These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP - no really...when is mining going to be a good profession again?

First post
Author
Josef Djugashvilis
#161 - 2012-05-09 19:34:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
I only ever mine for corp ops, and then badly in a retriever.

However, it can be a very relaxing and enjoyable way to pass a few hours chatting nonsense with corpies.

To me it simply comes down to this:

Like mining - then mine

Don't like mining - then don't mine

Being ganked is simply part of the business costs of mining.

This is not a signature.

Adria Origin
Yar Har Fiddle Di Dee
#162 - 2012-05-09 19:36:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Adria Origin
I know currently CCP is talking about nerfing off grid boosting, making it so that you have to be on grid to boost. This is a major nerf it mining -unless- they also do what I have suggested.

If they do what I suggested it would actually be worth while for larger ops to field a rorqual and logistics/capitals to protect it. There'd be a reason to allow Orca's to fit remote capital reps (but NOT local cap reps, only remote). This would add new dynamics to the game that I would love to be in on. I'd do the protecting, the mining, the attacking, all of it. It sounds like great fun.

Don't get me wrong - I have perfect mining skills. Every T2 crystal and Exhumers V. I am a miner just as much as a PVPer. I don't mine because it's boring and to make it fun makes it unprofitable.

This is a game, I should not have to choose between fun and profitability.
J3ssica Alba
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#163 - 2012-05-09 19:40:11 UTC
Adria Origin wrote:
This is why my suggestion is so ideal. Because it forces people to be in a situation where their ships can be destroyed, this feeds the economy. Currently the system keeps too many ships safe while letting them print massive amounts of ISK and that hurts the economy.



"massive isk printing machine" ... hmmmm ... where have I heard this argument before? Oh .. incursions! Now that those have been heavily nerfed the nullbears attention turns to another pet hate of theirs, mining, except they can't even be imaginative about their anti-mining arguments.

This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.  Without me, my signature is useless. Without my signature, I am useless
Adria Origin
Yar Har Fiddle Di Dee
#164 - 2012-05-09 19:41:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Adria Origin
J3ssica Alba wrote:
Adria Origin wrote:
This is why my suggestion is so ideal. Because it forces people to be in a situation where their ships can be destroyed, this feeds the economy. Currently the system keeps too many ships safe while letting them print massive amounts of ISK and that hurts the economy.



"massive isk printing machine" ... hmmmm ... where have I heard this argument before? Oh .. incursions! Now that those have been heavily nerfed the nullbears attention turns to another pet hate of theirs, mining, except they can't even be imaginative about their anti-mining arguments.


You realize incursions happened in null sec too and there were ops constantly to go to them, and that was just as much of a nerf to us as it was to you. In fact I had trained a Loki specifically for Incursions weeks before the nerf was announced.

Also as I said I do, or rather, used to mine. I am not anti-miner. I am pro-fixing-mining. It's broken, CCP needs to fix it. Please get your facts straight. Thank you.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#165 - 2012-05-09 19:42:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Adria Origin wrote:
Miners are afraid that this will nerf them but it only nerfs high sec and does not nerf miners. You just need to join a corp and make these things, I think they are called friends. You mine with them and have a good time. Not only is it much more fun but you are making ISK! Imagine that. It also makes botting marginally harder though that has nothing to do with my suggestion.

With current mechanics and taking into account these proposed changes, the most obvious course of action would be to rent a system for mining from a nullsec power bloc.

Get them to upgrade the Ihub so you can get a large grav site. Proceed to mine out the large grav site over and over and over until you are sick of it - the site respawns once you've cleared it all out (as per the Blood Tear Industry report, 5 mins later). Tip your rorq for boosts and haulers if you do that.

As things stand, once can basically supply almost as much stuff as you want from a respawning grav site. Yes, trit (and other low ends) are very much an issue, trit the most - but since the suggestion included leaving trit in parts of highsec, compression chains will continue to work. Prices of non-trit lowends will rise, highends fall because of the crazy grav mining.

