Or possibly they'll just camp out at the beacons? I've never tried ganking miners, but it looks like quite a fast paced and fun activity (albeit with the relative tactical difficulty of shooting fish in a barrel using a rocket launcher); swapping that for one that consists of hours of waiting around seems like a really bad plan. I will admit I don't like the brand of RP used by some of EVE's more outspoken miner gankers because I think a lot of them don't understand where game play stops and harassment starts BUT that is not a good reason to remove the mechanic from the game. We are already pretty safe in high sec; the vast majority of miners, haulers and industrialists in high sec get to keep most of our income, some of us at close to 100% fcol, so we *really* do not need further coddling.

As for the suggestions others have made about forcing us to scan down asteroid belts; whilst I'm very much in favour of increasing the number and varieties of mining anomalies (and maybe reducing static belt numbers), I think forcing miners to endure the scanning mini-game would not be a positive change. Ultimately it just adds hassle and delays along with another bulk of lengthy skill training to the existing mining requirements, without making the intrinsic process of mining more engaging. Granted it does give you a skill that you can apply to other 'careers' but ultimately I suspect it would just result in more miners running L4 mining missions instead which is not only just as anti-social but even easier to AFK. Of course maybe discouraging players from mining could be considered a good thing, it is dull and it's hard to stop doing it once you've invested nearly a year's worth of training and lack the skills to do anything else!

Although I don't necessarily disagree with you, I think the problem with that analogy is the notion that "..a lot of people like the idea..." doesn't always reflect the true feelings of the majority of people. Looking at the forums and judging like or dislike is basically just listening to the vocal minority. Which may or may not represent what the majority really feels.

I like the idea of increasing densities of ore as security status is lowered. I dislike the idea of multiple connected grids. I can imagine folks flying into a site in an inty and then randomly dropping jet cans approx 175km apart until the size of the grid and the number of roids on it cause the average pc to have a fit.

If I understand the idea, the only way people would be safe is if they slowboat off the warp in; which they can do now but rarely do. This would actually make that happen even less. The other way is to send a fast frig to another grid and warp miners there for the day, but they'd likely be next to the warp in on that grid and feeling smug and safe.

As for ganks: people are going to be sitting right next to the warp in and not paying attention, just like always.

It seems to reward not being stupid/lazy and adds a thin layer of safety that people will over value.