These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Bottom up Moon Mining Proposal (and other mining changes)

Author
Seraph IX Basarab
Astrology Club.
Insidious.
#1 - 2015-03-19 18:16:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Seraph IX Basarab
I'd like to preface this by saying I am not a miner. I've never actually mined in my life before aside from the starter missions when I first began playing. But this proposal still comes from a good place. In essence I asked myself "What would actually get me interested enough in actually trying to mine?" I hope this translates well to older miners as ways to improve upon the gameplay.


So currently we see a moon we want to mine, we plop a tower there and set it up to harvest the moon. It's pretty much mostly passive income aside from some fueling. Sure you have to check for siphons once in a while but there's no real player interaction.

My idea is rooted in the way I imagine that moon mining works in a lore sense. The harvesting laser shoots into the moon's surface and pulls forth the resource sort of like how a river would flow from one end to the other. Now in my mind, it seems like there would be a "stream" of the resource floating out in space as it is pulled toward the pos. What if miners could go out in space and mine the resource directly from the stream?

So question becomes, ok how do we make this relevant? In effect I'd like to make it so that a pos harvesting moon minerals would only gain about 50 percent of what they currently get. In order to make up the other 50 percent, you'd also have to put mining ships to harvest "the stream." If you actively mine your yield can go BEYOND what they currently yield.

Now already some will say "but mining is boring. Why are you making us do something boring to get the same amount of resource as we already have?" Well if you have a good group of miners, you'd actually have the potential to have your resource income go beyond what you're moon is getting you now passively under the current mechanics.

At the same time, if you aren't mining your own moons in an active manner and you don't police the space that you are drawing wealth from, someone else can come in and mine your wealth from under your nose. (I DRINK UR MILKSHAKE) In order for this to be a plausible play style (sneaky prospect mining fleet ops.) We would have to limit the amount of dps a tower could actually put out. Perhaps towers that are set up for moon harvesting simply cannot have guns, or they can only shoot if there is an active member in the pos.

Moons are a great source of income and because of this great potential content creators. Unfortunately pos mechanics makes it so that the only way anyone can get to these moon resources is to have a large capital fleet to use. What we essentially have is vast areas of afk space that bring about great wealth to a few. This idea provides content (skirmishes, active mining, cloaky mining ops) etc and limits the amount of passive low content income that we see today.


======

As a side idea I'd also recommend that mining in general pushes people to be active via the use of a FUN minigame that many of us would probably be playing on a smart phone to pass the time. Passive afk miners won't get as much benefit while active miners will exceed their current yield.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#2 - 2015-03-19 18:59:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
A lot of the focus on player moon mineral gathering is in relation to removing the hard cap on moon minerals dictated solely by the supply of moons.

You idea not only ignores this, it amplifies these issues by initially taking away 50% of the supply.

The next issue is that while moongoo is excellent long term income, on a per hour basis for active activity it's ****.

Let's pretend that moon mineral prices QUADRUPLE after this change from current. Dysprosium suddenly costs 360k a unit! Per hour a 100% yield dyspro moon rakes in.... 36 mil an hour, reduced by 50% to 18 mil.

The character sucking up half the moongoo that's otherwise wasted is now making...

18 mil an hour, on a top end R64.
Literally worse than highsec mining.

The real question is, if we are going to tie an activity for gathering moongoo through player activity, why would we tie it to moons anyway?
Madd Adda
#3 - 2015-03-19 19:00:00 UTC
oh look it's the "Fun minigame" mining idea again.

Carebear extraordinaire

Seraph IX Basarab
Astrology Club.
Insidious.
#4 - 2015-03-19 19:10:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Seraph IX Basarab
Anhenka wrote:
A lot of the focus on player moon mineral gathering is in relation to removing the hard cap on moon minerals dictated solely by the supply of moons.

You idea not only ignores this, it amplifies these issues by initially taking away 50% of the supply.

The next issue is that while moongoo is excellent long term income, on a per hour basis for active activity it's ****.

Let's pretend that moon mineral prices QUADRUPLE after this change from current. Dysprosium suddenly costs 360k a unit! Per hour a 100% yield dyspro moon rakes in.... 36 mil an hour, reduced by 50% to 18 mil.

The character sucking up half the moongoo that's otherwise wasted is now making...

18 mil an hour, on a top end R64.
Literally worse than highsec mining.

The real question is, if we are going to tie an activity for gathering moongoo through player activity, why would we tie it to moons anyway?


Now just to be clear, the numbers I put in were place holders. If we want to do 50 percent or 20 percent, whatever, that'll have to be done as balancing dictates. If we lower the passive yield we can actually boost the active mining yield to a level that is actually worth while for someone to go out in a ship and do.