How much can you mine? Well with a large number of hulks, you mine out the grav site in hours. Rest for 5 mins and get a tank in, then continue again. Over and over unless someone comes and camps you. Of course you have to pay rent (or if you're a pet or ally then you presumably fight sometimes Shocked)

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Adria Origin
Yar Har Fiddle Di Dee
#166 - 2012-05-09 19:44:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Adria Origin
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Adria Origin wrote:
Miners are afraid that this will nerf them but it only nerfs high sec and does not nerf miners. You just need to join a corp and make these things, I think they are called friends. You mine with them and have a good time. Not only is it much more fun but you are making ISK! Imagine that. It also makes botting marginally harder though that has nothing to do with my suggestion.

With current mechanics and taking into account these proposed changes, the most obvious course of action would be to rent a system for mining from a nullsec power bloc.

Get them to upgrade the Ihub so you can get a large grav site. Proceed to mine out the large grav site over and over and over until you are sick of it - the site respawns once you've cleared it all out (as per the Blood Tear Industry report, 5 mins later). Tip your rorq for boosts and haulers if you do that.

As things stand, once can basically supply almost as much stuff as you want from a respawning grav site. Yes, trit (and other low ends) are very much an issue, trit the most - but since the suggestion included leaving trit in parts of highsec, compression chains will continue to work. Prices of non-trit lowends will rise, highends fall because of the crazy grav mining.

I agree to a less-extreme version. That seems a bit exaggerated. Large mining ops rarely go unchallenged, as soon as indy hits 5 someone notices and pokes their head in to see what's up and camps the system until the indy level falls and/or they get kills.

Under this proposed change you could not simply dock and wait for them to go away because you need minerals to operate and they no longer come from high sec.

Edit:

Also a majority of the minerals would go to the corp/alliance which would pay the miners for them. Most of the minerals would not see the market. They would be needed to build the ships. This change is to try to get more industry in null. Myself and others do not like seeing all the industry save caps in high sec. Very few ships that I know of actually produced in null, most are imported ships built by high sec industrialist. I want to see these guys setup POS's and such, manage them, build their ships in null.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#167 - 2012-05-09 19:46:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Adria Origin wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Adria Origin wrote:
Miners are afraid that this will nerf them but it only nerfs high sec and does not nerf miners. You just need to join a corp and make these things, I think they are called friends. You mine with them and have a good time. Not only is it much more fun but you are making ISK! Imagine that. It also makes botting marginally harder though that has nothing to do with my suggestion.

With current mechanics and taking into account these proposed changes, the most obvious course of action would be to rent a system for mining from a nullsec power bloc.

Get them to upgrade the Ihub so you can get a large grav site. Proceed to mine out the large grav site over and over and over until you are sick of it - the site respawns once you've cleared it all out (as per the Blood Tear Industry report, 5 mins later). Tip your rorq for boosts and haulers if you do that.

As things stand, once can basically supply almost as much stuff as you want from a respawning grav site. Yes, trit (and other low ends) are very much an issue, trit the most - but since the suggestion included leaving trit in parts of highsec, compression chains will continue to work. Prices of non-trit lowends will rise, highends fall because of the crazy grav mining.

I agree to a less-extreme version. That seems a bit exaggerated. Large mining ops rarely go unchallenged, as soon as indy hits 5 someone notices and pokes their head in to see what's up and camps the system until the indy level falls and/or they get kills.

Under this proposed change you could not simply dock and wait for them to go away because you need minerals to operate and they no longer come from high sec.

Not as big a problem as you imagine if you camp the gate with bubbles. Also, of course grav sites have to be probed out, and if you're clearing them fast, it makes things harder.

Also, apparently the warpin is always the same (warp to grav at 0 or 100km?) so you can camp the warp in (to the grav) with bubbles and catch a lone ganker as he warps to it. Otherwise yes, you need a few people to camp at 0, 10, etc etc. Still not a big deal. Have a sensor boosted T3 sniper or two sit around to blow up small gankers. For larger groups, you should do this in a dead end system. If a gang comes in, camp their ass a few times until they learn to leave you alone.

I hardly need to mention what happens if several pople bubble camp the gate with sensor boosted ships and T3s at optimal on the gate... in fact the miners could do this on an alt account, one person one camping ship - and it would be pretty impressive. Of course a scout on the other side to give everyone some advance warning to switch to their camp ship when an enemy comes through.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Adria Origin
Yar Har Fiddle Di Dee
#168 - 2012-05-09 19:48:59 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Adria Origin wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Adria Origin wrote:
Miners are afraid that this will nerf them but it only nerfs high sec and does not nerf miners. You just need to join a corp and make these things, I think they are called friends. You mine with them and have a good time. Not only is it much more fun but you are making ISK! Imagine that. It also makes botting marginally harder though that has nothing to do with my suggestion.

