Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If you add some mini game just for the sake of preventing people from multi boxing, nobody will make it viable. Just imagine for the sake of the discussion they made it so you had to play dig dug to mine. How are you going to multi box that?

We don't know there wouldn't be enough Miners to provide the Ore for the economy. Introducing changes to Mining as suggested in this thread as never been done before. Changing Mining to require more input and action from the Player and also reduce the occurance of multiboxing Mining may help the profession be a more attractive option for some Players.

We won't know unless we try.... and considering that CCP is going to buff Null-Sec ores soon after that will be a very good time to try.

....

Here is where I stand in this discussion:

I support reducing overall yield from Mining but adding an additional gameplay mechanic that requires input from a Player using an UI similar to Data and Relic interface, a UI that if properly "played with" will increase Ore Yield and require Miners to spend time on each account to keep the Yield UP, thus rewarding Players that remain at keyboard and reducing the benefits of attempting to multibox Mining.

Making Mining in EVE a more Active Profession IMO is the best change the Devs could do for Mining.

They'd get jittery and give in to ore cold-turkey within 2 days...

That really would be funny, you could sell tickets to the PvP types to watch.
PI schematic for popcorn would be handy in advance...

Didn't read the OP, did you?

I kinda like the idea of making it more active, or at least making mining more viable to a single account player, though I think the gameplay mechanic, if it were to share the Data and Relic UI, should be quite a bit different.

hmmmm I think I've mined for all but 10ish actual hours in the years Ive been playing, If I need isk I'll just run W sites, plex, rat, ect ect pretty much anything other than mine. why? It's about as engaging as watching paint dry.

and yeah the trade-off is pretty much everything else for productive capacity.

dealing with mining mechanics is a whole other topic, but one of main reasons I have no interest in mining is if anything shows up in local it's warp to SS and play keep away for a bit or safelog

The only time is have enjoyed mining was actually when a small gang dropped on out skiff team, refit DDAs out of the orca and lol stomped them

I'd be much more inclined to mine or haul if these ships had a real set of teeth to fight back with. and it would make actual fights with industrials and utility ships much more engaging than land scram and win.

As a former miner who has multiboxed for years I would have to say that no viable form of mini-game will impact multiboxing or AFK mining. And while it will make it more interactive, it will not necessarily make it more fun.

If we look at the two main ideas for the function of the mini-game (MG) we get a MG that if you don’t play you get standard yield and if you do you get more yield. I will call this MG1. We also get a MG that if you don’t play you get nothing and if you do you get standard yield, or MG2.

Now lets look at the interaction required to play the MG. Firs t we will look and Input 1, same basic UI as hacking. Interaction starts when laser is activated, ore is collected when MG is won. Next we have Input 2, similar concept at PI, locate laser on green spot for more yield, red for less yield. Input 2 would also include shifting colors as you dig deeper in the asteroid.

Now by combining these four classifications we get:

MG1/I1 – Input would have to be modified so that each time the MG was won, you get bonus ore. In this case, a mulitboxer would most likely run all the fleet on losing mode and win as he can to increase yield.

MG1/I2 – Same as above with the random bonus yield from moving lasers.

MG2/I1 – This would definitely kill multiboxing, as well as low/null/WH mining. Since this will require spending as much time watching your MG as you do watching D-Scan.

MG2/I2 – The input on this would have to be modified so that most of the asteroid was red, and red means no ore. This would be easier for low/null/WH since each interaction would only take a second to adjust. But because of the quick response to the changes in color, Input 2 would also be fairly easy to overcome with mulitboxing.

As for the other targeted groups, only MG2 impacts AFK miners, and all would increase interaction from players.

They literally do create assets out of nothing. No effort, no risk, nothing involved but sitting there in a belt.

Anything that can do that should never be permitted to have guns.




They are supposed to die.

I would call what happened with Skiffs and Procurers game breaking. Now they're nigh invulnerable to smaller ships, taking yet more content away from the hands of people roaming around space.

That's not only not a good thing, it's a downright terrible thing. I'd roll that back in a heartbeat, given the chance.




Why should any ship that can create assets out of the blue with no effort be armed according to the standards of a combat ship? Just get rid of every ship designation, and homogenize everything why not.

The answer to your question is that different ships are supposed to be different. Diversity is a good thing, and if you want a combat ship, fly one. If you want an industrial ship, fly one. But don't complain that your choice can't do everything, that's by design.