Why not tie it to moons? It's moongoo after all. Why would we take content out of the game?

Madd Adda wrote:
oh look it's the "Fun minigame" mining idea again.


Oh look it's someone that didn't read the thread again.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#5 - 2015-03-19 19:19:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:

Now just to be clear, the numbers I put in were place holders. If we want to do 50 percent or 20 percent, whatever, that'll have to be done as balancing dictates. If we lower the passive yield we can actually boost the active mining yield to a level that is actually worth while for someone to go out in a ship and do.

Why not tie it to moons? It's moongoo after all. Why would we take content out of the game?


As long as the upper boundary of what you can acquire is dictated by the remaining percentage, it doesn't really solve the static supply issues, it actually amplifies the issue enormously.

Most of the current proposals that are commonly endorsed relate to other forms of moon mining unrelated to the actual activity of the moon harvester array on a POS.

Comet mining is the common form that this usually takes, where people can harvest migratory comets for concentrated moon minerals as a supplemental source of moon minerals, as well as proposals where people directly mine goo from moons or other sources through specialized mining ships.

Some even propose removing moongoo from moon harvesting arrays altogether, although I certainly don't agree with that. But any actions taken in relation to moongoo will be in the direction of allowing players to dictate supply though action, not through a static number of moons. Keep moons, and add supplemental effort based harvesting such as comet mining as a pressure valve is my opinion.

Tying it to the moon harvester array, and then tying it even closer so you can't exceed the current hourly yield, is silly.

It does nothing but create a side form of minigame so some miners can make isk in a different fashion, at the expense of massively more expensive t2 ships and modules that has major effects on the rest of the in game economy.
Seraph IX Basarab
Astrology Club.
Insidious.
#6 - 2015-03-19 19:58:22 UTC
But this is what you aren't getting...active yield is not dictated by passive yield. That's the whole point!

Sure, comet mining or whatever else is a nice idea as well creating even a nomadic style of mining. But I don't think my idea could not go along with that. And I think it's easier to program so we can see it sooner.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#7 - 2015-03-19 20:01:26 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
A lot of the focus on player moon mineral gathering is in relation to removing the hard cap on moon minerals dictated solely by the supply of moons.

You idea not only ignores this, it amplifies these issues by initially taking away 50% of the supply.

The next issue is that while moongoo is excellent long term income, on a per hour basis for active activity it's ****.

Let's pretend that moon mineral prices QUADRUPLE after this change from current. Dysprosium suddenly costs 360k a unit! Per hour a 100% yield dyspro moon rakes in.... 36 mil an hour, reduced by 50% to 18 mil.

The character sucking up half the moongoo that's otherwise wasted is now making...

18 mil an hour, on a top end R64.
Literally worse than highsec mining.

The real question is, if we are going to tie an activity for gathering moongoo through player activity, why would we tie it to moons anyway?


don't forget to add in the cost of the fuel per hr as well
Madd Adda
#8 - 2015-03-19 20:02:46 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:


Madd Adda wrote:
oh look it's the "Fun minigame" mining idea again.


Oh look it's someone that didn't read the thread again.


oh i read the thread alright, but i'm in no position to say anything about moon mining. However the minigame mining idea to force players to by active while mining is just annoying.

Carebear extraordinaire

Lugh Crow-Slave
#9 - 2015-03-19 20:05:01 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
But this is what you aren't getting...active yield is not dictated by passive yield. That's the whole point!

Sure, comet mining or whatever else is a nice idea as well creating even a nomadic style of mining. But I don't think my idea could not go along with that. And I think it's easier to program so we can see it sooner.


not it is active yield dictated by passive yield you want 50% from the array and 50% from the mining ships meaning you can never go over that 100% cap

so either you don't even understand your own idea or you are failing to explain it
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#10 - 2015-03-19 20:06:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
But this is what you aren't getting...active yield is not dictated by passive yield. That's the whole point!

Sure, comet mining or whatever else is a nice idea as well creating even a nomadic style of mining. But I don't think my idea could not go along with that. And I think it's easier to program so we can see it sooner.


Your OP makes it sound as though the portion obtained by actively harvesting was the portion that would otherwise be lost.

As in if the yield dropped to 20 per hour, you could gain up to the remaining 80 per hour though active recovery. (insert whatever numbers you choose here)

As long as this is true, this is a bad idea, due to it completely wrecking supply to a fraction of current.

