These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why isn't mining in EVE like THIS?!?!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#101 - 2013-01-28 19:07:57 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
I think you may be confusing some of the points I made with others that have been offered through out the thread (perfectly understandable, it's been back and forth quite a bit).

My central point is that being able to acquire mineral rights in high sec would provide strong reasons to organize and defend those belts by providing tangible increases in profits and a strong sense of ownership. The only downside for the loner would be that higher yeild ore would be more difficult to find unless you choose to ninja mine from an "owned" belt.

Old play styles are not overly disrupted, newer and more interactive play styles are encouraged. A sense of ownership is finally brought to high sec space.

I really don't follow why you think people would stop mining.

As a side note, mining with other people in an organized group (even under the current rules set) enhances your yield due to gang links and organized hauling procedures. This is why small groups (or serious multiboxers running dozens of accounts) do it to begin with. But there is little sense of ownership, no reason to stay in one area or defend that area, and the increase in profit is not significant enough to sufficiently reward the players for their organizational efforts.

If a person wanted to continue mining AFK and solo, there would certain be nothing to stop him.


i was mainly referring to you saying "engage more fully", because to me that implied something that perhaps you never implied. no matter.

i don't think it would, because red frog is 500k per jump last i checked, moving 1 system out is going to be cheaper than buying mineral rights, i'll wager. especially when you're paying roughly 500k per 800m-1bn isk of minerals. i think my average red frog shipment on an almost full freighter is anywhere between 800-950m isk in minerals.

i don't get bonuses for mining with other people, i already have an orca. some one else providing gang links just turns my orca pilot in to a glorified hauler so i'm still not gaining anything. if some one else's orca is hauling for me as well, then obviously i'm going to have to cut them in on my profits.... so i may as well get my own orca and not be subject to their afk breaks, and their play time. mining with other accounts is more profitable, mining with other people is not. subtle but important difference there.

the problem is, there shouldn't be a reason to stay and defend an area in high sec; high sec space is owned by the npc corporations/factions/whatever. if you want to defend and fight over resources etc, go to 0.0. there's really no reason to turn high sec in to 0.0 avec concord. it makes no sense.

i still don't really see why high sec mining should change, it works fine and there's nothing wrong with it. i haven't met a miner who dislikes the way mining works. i have a feeling, if you asked a bunch of miners, you'd probably get replies that border on "because i can do it on several accounts at once without diminishing returns like multiboxing anoms/l4s" or "because i can do it while i do my homework/housework/rub one out/walk the hamster etc". i doubt you'll find many people who will say "mining needs changing because it's terrible but i do it day in day out because i like self harm".

the things wrong with mining is not high sec asteroid belts, not the mechanics of mining, but other things like the composition of null sec grav sites, the failed ship rebalance, the lack of reason to mine with others.


Which would be more profitable, mining in a belt where little or no high density ore is available or mining in a belt where there is a very high concentration of high density ore?

If you had a mining corporation or consortium which would be more profitable, 3 people (all your alts) mining or 30 people mining (or 300 for that matter)?

If organizations did form and purchase mineral rights in some belts, what would stop you from enjoying your current multi box mining activities in other belts?

I think you would be hard pressed to find a thread in the entire history of this forum where the majority opinion was that "mining is fine as is". I'm not trying to directly butt heads with you, but this is self evident.

And finally,

...there is nothing wrong with high sec belts except that they can not be owned or developed.
... the current mechanics of mining are only acceptable if you chose to do it in an AFK manner.
... null sec grav sites are another issue entirely.
...I think you'd be hard pressed to find a miner that believes the ship rebalance was "fail".
...and yes, while there is incentive to mine with others (if you are intelligent about it) you are correct that there is not sufficient incentive to justify it being done more commonly. Thus the current discussion.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Aza Ebanu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#102 - 2013-01-28 19:18:01 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Consider this.

What if belts and the re spawn rates of those belts remained just as it is today, except that you can purchase mining rights (in high sec) that allow you to not only use those belts exclusively but to defend them against would be claim jumpers?

To maintain your mining rights you would need to pay a fee to the local empire, and would need to maintain a certain minimum level of mining activity in those belts. If your mining activity drops below that threshold, you lose your exclusive rights to that belt.

If someone comes in and begins mining in your belt, you have the option to open fire on the claim jumper and his corp without the need for a formal declaration of war for the remainder of that day to protect your claim. Of course, once fired upon that pilot can return fire. Advantage goes to the defending corp as they can pick and choose whom to open fire upon, although during the time period of the ensuing limited engagement the claim jumper can of course choose to reship just as they can now.

