These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New Mining Mechanics: Multi Ore, Multi Methods

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#121 - 2014-05-24 21:07:09 UTC
On the most basic level, I like how much more involved and interesting this would make an otherwise monotonous and homogenous mechanic, and it genuinely a more fair way of doing basic mining. Risk and effort more directly translate to reward, and it lends more power to small-gang operations than the enormous heavy industrial op fleets. I can see this going far in assisting smaller regional indy corps with manufacturing, and strengthening the market as a whole from a manufacturing perspective.
Sorana Bonzari
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#122 - 2014-05-28 20:05:37 UTC
Reviving this topic because mining needs to be improved please / sign and/or discuss


Sorana
Erutpar Ambient
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2014-05-29 22:16:34 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


No problem with a few mini-games, I quite like exploring. I'd be concerned about the number of times you'd need to perform the same actions. As I said most people only amend their PI setup at most once a day for this reason. I'd prefer to be actively controlling the ship rather than repeating a mini-game many many times. When exploring I run every site I find whether it's combat anom or hacking site to break up running the scan and hack mechanisms constantly to mitigate this for example.

Edit: And having re-read the original post and hastily backpeddled after realizing I'd muddled it with a different suggestion I think the proposed active orbiting changes raised in an earlier thread would be a pre-req to any kind of comet/active mining additions to allow pilots to pick there way through/around the target areas.

The main reason people only amend their PI set up once a day has multiple reasons. First of all there's up to 8 extractor heads to arrange in relation to each other where overlap will cause a reduction in efficiency and thus increasing the tedium of creating a viable arrangement. Second is because you set up a time frame of extraction that you can leave for long periods of time. And third is because the amount of materials you get is so few in proportion to the time it takes to extract them. PI is designed to be a side project. It's designed to be a Once a day type of activity.

On the other hand, if you think about it in a way where you cycle at 180s(reducible) and you gain a substantial amount of materials for that, then moving 1-3 extractor heads around occasionally really isn't that big of a deal. I'd say that it's, at worst, as tedious as having to continuously change targets in a Mission/combat site and that's only if the ore dries up as fast as targets do.

If there was anything i can do to reduce my mining time from 10 hours to 5 for the same amount of minerals, that would be awesome. And then have the option to half assed mine like we have already. That'd be great.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#124 - 2014-05-29 22:26:16 UTC
Erutpar Ambient wrote:

The main reason people only amend their PI set up once a day has multiple reasons...

...usually player laziness :D That's from the perspective of someone who has multiple PI alts..

Erutpar Ambient wrote:

On the other hand, if you think about it in a way where you cycle at 180s(reducible) and you gain a substantial amount of materials for that, then moving 1-3 extractor heads around occasionally really isn't that big of a deal. I'd say that it's, at worst, as tedious as having to continuously change targets in a Mission/combat site and that's only if the ore dries up as fast as targets do.

If there was anything i can do to reduce my mining time from 10 hours to 5 for the same amount of minerals, that would be awesome. And then have the option to half assed mine like we have already. That'd be great.


I see your point with regards to moving mining heads and selecting red crosses...but people are always saying how boring missions are so this would be introducing an equivalent boring mechanism but at relatively short intervals and without even having to maneuvre a ship/st modules running/etc that you do in missions. That's why I'd go for an active mining option that requires the miner to chase down comets/asteroids, handle damage from outgasing events (then mine the gas), etc, etc. maybe in such a situation the damage clouds could contain ice isotopes directly that can be gathered up with the gas harvester.

However any new mechanism is added it should be alongside the existing mining to allow for easy stats gathering and removal if it cocks up the economy.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2014-05-29 22:38:33 UTC
I don't set my PI sessions shorter than 1 week, and I usually don't move the extractor heads when I come back.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Spacemover
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2014-06-22 14:06:28 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Fourteen Maken wrote:
To facilitate things like this I would say it could be balanced in such a way that Ventures are better at targeting the rare ores while the larger barges are more indiscriminate.

Ventures have the advantage of speed over barges. The veins require a short range laser which means more manoeuvring is needed and they are comparatively small, so you go through more asteroids which means hopping along a belt and along big asteroids. The vein mining was created with the Venture in mind.


like your ideas. mining it it current state is simply boring. (no wonder people are boting)

the vein mining and the ore deposits could work with something similar to the hacking minigamewindow. like thats how you see the roid and scan the different spots while mining a deposit/vein you already found.

+++ from my side mining should be a bot prefered action.
Arcelian
0nus
#127 - 2014-07-25 16:18:15 UTC
Oh god yes.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#128 - 2014-07-25 19:00:07 UTC
After reading some more posts on this subject I would like to respond to one comment Ive seen a couple of times:

Something along the lines of, "this will help stop botting".