With current mechanics and taking into account these proposed changes, the most obvious course of action would be to rent a system for mining from a nullsec power bloc.

Get them to upgrade the Ihub so you can get a large grav site. Proceed to mine out the large grav site over and over and over until you are sick of it - the site respawns once you've cleared it all out (as per the Blood Tear Industry report, 5 mins later). Tip your rorq for boosts and haulers if you do that.

As things stand, once can basically supply almost as much stuff as you want from a respawning grav site. Yes, trit (and other low ends) are very much an issue, trit the most - but since the suggestion included leaving trit in parts of highsec, compression chains will continue to work. Prices of non-trit lowends will rise, highends fall because of the crazy grav mining.

I agree to a less-extreme version. That seems a bit exaggerated. Large mining ops rarely go unchallenged, as soon as indy hits 5 someone notices and pokes their head in to see what's up and camps the system until the indy level falls and/or they get kills.

Under this proposed change you could not simply dock and wait for them to go away because you need minerals to operate and they no longer come from high sec.

Not as big a problem as you imagine if you camp the gate with bubbles. Also, of course grav sites have to be probed out, and if you're clearing them fast, it makes things harder.

Also, apparently the warpin is always the same, so you can camp the warp in (to the grav) with bubbles and catch a lone ganker as he warps to it.

It's the same but smart gankers bookmark the sites right after DT and log out while in them. You also forget awoxers/spys and other meta gaming which is odd seeing as you wear that goon name tag.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#169 - 2012-05-09 19:51:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Adria Origin wrote:
It's the same but smart gankers bookmark the sites right after DT and log out while in them. You also forget awoxers/spys and other meta gaming which is odd seeing as you wear that goon name tag.

A single ganker can't do all as much harm as you imagine. It's not like we don't run mining groups. Awoxers are always a problem, they awox entire fleets, but we still use fleets don't we.

If anything, you should argue about hellcamps of single stealth bombers in every single system everywhere in nullsec. Don't worry, I'm rolling up my SB alt to help the swarm.

Basically, you can do a lot more in a controlled nullsec deadend system than you can elsewhere. Everything you say applies even more to lowsec operations.

Like getting titans hotdropped on you. Which can't happen if you have a cynojammer. Or a fleet bridged on your head. Similar.


That's why it would be amusing to see how much trit ends up ebing mined if this extremely unlikely suggestion is ever implemented. And let's be realistic, maybe 10:1 in favor of not?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Adria Origin
Yar Har Fiddle Di Dee
#170 - 2012-05-09 19:55:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Adria Origin
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Adria Origin wrote:
It's the same but smart gankers bookmark the sites right after DT and log out while in them. You also forget awoxers/spys and other meta gaming which is odd seeing as you wear that goon name tag.

A single ganker can't do all as much harm as you imagine. It's not like we don't run mining groups. Awoxers are always a problem, they awox entire fleets, but we still use fleets don't we.

Sorry but your edits and everything you are saying still sounds like fun. Especially compared to what we have now. I mean already we have a scout and combat alts and ships on standby. We have to field a rorqual so I suppose as goons you'd have something on standby to protect that.

You can cyno jam the system but what if the spy has a covert cyno? Bookmarks the site and warps off to a safespot, drops it into a can and lights his cyno. Hostile fleet jumps in, designated person grabs the BM and quickly warps fleet to it. First wave kills the bubble, cloaky T3s jump in, fun ensues. Would that be rare? Sure. But fun. Really fun.

But yes, in null the systems would be **** caged. There's a down side to that though, you have to use a system off the beaten path. If you **** cage a major route you trap friendlys and risk getting them blown up. And a sizable fleet can counter any camp. Are you going to cyno jam all the surrounding systems too? Could just titan bridge into the neighboring system, very little notice then. I mean we are talking alliance level strategy here. Denying someone of minerals will hamper their efforts to attack or defend.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#171 - 2012-05-09 19:57:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Adria Origin wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Adria Origin wrote:
It's the same but smart gankers bookmark the sites right after DT and log out while in them. You also forget awoxers/spys and other meta gaming which is odd seeing as you wear that goon name tag.