Now if I see a belt that I want to work that is already claimed I have all of the options currently available to me, including suicide ganking and war declaration, to use to drive productivity down in that belt to the point where I can claim it for my own. Of course, I now have to maintain the minimum level of output to hold my claim (and pay the appropriate fee).

Options would be opened up on both sides of the coin, with a minimum of fiddling around with current game mechanics.

Obviously the details would have to be examined and balanced.

I have always thought it odd that valuable resources could not be legally claimed, fought over, and defended even in high sec. The problem as been that there was no advantage or game mechanic in place to do so. Why form a large mining corp (with some level of self defense capability) when there is little to gain (other than some productivity gains) from working together as opposed to every miner for himself (and an alt or two).

I think we could and should consider allowing claims to be filed on resources such as asteroid belts and let people have another point of contention.

Make it profitable to work together to "own" a resource, and people will work together to do it.

There aren't enough belts to make your plan viable. Furthermore, mining is fine. As a mechanic it supplies the materials for players to build things.


Not enough belts? So basically you are saying that this would be wildly popular and everyone would be doing it. Smile

To be perfectly honest,f there is competition eventually for available belts, so much the better. However I doubt that will happen outside of the more populated area's.

I don't quite follow what your last point is. Of course as a mechanic it supplies building materials. Are you suggesting that if every belt in high sec was privately own and harvested, with a larger number of high density ore than we commonly see today because they have been developed, that we would see mineral shortages? If so, that doesn't make too much sense to me.

Nope! No at all, just that there are too many miners compared to belts. No my last point is that minerals don't have any effect on EVE outside of the stuff they build. Players buy minerals from miners then build stuff with them. Having another point of contention built around something that makes the game work would break the game.

Mining permits and other ideas have been tried before by in game players,and it leads to less mining period. Less mining means less stuff. Less stuff means higher prices. Higher prices means more risk. More risk means players with low risk tolerances, the majority of players, will not participate. Majority of players not participating in a mmo means the players go elsewhere. Players going elsewhere means CCP has to eat dog food to survive... Why do you want CCP to eat dog food?
Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa
The Perfect Harvesting Experience
#103 - 2013-01-28 19:26:52 UTC
The Greenmachine Greenmachine wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Cause it would be a horrible looking FPS?


No way man! Imagine it with eve graphics and we got all these ventures flying around blasting through asteroids having a war would be too awesome. Then all of a sudden a Rorqual slowly comes into view from behind a giant asteroid using its mining lasers as weapons (if it had any, Capital Strip Miner FTW!) tearing apart through the fleet of ventures gaining him control of the valuable asteroid belt. Making mining fun and have the ISK pay be more because this is less supply would be crazy awesome. PirateTwistedPirateCool


I have no idea what you are smoking, but you better get rid of it before customs scans you.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#104 - 2013-01-28 19:33:17 UTC
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Aza Ebanu wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Consider this.

What if belts and the re spawn rates of those belts remained just as it is today, except that you can purchase mining rights (in high sec) that allow you to not only use those belts exclusively but to defend them against would be claim jumpers?

To maintain your mining rights you would need to pay a fee to the local empire, and would need to maintain a certain minimum level of mining activity in those belts. If your mining activity drops below that threshold, you lose your exclusive rights to that belt.

If someone comes in and begins mining in your belt, you have the option to open fire on the claim jumper and his corp without the need for a formal declaration of war for the remainder of that day to protect your claim. Of course, once fired upon that pilot can return fire. Advantage goes to the defending corp as they can pick and choose whom to open fire upon, although during the time period of the ensuing limited engagement the claim jumper can of course choose to reship just as they can now.

Now if I see a belt that I want to work that is already claimed I have all of the options currently available to me, including suicide ganking and war declaration, to use to drive productivity down in that belt to the point where I can claim it for my own. Of course, I now have to maintain the minimum level of output to hold my claim (and pay the appropriate fee).

Options would be opened up on both sides of the coin, with a minimum of fiddling around with current game mechanics.

Obviously the details would have to be examined and balanced.

I have always thought it odd that valuable resources could not be legally claimed, fought over, and defended even in high sec. The problem as been that there was no advantage or game mechanic in place to do so. Why form a large mining corp (with some level of self defense capability) when there is little to gain (other than some productivity gains) from working together as opposed to every miner for himself (and an alt or two).