If the amount you can harvest is NOT limited by the remaining portion, then you actually have two seperate ideas here (1: **** moon mining in the ass) and (Wouldn't it be cool to actively harvest moon minerals)

If it's dictated by the remainder, it's a poor idea because 5 mil isk cap rechargers and 1 bil T2 cruisers is a really **** side effect for the intention of adding in an alternate form of mining.

If its NOT dictated by the uncaptured portion, you basically just endorse a version of active harvesting (many would agree with this as a standalone) coupled with a spiked bat to the balls of POS owners (A separate issue which many would not agree with)
Lugh Crow-Slave
#11 - 2015-03-19 20:07:24 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:


Madd Adda wrote:
oh look it's the "Fun minigame" mining idea again.


Oh look it's someone that didn't read the thread again.


Seraph IX Basarab wrote:

As a side idea I'd also recommend that mining in general pushes people to be active via the use of a FUN minigame.



explain what part he didn't read again?
Seraph IX Basarab
Astrology Club.
Insidious.
#12 - 2015-03-19 21:14:56 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:


Madd Adda wrote:
oh look it's the "Fun minigame" mining idea again.


Oh look it's someone that didn't read the thread again.


oh i read the thread alright, but i'm in no position to say anything about moon mining. However the minigame mining idea to force players to by active while mining is just annoying.


You can't think of a single sort of game that could be played? Pacman? Tetris? Anything? Did you not have a childhood? Straight

Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
But this is what you aren't getting...active yield is not dictated by passive yield. That's the whole point!

Sure, comet mining or whatever else is a nice idea as well creating even a nomadic style of mining. But I don't think my idea could not go along with that. And I think it's easier to program so we can see it sooner.


not it is active yield dictated by passive yield you want 50% from the array and 50% from the mining ships meaning you can never go over that 100% cap

so either you don't even understand your own idea or you are failing to explain it



I clarified. So in essence those that mine in an active manner can gain MORE yield than what a tower will currently produce.
Madd Adda
#13 - 2015-03-19 23:48:11 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:


Madd Adda wrote:
oh look it's the "Fun minigame" mining idea again.


Oh look it's someone that didn't read the thread again.


oh i read the thread alright, but i'm in no position to say anything about moon mining. However the minigame mining idea to force players to by active while mining is just annoying.


You can't think of a single sort of game that could be played? Pacman? Tetris? Anything? Did you not have a childhood? Straight


i can name many games i played as a kid, but that's not the point. We shouldn't be forced to be active just for yield. It's silly, especially since you're not a miner.

Carebear extraordinaire

Seraph IX Basarab
Astrology Club.
Insidious.
#14 - 2015-03-20 00:02:17 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:


Madd Adda wrote:
oh look it's the "Fun minigame" mining idea again.


Oh look it's someone that didn't read the thread again.


oh i read the thread alright, but i'm in no position to say anything about moon mining. However the minigame mining idea to force players to by active while mining is just annoying.


You can't think of a single sort of game that could be played? Pacman? Tetris? Anything? Did you not have a childhood? Straight


i can name many games i played as a kid, but that's not the point. We shouldn't be forced to be active just for yield. It's silly, especially since you're not a miner.


You wouldn't be forced to be active for yield. You'd have to be active to get HIGHER yield. You can still AFK mine if you want, but people that put more work into it will actually benefit.
Madd Adda
#15 - 2015-03-20 00:31:52 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:

You wouldn't be forced to be active for yield. You'd have to be active to get HIGHER yield. You can still AFK mine if you want, but people that put more work into it will actually benefit.


since when do you work when you mine?

Carebear extraordinaire

Seraph IX Basarab
Astrology Club.
Insidious.
#16 - 2015-03-20 01:19:13 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:

You wouldn't be forced to be active for yield. You'd have to be active to get HIGHER yield. You can still AFK mine if you want, but people that put more work into it will actually benefit.


since when do you work when you mine?


I mean people that are playing the little mini game or whatever earn more than those that just mine AFK.
Madd Adda
#17 - 2015-03-20 01:24:17 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Madd Adda wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:

You wouldn't be forced to be active for yield. You'd have to be active to get HIGHER yield. You can still AFK mine if you want, but people that put more work into it will actually benefit.


since when do you work when you mine?


I mean people that are playing the little mini game or whatever earn more than those that just mine AFK.


we're going around in circles. I think it's a bad idea to include that sort of thing, just let things be as they are.

Carebear extraordinaire

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#18 - 2015-03-20 06:45:19 UTC
Let's just get rid of all passive isk. It's pretty easy math to see why it's bad for the game and it's pretty easy math to figure out which groups are addicted to it.

All these 'fixes' are akin to the ishtar 'nerf'. They don't really address the problem, just a symptom or two.

-1 watered down crap isn't better for you than crap.... it's still crap.