A single ganker can't do all as much harm as you imagine. It's not like we don't run mining groups. Awoxers are always a problem, they awox entire fleets, but we still use fleets don't we.

Sorry but your edits and everything you are saying still sounds like fun. Especially compared to what we have now. I mean already we have a scout and combat alts and ships on standby. We have to field a rorqual so I suppose as goons you'd have something on standby to protect that.

You can cyno jam the system but what if the spy has a covert cyno? Bookmarks the site and warps off to a safespot, drops it into a can and lights his cyno. Hostile fleet jumps in, designated person grabs the BM and quickly warps fleet to it. First wave kills the bubble, cloaky T3s jump in, fun ensues. Would that be rare? Sure. But fun. Really fun.

But yes, in null the systems would be **** caged. There's a down side to that though, you have to use a system off the beaten path. If you **** cage a major route you trap friendlys and risk getting them blown up. And a sizable fleet can counter any camp. Are you going to cyno jam all the surrounding systems too? Could just titan bridge into the system. I mean we are talking alliance level strategy here. Denying someone of minerals will hamper their efforts to attack or defend.

You should just argue based on afk cloaky campers. And actually with jump bridges you can probably link a few good systems but those renters would have to rent them all and probably pay for JB use as well.

But you really think it would be better belt mining in lowsec, huh? Ok, sure.

Massive fleet battles would at least be better than endless structure shoots. The question is are the miners safer than in lowsec, or in more danger such that the better ore doesn't outweigh it?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#172 - 2012-05-09 20:00:18 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Adria Origin wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Adria Origin wrote:
It's the same but smart gankers bookmark the sites right after DT and log out while in them. You also forget awoxers/spys and other meta gaming which is odd seeing as you wear that goon name tag.

A single ganker can't do all as much harm as you imagine. It's not like we don't run mining groups. Awoxers are always a problem, they awox entire fleets, but we still use fleets don't we.

Sorry but your edits and everything you are saying still sounds like fun. Especially compared to what we have now. I mean already we have a scout and combat alts and ships on standby. We have to field a rorqual so I suppose as goons you'd have something on standby to protect that.

You can cyno jam the system but what if the spy has a covert cyno? Bookmarks the site and warps off to a safespot, drops it into a can and lights his cyno. Hostile fleet jumps in, designated person grabs the BM and quickly warps fleet to it. First wave kills the bubble, cloaky T3s jump in, fun ensues. Would that be rare? Sure. But fun. Really fun.

But yes, in null the systems would be **** caged. There's a down side to that though, you have to use a system off the beaten path. If you **** cage a major route you trap friendlys and risk getting them blown up. And a sizable fleet can counter any camp. Are you going to cyno jam all the surrounding systems too? Could just titan bridge into the system. I mean we are talking alliance level strategy here. Denying someone of minerals will hamper their efforts to attack or defend.

You should just argue based on afk cloaky campers. And actually with jump bridges you can probably link a few good systems but those renters would have to rent them all and probably pay for JB use as well.

But you really think it would be better belt mining in lowsec, huh? Ok, sure.

This is totally not an empty quote because I support this statement in the context of the above quoted material.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Adria Origin
Yar Har Fiddle Di Dee
#173 - 2012-05-09 20:01:17 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Adria Origin wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Adria Origin wrote:
It's the same but smart gankers bookmark the sites right after DT and log out while in them. You also forget awoxers/spys and other meta gaming which is odd seeing as you wear that goon name tag.

A single ganker can't do all as much harm as you imagine. It's not like we don't run mining groups. Awoxers are always a problem, they awox entire fleets, but we still use fleets don't we.

Sorry but your edits and everything you are saying still sounds like fun. Especially compared to what we have now. I mean already we have a scout and combat alts and ships on standby. We have to field a rorqual so I suppose as goons you'd have something on standby to protect that.

You can cyno jam the system but what if the spy has a covert cyno? Bookmarks the site and warps off to a safespot, drops it into a can and lights his cyno. Hostile fleet jumps in, designated person grabs the BM and quickly warps fleet to it. First wave kills the bubble, cloaky T3s jump in, fun ensues. Would that be rare? Sure. But fun. Really fun.

But yes, in null the systems would be **** caged. There's a down side to that though, you have to use a system off the beaten path. If you **** cage a major route you trap friendlys and risk getting them blown up. And a sizable fleet can counter any camp. Are you going to cyno jam all the surrounding systems too? Could just titan bridge into the system. I mean we are talking alliance level strategy here. Denying someone of minerals will hamper their efforts to attack or defend.

You should just argue based on afk cloaky campers. And actually with jump bridges you can probably link a few good systems but those renters would have to rent them all and probably pay for JB use as well.

But really, let's just have those changes done and see what happens.

I have already come to terms with CCP never doing anything at all about afk cloaky campers as that's an easy fix (stay on 1 grid for x amount of time, become scannable, getting easier as time passes, grid follows you so simply moving doesn't fix it, time should be short ie 15 minutes, no issue at all for someone active but can't just log in, cloak, go to work anymore).

I still have hope they will implement at least part of the suggestion, maybe just remove some of the higher ends from highsec or remove the ore from the upper end of the spectrum (0.8-1.0). Any change in this direction is good.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#174 - 2012-05-09 20:02:13 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
You should just argue based on afk cloaky campers. And actually with jump bridges you can probably link a few good systems but those renters would have to rent them all and probably pay for JB use as well.

But you really think it would be better belt mining in lowsec, huh? Ok, sure.

This is totally not an empty quote because I support this statement in the context of the above quoted material.

I'm making a cloaky SB alt to go and sit in IRC space, apparently it really yanks their chain.

I hope you are as well :) Because they make supercaps for reds, any bit help (plus apparently they will curse you a lot.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#175 - 2012-05-09 20:03:19 UTC
Adria Origin wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Adria Origin wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Adria Origin wrote:
It's the same but smart gankers bookmark the sites right after DT and log out while in them. You also forget awoxers/spys and other meta gaming which is odd seeing as you wear that goon name tag.

A single ganker can't do all as much harm as you imagine. It's not like we don't run mining groups. Awoxers are always a problem, they awox entire fleets, but we still use fleets don't we.

Sorry but your edits and everything you are saying still sounds like fun. Especially compared to what we have now. I mean already we have a scout and combat alts and ships on standby. We have to field a rorqual so I suppose as goons you'd have something on standby to protect that.

You can cyno jam the system but what if the spy has a covert cyno? Bookmarks the site and warps off to a safespot, drops it into a can and lights his cyno. Hostile fleet jumps in, designated person grabs the BM and quickly warps fleet to it. First wave kills the bubble, cloaky T3s jump in, fun ensues. Would that be rare? Sure. But fun. Really fun.

But yes, in null the systems would be **** caged. There's a down side to that though, you have to use a system off the beaten path. If you **** cage a major route you trap friendlys and risk getting them blown up. And a sizable fleet can counter any camp. Are you going to cyno jam all the surrounding systems too? Could just titan bridge into the system. I mean we are talking alliance level strategy here. Denying someone of minerals will hamper their efforts to attack or defend.

You should just argue based on afk cloaky campers. And actually with jump bridges you can probably link a few good systems but those renters would have to rent them all and probably pay for JB use as well.

But really, let's just have those changes done and see what happens.

I have already come to terms with CCP never doing anything at all about afk cloaky campers as that's an easy fix (stay on 1 grid for x amount of time, become scannable, getting easier as time passes, grid follows you so simply moving doesn't fix it, time should be short ie 15 minutes, no issue at all for someone active but can't just log in, cloak, go to work anymore).

I still have hope they will implement at least part of the suggestion, maybe just remove some of the higher ends from highsec or remove the ore from the upper end of the spectrum (0.8-1.0). Any change in this direction is good.

The high-sec miners seem unwilling to compromise. Why should a solution to their woes fail their own standards?

No, I think CCP owes it to miners to implement your entire idea, as stated in this thread.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Adria Origin
Yar Har Fiddle Di Dee
#176 - 2012-05-09 20:03:20 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
You should just argue based on afk cloaky campers. And actually with jump bridges you can probably link a few good systems but those renters would have to rent them all and probably pay for JB use as well.