I think we could and should consider allowing claims to be filed on resources such as asteroid belts and let people have another point of contention.

Make it profitable to work together to "own" a resource, and people will work together to do it.

There aren't enough belts to make your plan viable. Furthermore, mining is fine. As a mechanic it supplies the materials for players to build things.


Not enough belts? So basically you are saying that this would be wildly popular and everyone would be doing it. Smile

To be perfectly honest,f there is competition eventually for available belts, so much the better. However I doubt that will happen outside of the more populated area's.

I don't quite follow what your last point is. Of course as a mechanic it supplies building materials. Are you suggesting that if every belt in high sec was privately own and harvested, with a larger number of high density ore than we commonly see today because they have been developed, that we would see mineral shortages? If so, that doesn't make too much sense to me.

Nope! No at all, just that there are too many miners compared to belts. No my last point is that minerals don't have any effect on EVE outside of the stuff they build. Players buy minerals from miners then build stuff with them. Having another point of contention built around something that makes the game work would break the game.

Mining permits and other ideas have been tried before by in game players,and it leads to less mining period. Less mining means less stuff. Less stuff means higher prices. Higher prices means more risk. More risk means players with low risk tolerances, the majority of players, will not participate. Majority of players not participating in a mmo means the players go elsewhere. Players going elsewhere means CCP has to eat dog food to survive... Why do you want CCP to eat dog food?


Actually, the only place where there are more miners than belts are around high population centers. As you travel further away from them you rarely see empty belts.

Competition for resources works in every other facet of the game, look no further than T2 or T3 production. Large alliances via for control of moon goo, well organized groups via for control over profitable WH. Not only are those industries flourishing, they are highly profitable... while at the same time the market is well supplied.

Remember two things:

1: I'm not discussing making minerals more rare. Actually, by developing a belt, quite the opposite.

2: Many players would be perfectly free to mine just as they have always done with little or no impact, however organized groups would be able to reap larger rewards for their efforts... and new variations of high sec game play would come into being.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Dave Stark
#105 - 2013-01-28 19:43:30 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:


...there is nothing wrong with high sec belts except that they can not be owned or developed.
... the current mechanics of mining are only acceptable if you chose to do it in an AFK manner.
... null sec grav sites are another issue entirely.
...I think you'd be hard pressed to find a miner that believes the ship rebalance was "fail".
...and yes, while there is incentive to mine with others (if you are intelligent about it) you are correct that there is not sufficient incentive to justify it being done more commonly. Thus the current discussion.


that's not an issue with high sec belts. you can already do this in null sec. we do NOT need to turn high sec in to nullsec with concord. it's ********.

no, the current mechanics of mining are just acceptable full stop. there's nothing wrong with how mining works, it's identical to how ratting works. target, hit f1, wait until target vanishes.

agreed they are another issue entirely, but what you're suggesting is basically turning high sec belts into null sec grav sites give or take a few small details.

depends how you define "fail" sure overall all the ships are better, but they are in no way balanced. look at the graphs ccp produced. all that has happened is every one sold their hulks and brought macks. we've gone from king hulk to king mack and the situation they tried to get away from still exists, hence it failed at balancing the ships.

no, there isn't an incentive to mine with other people. only with more accounts.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#106 - 2013-01-28 20:00:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Dave Stark wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


...there is nothing wrong with high sec belts except that they can not be owned or developed.
... the current mechanics of mining are only acceptable if you chose to do it in an AFK manner.
... null sec grav sites are another issue entirely.
...I think you'd be hard pressed to find a miner that believes the ship rebalance was "fail".
...and yes, while there is incentive to mine with others (if you are intelligent about it) you are correct that there is not sufficient incentive to justify it being done more commonly. Thus the current discussion.


that's not an issue with high sec belts. you can already do this in null sec. we do NOT need to turn high sec in to nullsec with concord. it's ********.

no, the current mechanics of mining are just acceptable full stop. there's nothing wrong with how mining works, it's identical to how ratting works. target, hit f1, wait until target vanishes.

agreed they are another issue entirely, but what you're suggesting is basically turning high sec belts into null sec grav sites give or take a few small details.

depends how you define "fail" sure overall all the ships are better, but they are in no way balanced. look at the graphs ccp produced. all that has happened is every one sold their hulks and brought macks. we've gone from king hulk to king mack and the situation they tried to get away from still exists, hence it failed at balancing the ships.

no, there isn't an incentive to mine with other people. only with more accounts.