It will not stop botters at all, they know their way around code and aren't going to be inhibited by these mining mechanics.

To inhibit botting your best bet would be a more intensive locking mechanism like the 'skewed word / number" locks you see on some websites or a cycling lock mechanism that a reasonable intelligent person could keep up with but would cause botters to continuously keep making new code to circumvent. (most if not all mechanisms that fall into categories like this would be annoying to players and are unlikely to be implemented).

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2014-07-25 19:31:02 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
It will not stop botters at all, they know their way around code and aren't going to be inhibited by these mining mechanics.
If that were true, there would be botters present in all major games, in similar numbers relative to their ability to sell products/services to the playerbase, and fairly evenly distributed throughout the avenues of production within each game. This is not the case at all: many games have very little botting despite having many players willing to pay botters real money, while other games are incessantly botted even though each botter makes hardly anything out of it.

The OP's proposed mining mechanics change would definitely thwart botters from mining. There would still be mining bots, but in significantly reduced numbers. This isn't based on opinion, but on well-researched game statistics.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#130 - 2014-07-25 22:11:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
It will not stop botters at all, they know their way around code and aren't going to be inhibited by these mining mechanics.
If that were true, there would be botters present in all major games, in similar numbers relative to their ability to sell products/services to the playerbase, and fairly evenly distributed throughout the avenues of production within each game. This is not the case at all: many games have very little botting despite having many players willing to pay botters real money, while other games are incessantly botted even though each botter makes hardly anything out of it.

The OP's proposed mining mechanics change would definitely thwart botters from mining. There would still be mining bots, but in significantly reduced numbers. This isn't based on opinion, but on well-researched game statistics.


If there is one botter, there will be many. When I played wow you could if, you chose to ignore the EULA, go online and find bots premade for you to use.

For now I will accept your belief as to the abilities of botters to make bots will holding to my own beliefs on the subject as stated previously.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2014-07-26 04:12:33 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
If there is one botter, there will be many. When I played wow you could if, you chose to ignore the EULA, go online and find bots premade for you to use.
Finding sites that claimed to have bots for retail WoW was easy, finding actual working bots was hard, and using them to good effect without getting caught was harder still. But Blizzard skimped out on the bot protection at times (even though they did spend considerable effort and resources into fighting them) and allowed more bots to run than they could have. Still, WoW was relatively bot-free despite the tremendous market for their goods. Sure, there were bots in WoW, but you mostly didn't see them or get bothered by them, and their goods didn't have much impact on the sale prices of most of the important items.

In short, WoW is an excellent example of the trend I talked about, and a great bit of hard evidence to support that the OP's proposal will, in fact, help to reduce bot mining significantly.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#132 - 2014-07-26 08:37:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentamon
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Still, WoW was relatively bot-free despite the tremendous market for their goods. Sure, there were bots in WoW, but you mostly didn't see them or get bothered by them, and their goods didn't have much impact on the sale prices of most of the important items.


Haha, yea right. Thanks for the laugh. WoW should be renamed World of Botters in RMT land.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#133 - 2014-07-26 09:06:17 UTC
+1 to the op
havent read all answers ^^
i like the idea, but i would also like to see a scan with relative ore amounts to each other.

as example
your ore density is 100%
u r in amarr .5 space u get lets say 2 roids.
1st roid has a composition of 52% Veld 16% Scord 16% Pyro 16% Kernite
2nd roid has a composition of 70% Beld 2% Scord 10% Pyro and 18% Kernite

2nd thing i would like to add would be mining stations in low and null. Those stations only mine those asteroids automatically, store it in a large orehold. U can defend them at max like 2 bs means 16 large guns who only shot when the station is aggroed or optimize them for better hold or better yield. Of course u cant defend them always so they get reinforcement like a poco. When they r reinforced u cant get any minerals out of the orebay. Their can only be 1 mining station at each asteroid, their yield will be low means u get in 24h what a mack can mine in 4h and if a ship is mining said asteroid empty it will be even less.

Thx
Smugest Sniper
neko island
Deedspace Consortium
#134 - 2014-07-26 10:52:32 UTC
The problem with mining as it has always been, is it is not ultimately profitable for the end user. It takes a very long time to generate the minerals required for most ships on a very steep level of production.

-An hour for a cruiser
-minutes for a frigate
-a day for a battleship
-3 days for a carrier

All assuming you have good boosts and hauling.

This comes down to a common problem in most regions of space, why spend x time mining, when I can grind rats for more liquid money.

There are tools to make things easier but there is a distinct lack of player utilization and effort of said tools.

Miners increase their output through volume and end product creation. realistically it is too easy to exploit the high-sec labor pool for cheap minerals than it is to have a high-powered local production group make things save capitals and supers anywhere outside high-sec.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#135 - 2014-07-26 15:41:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Sentamon wrote:
Haha, yea right. Thanks for the laugh. WoW should be renamed World of Botters in RMT land.
WoW was relatively bot-free for its first three runs. I don't know if that has changed as I don't play it anymore. Blizzard is too busy throwing out cheap gimmicks to be bothered to actually spend money that might improve the game. Doesn't mean much if the game is getting heavily botted now, as there's not nearly as many players, so the market for bot profits is greatly diminished.

Then again, I have heard many people say throughout WoW's lifespan that it should be renamed "World of Bots", even though most of the time I heard that, it was one of the cleanest MMOs out there, surpassed only by games nobody had heard of, like EVE Online. You want an example of a world of bots from back when WoW was Top MMO, try Gaia Online or Forsaken World. The profits that could have been made from farming materials in those games was insignificant compared to in WoW, yet there were so many botters it was difficult to get past them. The chat was just a stream of bot adverts constantly scrolling past, and you had to get a private chat channel just to talk to friends. If you went into a public area, you were surrounded by ad bot characters trying to sell you stuff for tiny amounts of in-game currency because the markets were trashed by their presence yet nobody bothered to turn them off because they were so easy to run.

ending this discussion

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#136 - 2014-07-26 17:27:43 UTC
Please move the discussion about bots and WoW elsewhere. I consider both topics to be off-topic for this thread and a unnecessary derail that will amount to nothing anyway in the end as has been proven by every discussion about those topics. Thank you.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#137 - 2014-07-26 19:25:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentamon
Abrazzar wrote:
Please move the discussion about bots and WoW elsewhere. I consider both topics to be off-topic for this thread and a unnecessary derail that will amount to nothing anyway in the end as has been proven by every discussion about those topics. Thank you.


The discusion about bots is very relevant since your minigame idea will cause an infux of miner bots and give them a bigger advantage over players.

Right now, while EVE does have mining bots, their output isn't significantly higher then that of an active or semi-AFK miner. Add a minigame and once the novelty wears off in a few minutes, mining will belong to the realm of complex botters.

I couldn't possibly give more thumbs down to any idea in an MMO that creates tablet style games and forces interaction with the UI and not with other players. Mining needs ideas that create desirable belts for people to fight over, not pointless and tedious UI clicking that takes your attention away from other people playing the game with you.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#138 - 2014-07-26 19:31:53 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Abrazzar wrote:
Please move the discussion about bots and WoW elsewhere. I consider both topics to be off-topic for this thread and a unnecessary derail that will amount to nothing anyway in the end as has been proven by every discussion about those topics. Thank you.


The discusion about bots is very relevant since your minigame idea will cause an infux of miner bots and give them a bigger advantage over players.

Right now, while EVE does have mining bots, their output isn't significantly higher then that of an active or semi-AFK miner. Add a minigame and once the novelty wears off in a few minutes, mining will belong to the realm of complex botters.

I couldn't possibly give more thumbs down to any idea in an MMO that creates tablet style games and forces interaction with the UI and not with other players. Mining needs ideas that create desirable belts for people to fight over, pointless UI clicking that takes your attention away from other people playing the game with you.

Botting is only incidentally related, not topically. There is also nothing remotely like tablet style mini games in the mechanics described. You either did not read any of it or failed to grasp what was explained. So I mark down your response as simple trolling and you can feel elated for me bothering to response to your bait.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#139 - 2014-07-26 19:43:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentamon
Abrazzar wrote:

Botting is only incidentally related, not topically. There is also nothing remotely like tablet style mini games in the mechanics described. You either did not read any of it or failed to grasp what was explained. So I mark down your response as simple trolling and you can feel elated for me bothering to response to your bait.


Ore Deposits show as a heat map on the asteroid. You can switch through the ores similar to PI scans and you need to aim your mining lasers at the targeted deposit to mine it. <---- minigame

No I'm not trolling or baiting, but the fact that you can't handle differing opinions from someone that has seen nothing but bots and China farmers controlling crafting and gathering in practically all MMO's since Ultima Online (with EVE as a notable exception), just shows your naivity on the matter.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#140 - 2014-07-27 00:42:34 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
No I'm not trolling or baiting, but the fact that you can't handle differing opinions from someone that has seen nothing but bots and China farmers controlling crafting and gathering in practically all MMO's since Ultima Online (with EVE as a notable exception), just shows your naivity on the matter.
If you've been paying much attention to them, you should have a better grasp of the types of gameplay that is easy to bot versus the types that thwart bots.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."