But you really think it would be better belt mining in lowsec, huh? Ok, sure.

This is totally not an empty quote because I support this statement in the context of the above quoted material.

I'm making a cloaky SB alt to go and sit in IRC space, apparently it really yanks their chain.

I hope you are as well :) Because they make supercaps for reds, any bit help (plus apparently they will curse you a lot.

I was thinking about it.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#177 - 2012-05-09 20:03:50 UTC
Adria Origin wrote:
I have already come to terms with CCP never doing anything at all about afk cloaky campers as that's an easy fix (stay on 1 grid for x amount of time, become scannable, getting easier as time passes, grid follows you so simply moving doesn't fix it, time should be short ie 15 minutes, no issue at all for someone active but can't just log in, cloak, go to work anymore).

I still have hope they will implement at least part of the suggestion, maybe just remove some of the higher ends from highsec or remove the ore from the upper end of the spectrum (0.8-1.0). Any change in this direction is good.

Oh no the changes would be really really nice.

But to assume people will go lowsec when usually the choice is considered to be between highsec and being a nullsec "renter" is pushing things a little bit far, even for the EVEO forums (who usually claim nullsec is safer)

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#178 - 2012-05-09 20:05:57 UTC
Adria Origin wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
You should just argue based on afk cloaky campers. And actually with jump bridges you can probably link a few good systems but those renters would have to rent them all and probably pay for JB use as well.

But you really think it would be better belt mining in lowsec, huh? Ok, sure.

This is totally not an empty quote because I support this statement in the context of the above quoted material.

I'm making a cloaky SB alt to go and sit in IRC space, apparently it really yanks their chain.

I hope you are as well :) Because they make supercaps for reds, any bit help (plus apparently they will curse you a lot.

I was thinking about it.

Actually, some rather powerful nullsec groups don't even live in their space. I think some (uh wait it Raiden.?) used to do highsec incursions. Their space was mostly empty, we had campers try and there was nothing.

IRC are pretty hardcore about defending their space. Other groups with renters don't seem to bother, BUT their renters do live in the space (they rented it after all) which is very very ... odd..

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Adria Origin
Yar Har Fiddle Di Dee
#179 - 2012-05-09 20:06:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Adria Origin
Darth Gustav wrote:
The high-sec miners seem unwilling to compromise. Why should a solution to their woes fail their own standards?

No, I think CCP owes it to miners to implement your entire idea, as stated in this thread.

To be honest I am not certain how high sec miners would react. I suspect some would do what is intended, forming up fleets and heading to lowsec or leaving NPC corps for low/null corps/alliances. Some would quit (I suspect most would just quit mining and go to missions while others would quit quit). But honestly I suspect most would just stay in high sec and mine veld. This is beneficial, however, as veld is a large part of almost every ship. We need a lot of veld and it wouldn't be all that profitable to mine anywhere else.

(Ninja Edit: And yes, leaving Veld in high sec also served this purpose, that was intentional in my original statement.)

Another edit: At the very least CCP should remove +5% and +10% yield ores from high sec. At the VERY LEAST.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#180 - 2012-05-09 20:13:29 UTC
Adria Origin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
The high-sec miners seem unwilling to compromise. Why should a solution to their woes fail their own standards?

No, I think CCP owes it to miners to implement your entire idea, as stated in this thread.

To be honest I am not certain how high sec miners would react. I suspect some would do what is intended, forming up fleets and heading to lowsec or leaving NPC corps for low/null corps/alliances. Some would quit (I suspect most would just quit mining and go to missions while others would quit quit). But honestly I suspect most would just stay in high sec and mine veld. This is beneficial, however, as veld is a large part of almost every ship. We need a lot of veld and it wouldn't be all that profitable to mine anywhere else.

(Ninja Edit: And yes, leaving Veld in high sec also served this purpose, that was intentional in my original statement.)

Your suggestion here is utterly brilliant. I cannot think of a more CCP-esque way to solve the "problem" of mining's "fun per hour."

CSM Issler Dainze, please take note of the benefits (and admitted but minimal drawbacks) of this suggestion, and do what is right for those you represent. And do so in a way that truly honors the CCP tradition of "HTFU."

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom