These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Miners need some love
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#61 - 2015-04-08 11:21:22 UTC
Tusker Crazinski wrote:

Quote:
They are supposed to die.
as is true for actually every ship in the game, but really why should productivity doom a ship to be boring and helpless.

Because Kaarous gets his jollies from shooting helpless targets and hates industrialists who dare to ask for real fittings on their ships to match other ships of the same size, and a real ability to protect themselves in a way that doesn't utterly gank their income.
I.E. Just ignore him, he's going on a lying spree atm pretending that CCP's fanfest presentations mean things that CCP never said, and ignoring half of what CCP did say at the same time, in order to whine more that gankers keep getting nerfed.
Kiddoomer
The Red Sequence
#62 - 2015-04-08 12:20:14 UTC
What about making miners who do the active or mini-game stuff to get something different than ore ? Very little amount of moon goo ? gas ? PI or even ice ?

In the name of Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen : “Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.”
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#63 - 2015-04-08 12:24:26 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Tusker Crazinski wrote:

Quote:
They are supposed to die.
as is true for actually every ship in the game, but really why should productivity doom a ship to be boring and helpless.

Because Kaarous gets his jollies from shooting helpless targets and hates industrialists who dare to ask for real fittings on their ships to match other ships of the same size, and a real ability to protect themselves in a way that doesn't utterly gank their income.
I.E. Just ignore him, he's going on a lying spree atm pretending that CCP's fanfest presentations mean things that CCP never said, and ignoring half of what CCP did say at the same time, in order to whine more that gankers keep getting nerfed.


"Waah, explosions are allowed to happen".

Roll

The fact of the matter is that less ships being destroyed directly equates to less economic demand for that particular ship.

Every ship in this game exists to die, as far as the economy is concerned. This is most important for mining ships, since they are the ship type that contributes by far the most minerals into the game.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#64 - 2015-04-08 12:29:58 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
and hates industrialists who dare to ask for real fittings on their ships to match other ships of the same size, and a real ability to protect themselves in a way that doesn't utterly gank their income.


Oh, and then there's this.

"My ship should be able to do everything because I think I'm special".

No, Nevyn, your industrial ships should and never will be able to have a "real ability to protect themselves". If you want that, fly a combat ship, it's what they're for. What your ships are for are generating income and assets without risk, so they get to be fodder when a real player decides to destroy you.

If you want to have a big tank while doing this, you get the Proc/Skiff and the slightly reduced income they bring. Oh, shock and outrage.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#65 - 2015-04-08 12:31:16 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Tusker Crazinski wrote:

Quote:
They are supposed to die.
as is true for actually every ship in the game, but really why should productivity doom a ship to be boring and helpless.

Because Kaarous gets his jollies from shooting helpless targets and hates industrialists who dare to ask for real fittings on their ships to match other ships of the same size, and a real ability to protect themselves in a way that doesn't utterly gank their income.
I.E. Just ignore him, he's going on a lying spree atm pretending that CCP's fanfest presentations mean things that CCP never said, and ignoring half of what CCP did say at the same time, in order to whine more that gankers keep getting nerfed.


"Waah, explosions are allowed to happen".

Roll

The fact of the matter is that less ships being destroyed directly equates to less economic demand for that particular ship.

Every ship in this game exists to die, as far as the economy is concerned. This is most important for mining ships, since they are the ship type that contributes by far the most minerals into the game.


that last bit is bullshit -
every ship exists to die, true
mining ships particularly - false
this is especially true for frigates, since they are supposed to be semi-expendable
or you could say it's especially true for titans, since they require the most minerals to produce

if you check the retail volumes, I'm pretty sure that frigs and dessies will be the most purchased class across the whole of new eden.
If mining ships were supposed to be destroyed, they'd all have paper tanks, no fitting options, be cheap to replace, and cheap to make.
oh wait - I've just described shuttles, lol

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#66 - 2015-04-08 12:34:03 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:

If mining ships were supposed to be destroyed, they'd all have paper tanks, no fitting options, be cheap to replace, and cheap to make.


Barring two of them, they are all of those things. If you want to include industrial ships in general, the proportion increases considerably.

They're supposed to die.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#67 - 2015-04-08 13:01:48 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
and well Skiffs and Porcs they're quite combat capable as is. Nothing game breaking happened, I dare say it made engaging mining fleets abit more.... interesting.


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.


Quote:
but really why should productivity doom a ship to be boring and helpless.


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.


Hmm giving industrials more defensive capabilities = more cheep low SP industrials in dangerous space, instead of blockade runners and JFs, = more things to shoot at, and more things that shoot back = more content particularly for new players who cant fly T2 industrials or JFs more industrials in not high sec. so that is an ass backwards argument there.

and I'm not proposing, industrials should also have a full flight of sentuires, rack of 250 rails, and bomb launchers, Im just say'n they should be able to fight back, the whole PVP thing is much more entertaining and engaging when both parties are shooting.

which on this note you know what ship generates a lot of isk with no effort or risk, PVEs ships..... just say'n

they'd still be slow, close range, hulls
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#68 - 2015-04-08 13:14:46 UTC
Tusker Crazinski wrote:

and I'm not proposing, industrials should also have a full flight of sentuires, rack of 250 rails, and bomb launchers, Im just say'n they should be able to fight back, the whole PVP thing is much more entertaining and engaging when both parties are shooting.


If you want to shoot back, you get to fly a combat ship.

Period.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#69 - 2015-04-08 14:07:25 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:

If mining ships were supposed to be destroyed, they'd all have paper tanks, no fitting options, be cheap to replace, and cheap to make.


Barring two of them, they are all of those things. If you want to include industrial ships in general, the proportion increases considerably.

They're supposed to die.


yes, if you bar half the list, they are all of those things, I could probably turn red into blue by that logic
*head-desks*
it's primary, it's a colour, oh there we go, the whole list is satisfied.....

and what do you mean by including industrial ships in general? explain that in a paragraph instead of half a line?

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#70 - 2015-04-08 14:10:38 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:

yes, if you bar half the list, they are all of those things, I could probably turn red into blue by that logic
*head-desks*
it's primary, it's a colour, oh there we go, the whole list is satisfied.....

and what do you mean by including industrial ships in general? explain that in a paragraph instead of half a line?


They have paper tanks, tightly restricted fitting options, are cheap to replace, cheap to make.

Fits the bill if you ask me.

The majority of industrial ships follow suit.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2015-04-08 17:38:08 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tusker Crazinski wrote:

and I'm not proposing, industrials should also have a full flight of sentuires, rack of 250 rails, and bomb launchers, Im just say'n they should be able to fight back, the whole PVP thing is much more entertaining and engaging when both parties are shooting.


If you want to shoot back, you get to fly a combat ship.

Period.


Can't tell if you're being deliberately think or actually believe the bilge you're posting.

- you still have not given a single reason why should not be armed other than they're supposed to die, and makes it impossible for week old toons to kill some mythical armed badger.

One is not an argument, and the latter is absolute bullshit, a week old toon can kill a damn N.Apoc if caught with the right frig regardless of SP limitations, more to the point with these ships being capable of holding their own in a brawl. you'd think there'd be more of these cheep industrials flying around all over the place in null, low and W-space. which means easy high value targets for upcoming proper pirates.

- You state, these ships generate wealth without effort or risk. uuuuummm as these ships are some of the most lucrative things to kill at no point in time are you not at risk while on grid, and mining or hauling is no more effortless than running L4s half AFK in say a Golem

really lets talk about PVE ships they actually spawn Isk, minerals, BPs, mods you name it, and are quite combat capable. why should the same logic not be extended onto those ships?
Lienzo
Amanuensis
#72 - 2015-04-09 00:02:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Lienzo
Things we want:

We want to punish AFK/Bots/Multiboxing bots, etc

• Move the rocks further apart. By a lot.
-This makes it harder to support an afk fleet.
-It promotes frequent relocating.
-It promotes the utility of transport ships like the miasmos.
-It promotes investment in high capacity support ships.
-I like big belts and I can not lie.🎶

• Make players manage rock hazards
-How aggressively players attack rocks should govern how hazardous they are.
-A smartbomb effect with falloff could be matched with an ore laser falloff mechanic.
-Damage clouds could build up over time, demanding active management or roid swapping.
-More lasers on the same asteroid should keep pumping up a damage cloud with almost no limit.
-New modules could be implemented for damage mitigation.
-Warfare links could support extend laser falloff to mitigate risk.
-Ore damage bonuses could be a feature of industrial ships, allowing them to weaponize it against attackers.

We don't like wings of mining ships in npc corps

•Make anchor for corp structures important for mining.
-Perhaps they could be some kind of access difficulty modifier for ore density.
-Perhaps they could help find or ID rocks.
-Perhaps barges could merely liberate ore, and most of it would get hoovered up by these structures.
-Structures could be useful for damage mitigation from aggressive asteroid operations.
-The inherent purpose of corps and structures is to promote conflict. See ESS.

We want to even the playing field

• We need deep space asteroid belts with deadspace mechanics, but no acceleration gates.
-This prevents support for either party from simply dropping in to play.
-This prevents bots (and us) from warping between asteroid bookmarks and their dumping point.
-They can still be anoms instead of sigs with no real penalty, allowing hunters to hunt.
-It allows for a unique environment in which we might be able to use something like an industrial ship cyno.

• We need each asteroid to those in its vicinity from d-scan like a mobile scan inhibitor.
-This puts everyone on an equal footing in all areas, especially WHs.
-In the shadow of a rock, every ship has the same advantage as a recon.
-Predators, prey and bait can scurry from rock to rock.
-If you mine out a rock, afk or otherwise, you lose your cover.

We want pirates to get a sporting chance too

• Put a variable size warp disruption bubble inside of each asteroid.
-If hostile show up on grid, there should be a fight, a race for the edge of the bubble, or a race to kill the rock.
-The greater the prize, the bigger the bubble
-This forces hostiles to commit, exposing them to risk from defense forces.
- This limits or negates warping from asteroid to asteroid, forcing some travel, deadspace or no.

We want risk to match reward

•Ore density should follow exposure and effort.
-Make ore density propensity follow system security, rewarding WHs best.
-Dense forms should be significantly more dense than standard or weak forms.
-Seed low density ABCs and Ice in secure space.
-Make asteroid cluster density be a function of how deep we travel into belts.
-Make concord/faction police response time slower deep in belts.
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#73 - 2015-04-09 14:04:47 UTC
imariel wrote:
Hi everyone,

When I started to play, I was a lonely miner. Then I integrated a mining corp, then another, and then joined a French corp in 0.0.
There I mined enough to buy / build my first capital ship, a carrier.
The problem is, I now make much more money killing pirates than mining (even with rorqual boosts), so when my exhumers undock, I feel I am losing my time (and wealth). The only comfort I have is that now the belts really look amazing.

Anyway I feel that the mining income should be higher. We could have ships mining more, the problem is it would most likely decrease the ore price, so that's not a realistic option.

Here are the solutions I thought of :
1)Easiest one : Concord decreets that the drifter threat is really high and that we all need to prepare for that. To encourage pilots getting more / bigger / better equiped ships they create a subvention to ore/ice mining (yeah, that's a kind of bounty on ore). No drawbacks on the economy, just wealthier miners. It would also be possible to apply that through a "mining ess" (subventions stocked in until shared / stolen)

2)new mining ships ie t3 mining ships, with same ore/ice throughput, but with one added capacity (linked to subsystem choice ?)
I thought that they could use some kind of electromagnetical device that would gather things around them (possible new mini game here). The things could be :
-gas (would decrease the booster prices)
-moon mining components (0.0 repartition is quite bad, you need a large zone to gather all you need. This solution will decrease the moon mining profitability)
-new thing to sell at Concord
-other, keeping in mind that what you gather will have its price decrease.

Thanks for reading until the end :-)
Imariel


1) Okay seem plausible that a faction which keeps the peace, sees a big danger in rocks.

2) no, no, no aaaand no.

if you buff mining --> even more people go mining --> price low --> crying in the forum --> buffing --> etc.

and this for a activity that require not much actions an not much sp´s. Seems not very fair.

-1
erg cz
Federal Jegerouns
#74 - 2015-04-09 14:25:39 UTC
Lienzo wrote:
Things we want:

We want to punish AFK/Bots/Multiboxing bots, etc

...

We don't like wings of mining ships in npc corps

...

We want to even the playing field

...

We want pirates to get a sporting chance too

...

We want risk to match reward

...



All you want is in here. Stop afk boring mining - make mining more interactive. No bot can adapt to really interactive mining.

Absolutely free head start for newcomers!. Just click the link and get extra 250 000 SP!
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#75 - 2015-04-12 07:11:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Malcanis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
We don't need more isk being injected by an army of AFK skiffs.

Want minerals to be worth more? reduce the flow of them. Best way to do this? Support ganking.


Or as supplementary alternatives, promote increased demand. Support nullsec & sov reform to increase the number of fights; support BS rebalancing to make these mineral-hoggging hulls popular agai,

Well I would have said we would never even remotely agree on anything but if you believe as I do that the blue doughnut needs to be running 23/7 with splattering clone blood and space carnage rather than the the current status quo which is more "Space Farmer" than EVE the PvP game then I'm plussing you....just this once.

+1

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Chaotix Morwen
Church Of BDSM
#76 - 2015-04-12 16:01:01 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Tusker Crazinski wrote:

Quote:
They are supposed to die.
as is true for actually every ship in the game, but really why should productivity doom a ship to be boring and helpless.

Because Kaarous gets his jollies from shooting helpless targets and hates industrialists who dare to ask for real fittings on their ships to match other ships of the same size, and a real ability to protect themselves in a way that doesn't utterly gank their income.
I.E. Just ignore him, he's going on a lying spree atm pretending that CCP's fanfest presentations mean things that CCP never said, and ignoring half of what CCP did say at the same time, in order to whine more that gankers keep getting nerfed.


Are you seriously suggesting that indie ships being able to take on combats ships is a realistic fitting request? So what a retriever should be able to evenly fight a thorax? Why fly a thorax then? Just fight with the retriever and have the bonus of being able to mine if you ever need to.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#77 - 2015-04-12 16:17:10 UTC
I disagree with the original post and I do write for miners in a few instances.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#78 - 2015-04-12 16:54:33 UTC
Chaotix Morwen wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that indie ships being able to take on combats ships is a realistic fitting request?


That's exactly what he wants. It's splattered all over his post history, too.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2015-04-12 18:09:30 UTC
Miners get plenty of love already.

Antimatter counts as love, right?

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#80 - 2015-04-12 18:31:48 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Miners get plenty of love already.

Antimatter counts as love, right?

My love for miners is like the mutual self-annihilation of antiparticles indeed.

Where once was two opposites in beautiful attractions, there exist only energy and explosions.

Just like the majestic miner, and the anti-miner catalyst.

OP: L2Skiff.