I'm sorry Dave, but most of the points you just listed are HIGHLY debatable... and most people just simply would not agree with your assessment.

High sec mining, indeed mining in general, has been one of the most requently requested mechanics in game to be redesigned or iterated on. As only one example remember all of those discussions about ring mining?

The ability to own and develop a resource is a mechanic that works well in Null yes... and is sorely lacking in high sec. Just because you are in the domain of a major faction, there is no reason why various resources cannot be privately owned or access rights to them procured.

There are very few similarities between this and a null sec grav site. Yes you can develop both in a way, but that is where the similarity ends. You can't own an anom, it isn't stationary, and it isn't in public space (it's usually deep in your own sov).

Macks are more common now because there are far more solo miners than organized groups, and under the current conditions the Mack lends itself more readily to high sec solo players, and they are the vast majority of miners. Wouldn't it be nice if that were to change. Smile

You are correct, there is currently not enough incentive to mine with large groups. That is one of the points being made, that we should look at a variety of ways to change that (among other things). I will point out that this rather flies in the face of your proclamation that "mining is fine as is", as since there is little incentive to cooperate with others there is obviously a shortcoming there. While solo play should not be penalized, group cooperation should be rewarded.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Dave Stark
#107 - 2013-01-28 21:12:20 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
I'm sorry Dave, but most of the points you just listed are HIGHLY debatable... and most people just simply would not agree with your assessment.

High sec mining, indeed mining in general, has been one of the most requently requested mechanics in game to be redesigned or iterated on. As only one example remember all of those discussions about ring mining?

The ability to own and develop a resource is a mechanic that works well in Null yes... and is sorely lacking in high sec. Just because you are in the domain of a major faction, there is no reason why various resources cannot be privately owned or access rights to them procured.

There are very few similarities between this and a null sec grav site. Yes you can develop both in a way, but that is where the similarity ends. You can't own an anom, it isn't stationary, and it isn't in public space (it's usually deep in your own sov).

Macks are more common now because there are far more solo miners than organized groups, and under the current conditions the Mack lends itself more readily to high sec solo players, and they are the vast majority of miners. Wouldn't it be nice if that were to change. Smile

You are correct, there is currently not enough incentive to mine with large groups. That is one of the points being made, that we should look at a variety of ways to change that (among other things). I will point out that this rather flies in the face of your proclamation that "mining is fine as is", as since there is little incentive to cooperate with others there is obviously a shortcoming there. While solo play should not be penalized, group cooperation should be rewarded.

well i don't post to be agreed with.

can't say i remember seeing a single thing about ring mining, being honest.

it's not lacking in empire at all, if you want to own and develop areas of space, go to null that's what it's there for. high sec does not need to be nullsec with concord. otherwise you may as well just add concord to null sec and save yourself the time because i'll wager it'd take less time to add concord to null rather than totally re-designing empire space.

you have a mining site, you upgrade it. they are the same. the small details are irrelevant. a car is a car, a rock is a rock, a banana is tasty. (sorry i'm kinda peckish).

no, macks are more common now because they get the worst of nothing, unlike hulks that get the worst of two of the three key statistics for a mining ship (tank, and cargo capacity). the very fact is, the ships are not balanced (oh and the skiff tries to fill a niche that doesn't exist). there are several posts by me, and other players on this obvious lack of balance. hell, it's in the thread about the devblog relating to the aftermath of the rebalance. feel free to look it up. and for reference, pretty much all of my miners are in macks/rets because the yield difference is too small for all the extra effort, not to mention they've got more tank then a cov/hulk.

i didn't say mining, as a whole is ok as it is. simply the mechanics of mining. as in, warp to belt, target asteroid, hit f1, repeat until belt is empty. it's exactly the same as a mission. warp to mission, target red crosses, hit f1, repeat until all red crosses are gone. nobody wants missions to be more interactive, though do they? as i said there are things about mining that need fixing, the mechanics of mining aren't one of those things. i think the answer to the group issue is firmly in the domain of player corps. the ability for player corps to offer something miners can't otherwise gets will make people mine together, and get out of npc corps. i've been looking for a corp for a few months now and every time i go to the forums all i see is "join us and you can be war decced for no reward" which is a pretty bad deal.
Not Politically Correct
Doomheim
#108 - 2013-01-28 22:16:13 UTC
Mining in large groups is wasteful. IMHO. There should never be more than 4 Exhumers in one belt because there are few systems that have more than four types of ore. Put 12 Exhumers in one belt and they are forced to 'mine over' each other.

BTW, clearing a belt, or even a certain type of ore, is a bad thing if you mine every day. Clear a belt of an ore type, and you go into the three day cycle. That belt won't be worth mining for 3 days.

Optimal? Mine one belt less than you have Orcas. The odd Orca keeps the other ones empty. Same number of mining ships as ore types per belt.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#109 - 2013-01-28 22:19:17 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
ffs wrong thread

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Dave Stark
#110 - 2013-01-28 22:36:06 UTC
Not Politically Correct wrote:
Mining in large groups is wasteful. IMHO. There should never be more than 4 Exhumers in one belt because there are few systems that have more than four types of ore. Put 12 Exhumers in one belt and they are forced to 'mine over' each other.

BTW, clearing a belt, or even a certain type of ore, is a bad thing if you mine every day. Clear a belt of an ore type, and you go into the three day cycle. That belt won't be worth mining for 3 days.

Optimal? Mine one belt less than you have Orcas. The odd Orca keeps the other ones empty. Same number of mining ships as ore types per belt.




not to mention 12 hulks in a belt will strip a belt very quickly then you have to warp 12 ships to the next belt, etc, where as if you spread them out they all warp once and that's it.
Not Politically Correct
Doomheim
#111 - 2013-01-28 22:40:18 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Not Politically Correct wrote:
Mining in large groups is wasteful. IMHO. There should never be more than 4 Exhumers in one belt because there are few systems that have more than four types of ore. Put 12 Exhumers in one belt and they are forced to 'mine over' each other.

BTW, clearing a belt, or even a certain type of ore, is a bad thing if you mine every day. Clear a belt of an ore type, and you go into the three day cycle. That belt won't be worth mining for 3 days.

Optimal? Mine one belt less than you have Orcas. The odd Orca keeps the other ones empty. Same number of mining ships as ore types per belt.




not to mention 12 hulks in a belt will strip a belt very quickly then you have to warp 12 ships to the next belt, etc, where as if you spread them out they all warp once and that's it.


Signs of intelligence? Maybe I under-estimated you. Sorry. Big smile
Dave Stark
#112 - 2013-01-28 22:40:52 UTC
Not Politically Correct wrote:
Signs of intelligence? Maybe I under-estimated you. Sorry. Big smile


i'd rather be underestimated than overestimated.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#113 - 2013-01-28 22:48:59 UTC
Heres how mining works in Eve.

You need to have multiple accounts to make enough money for it to be efficient.

CCP therefore loves miners.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Not Politically Correct
Doomheim
#114 - 2013-01-28 23:28:37 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:

You need to have multiple accounts to make enough money for it to be efficient.


\But, should you need multiple accounts to be efficient? I admit, in my mining days I had 4 accounts. Nice efficient fleet, but I really wanted more miners. I have three Orcas. I could handle two belts at a time.

If I could just find some miners that obeyed the corp rules.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#115 - 2013-01-29 00:20:29 UTC
meh
The Greenmachine Greenmachine
Green's Bicycle Shop
#116 - 2013-01-29 02:27:04 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:
Heres how mining works in Eve.

You need to have multiple accounts to make enough money for it to be efficient.

CCP therefore loves miners.



And does it sound fun or awesome if it works like that??? Cry Heck no! It needs to be like something in the video which will even attract MORE players to play EVE which in the end = More Money for CCP. It is a win win situation. BearCool
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#117 - 2013-01-29 02:34:09 UTC
Leetha Layne wrote:
Is that the Wolfenstein engine?


You mean the original? Maybe. Lol
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#118 - 2013-01-29 02:37:26 UTC
Marcus Harikari wrote:
If mining paid better, there would be much more fighting over it. Mining should pay 10x what it does now.

You know how to make mining pay better?

Kill all the other miners.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
The Greenmachine Greenmachine
Green's Bicycle Shop
#119 - 2013-01-29 02:47:10 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Marcus Harikari wrote:
If mining paid better, there would be much more fighting over it. Mining should pay 10x what it does now.

You know how to make mining pay better?

Kill all the other miners.


James 315?!?!? Blink
Majuan Shuo
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#120 - 2013-01-29 04:38:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Majuan Shuo
well thats a remake of Descent if i ever saw one

(a great old school game)

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar