Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Feel free to do that. I just like tossing ideas around for someone to refine them to actual ideas.



Tried to think ways to keep currently play style as close as possible as there is people who like to do it while doing something else. Of course we could argue that encourages to have multiple mining accounts and do that dummy mining. So it might be ok to get rid of that and reward those who actually play the game. This is bigger question and I have no real answer for. It's CCPs problem to thing about. I just try to think from as many perspectives as I can.



Those sound good. I just tried to make a note about that the game play needs to be balanced between group and solo play. Of course good group needs to be more effective, but doing things solo, should be crappy either.

I updated the opening post to reflect some of the feedback made so far.

I decided to brainstorm what sort of new gear might accompany this change, to demonstrate what new horizons we could have.

First off the top of my head is a new T2 Mining Frigate. Instead of being cloaky or warp stabbed, this one would have bonuses to sensor strength and survey scanner range. It would be a fast ship meant to quickly prospect an asteroid field.

The rock-ripper script (or possibly its own module) that I mentioned in the OP, of course, would enable someone to pre-process asteroids. Could be a good use for a Hulk, but would need to increase mining yield enough that getting rid of rock would be a profitable use of time.

A mining laser stabilization module could be added to reduce the chance that a cycle would cause an asteroid to fracture due to instability.

A tractor beam specifically for asteroids could be an option - perhaps longer range or a more rapid rate of pull.

I mentioned the possibility of prospecting lasers, designed to ignore traditional ores in favor of new rare minerals.

A new mining foreman link could be created, one that boosts the scanning accuracy of the survey scanner.

Directed Deposit Scanner - something like a target painter for asteroids, where the affected asteroid has a lower effective proportion of rock when determining how much ore a particular cycle yields.

Tractor drones - Drones which will go to the targeted object, tractor beam it, and bring it back and orbit your ship. Also good for salvaging.

Precision mining lasers - less total yield, but have increased bias away from rock. Used for mining asteroids with a large amount of rock.

James Zimmer suggested the possibility of multi-ore mining crystals, which would bias the laser towards any of two (or even more) types of ores. Probably should have a lower yield boost than the single type crystals.



How to run a mining fleet:
Get an Orca or Rorqual to run fleet boosts.
Get a couple haulers.
Get a bunch of mining ships.
Label your jet cans for the haulers.
Lazer space rocks.

I have yet to hear anything that does not convince me that the above is the limit to the activity's complexity.



Trivial problems to solve. There are enough ore calculators, map sites, and market sites to let you punch in your requirements and cough up a solution in moments. Doing it in your head might be hard, but this Eve. We have third party applications for everything.



You do notice that goal #1 was to minimally disturb existing mining gameplay? Besides which, if the real draw of mining is managing the spreadsheet gymnastics, why does changing up the way mining is conducted in space actually matter? Excel still works just fine.



I'm not trying to crap on anyone's favorite game play, nor am I trying to make all activities cater to my preferred play style. I'm trying to broaden the existing activity, add some depth and nuance that might make it appeal to more than just the existing miners.

While I appreciate the bump to this thread, you really do need to take a long look at your own arguments. You might be able to try comparing me to someone marching in a white supremacist parade or one of those treehuggers that would rather have humans starve instead of letting a turtle go extinct, but genocidal dictator isn't a viable comparison to a guy suggesting a change to mining in a video game. Please stop before you Godwin this thread.



For the fifty-seventh-and-a-half time, it is impossible for any change to mining to drive its income into the dirt. As long as mining remains the only viable source of most minerals, there is a limit to how low the market will allow mining to fall. Short term, events can cause a crash, but prices will always rebound to some sustainable level. As prices drop, the supply side will shrink until supply is once again meeting demand. If events cause it to shirk too fast, there then ends up a shortage, prices rise rapidly, people start mining again, and supply rises to meet demand.

Further, why would the smart people be the first out? If they like mining, they'll be smart enough to see that they just need to organize to stay competitive. They are the ones that will find ways to undercut competition and stay relevant. The mindless button clickers are the ones who will get crushed under the market glacier, while the profiteering bailed at the first sign of trouble.

If I wanted to kill mining as a profession, I'd suggest bringing back drone alloys, so that reprocessing loot is a viable alternative to lasering space rocks when it comes to building that Titan. That would truly drop mineral prices into the toilet and flush it down the drain. Incidentally, that was why drone alloys were removed from the game, so CCP is smart enough to figure this stuff out occasionally. Maybe you should pay attention and learn something.

Something a little like Mercoxit gas ? That could make the Deep core mining skill useful for something outside mercoxit, which is pretty useless to have above 3.

Instead of linking the dangerous to minerals, could the asteroids be more dangerous. All these more dangerous asteroids contain better yield of minerals in them, thus giving better profit, but more danger. Of course some minerals are restricted to only these more dangerous ones, but mining even scordite would be more rewarding.

Related thoughts:

Module, script or crystal that maximizes the yield, but also makes the asteroid explode more often and wise versa.

Could the asteroid be more volatile when there is more mining lasers mining it? Idea is that when the asteroid is heated (mining lasers) it would become more volatile. When the asteroid is at temperature X it would have change of Y to create explosion. This way it could be possible to mine these better more dangerous asteroids with venture for few cycles each with pretty low risk. Of course if the explosion would happen, you lose the hole ship. Problems: Indicating the temperature of the asteroid (through scanner?), code complexity...

Then, by all means, please elaborate. How do you make stationary space rocks exciting?

Also, it is considered polite to actually read and at least attempt to understand an idea before judging it. To do otherwise is the definition of close-mindedness.

Oh. Yes. That is true. When there is 10 ventures mining a single rock, there is more often mining cycle that could explode the asteroid.

My idea was more like when you mine more powerfully the asteroid it has bigger change on cycle to explode. This need to be considered as mining lasers (used on venture) have about 1/3 the cycle of strip miners (used in barges and above). Thus mining with venture would be riskier than with barge because there would be 3 times the check for explosion.

Since you dont mine I'll tell you that the recent ore distribution changes have permanently dropped the prices of highsec ore and it WILL stay down, again your lack of understanding of the situation notwithstanding. So, there are in fact ways to permanently destroy income for a portion of the game playing populace, in fact your own example of CCP removing drone alloy recycling shows that not only can income for a portion of the populace be permanently dropped but it can be permanently raised as well, it is just that your idea will drop it and given its already dismal state that is unacceptable.

If i permanently drop your income no amount of genius is going to make you as profitable as you used to be, perhaps more profitable than some but intellect doesn't overcome core game mechanics that destroy profit at its baseline.

p.s. While denial of fact has never been accepted as a legitimate argumentative form i applaud your use of it anyways as it has proven effect time and time again.

For me, an unstable ore market is a good thing. It gets interesting then.

However there is a third option, that some dont see. There is the value of ore supply in the form of asteroids.
Currently they exist in great abundance around all of space. Ergo only Isk/hour really is a balance factor here, it cannot get better than the minimum isk/hour that multiboxers are willing to spend.

So i would do it like this:
constant: maxORE (value of constant asteroid supply around the universe)
parameter: currentORE
if currentORE >= maxORE, nothing is going to respawn.
if currentORE < maxORE, ..
.. pick a random system (equal distribution results in: the many nullsec systems have higher propability)
.. pick a suitable ore type for that system.
.. spawn a rock of that type in that system at a random belt.
Now adjust maxORE to match: demand(sum of all manufactoring jobs)+50%(or some other buffersize).
Get rid of mining anomalies, unless you find a way to fix them into this.
Truesec Systems and Systems which are upgraded by an Ore Prospecting Array have a higher possibility for being picked.
---
==> less ore available to mine ==> more prospecting/scouting/traveling needed (this is an activity effort and cannot be done so easily with mbox) ==> higher ore prices. ("but" and "because" they are harder to find)
==> where much is mined, there is less to find. (on average)
also more competition in highsec.==> more incentive to leave highsec to go mining elsewhere.
(just what my humble mind is predicting)
---
Now do something similar with NPC respawn rates. (maxGlobalNPC or maxFactionNPC amounts for ceiling)

Great. Move to nullsec. We need more miners to help keep up the mining index for key systems.



One thing you seem to be overlooking is that, while ore prices may drop, income may not. After all, mining income is ore volume multiplied by ore price and the reason ore prices would be dropping is a higher amount of ore volume. This is a natural compensation mechanism in the marketplace. Once manufacturing volume upticks due to cheaper minerals, demand should find a comfortable level and mining income may only fluctuate briefly.

Another point to bring up is that the volume increase isn't exactly a given. I am suggesting adding a new element of inefficiency to the process in the form of waste rock. Attempting to avoid waste rock will increase the current inefficiency of travel time between asteroids. These inefficiencies will mean that increases in ore volume reaching the market will probably be smaller than you are expecting, especially at first.

We'd need some actual numbers to even begin to figure out the full ramifications, but this change is far from the pure "gloom and doom" that you want to imply that it is.