These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

(Proposal) Replace static ore / ice belts with scanable sites
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bunyip
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2012-01-16 21:32:25 UTC
I had this idea when I was part of the CSM. AFAIK, things were pretty balanced on like vs dislike. I wrote a whole proposal for this concept as part of my redesign of the POS system, available here.

To fix the scanning problem, I was thinking that barges (only) should be able to use the onboard scanner to find grav sites, and extend all sites in 0.8 or lower to grav only. In 1.0 and 0.9 systems (where schools are located and such) keep the sites static and visible without scanning, but maybe accessed by an acceleration gate that only allows frigates.
Naj Panora
The Seekers of Ore
#42 - 2012-01-17 14:01:36 UTC
Bunyip wrote:


To fix the scanning problem, I was thinking that barges (only) should be able to use the onboard scanner to find grav sites, and extend all sites in 0.8 or lower to grav only. In 1.0 and 0.9 systems (where schools are located and such) keep the sites static and visible without scanning, but maybe accessed by an acceleration gate that only allows frigates.


This wouldn't fix the problem with afk botting seeing as the programs can use the on board scanner. The better answer would be to add an extra high slot that can only be fitted with a scan probe launcher and make the site scanable to 100% with 1 probe and astrometrics 1 at 8-16 au. anyone then could find them if there was an active player manning the controls.
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
#43 - 2012-01-17 14:13:31 UTC
The only losers to this change are botters and lazy players. I don't like either of them so +1
Aggressive Nutmeg
#44 - 2012-02-02 04:15:10 UTC
-1. This change won't negatively affect botters in the long run. And it might discourage new players.

It might even help botters Shocked if a proportion of suicide gankers are lazy and couldn't be arsed scanning them down all day.

Unhindered bot mining, here we come. Watch the mineral prices plummet.

Never make eye contact with someone while eating a banana.
Zircon Dasher
#45 - 2012-02-02 05:18:18 UTC
Aggressive Nutmeg wrote:
-1. This change won't negatively affect botters in the long run. And it might discourage new players.

It might even help botters Shocked if a proportion of suicide gankers are lazy and couldn't be arsed scanning them down all day.

Unhindered bot mining, here we come. Watch the mineral prices plummet.


mineral prices going down would not necessarily be a bad thing.

You are correct about the net effect on botting. It will be near zero. People who think scanbots are really hard are naive or terrible at programming.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
#46 - 2012-02-02 12:28:33 UTC
This is a super suggestion. It will make Mining more fun as well as helping eliminate Bots. I'd really love to see this put in the game.

It is a really strong suggestion. I don't belive that the Bots will easily learn how to play the Probe game. I don't think it will alienate the newer players. I'd really love to see trhis happen.

Totally +1 :)
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
#47 - 2012-02-02 12:40:03 UTC
Aggressive Nutmeg wrote:
-1. This change won't negatively affect botters in the long run. And it might discourage new players.

It might even help botters Shocked if a proportion of suicide gankers are lazy and couldn't be arsed scanning them down all day.

Unhindered bot mining, here we come. Watch the mineral prices plummet.


Hi Aggressive Nutmeg,

I hear what you are saying. But from my limited understanding the Bot Programs have to "interface" with the game via a simulated keyboard and mouse and by "Seeing" and then interpreting the screen. I think this could make scanning very hard for Bot programs. Unless of course there is a sure-fire "method" that could become an algorithm that will always render a resolved "Site" then I don't see it happening. The "Bot" program would have to "See" the little arrows on the probe squares as well as interpret the image past the spinning spheres - as well as "Seeing" the sites and, (in 3 dimensions), allign the probe formation over the target sites. . . I just see the Probe mini game as the closest thing to a Captcha EvE has.

I really think/hope it would defeat the Bots. I hope you are wrong - but I'm not a programmer and you may see how to get past the above issues - so it could come to be that what you predict is what happens.

But I still think this is the most elegant suggestion I've seen for ages. It will add gameplay. It will add fun to mining. So even if it doesn't get rid of Bots it still has merit. If it can reduce Botting then that is just a brilliant bonus!
Benteen
Atra Mortis Industries
#48 - 2012-03-20 20:19:12 UTC
Claire Raynor wrote:
Aggressive Nutmeg wrote:
-1. This change won't negatively affect botters in the long run. And it might discourage new players.

It might even help botters Shocked if a proportion of suicide gankers are lazy and couldn't be arsed scanning them down all day.

Unhindered bot mining, here we come. Watch the mineral prices plummet.


Hi Aggressive Nutmeg,

I hear what you are saying. But from my limited understanding the Bot Programs have to "interface" with the game via a simulated keyboard and mouse and by "Seeing" and then interpreting the screen. I think this could make scanning very hard for Bot programs. Unless of course there is a sure-fire "method" that could become an algorithm that will always render a resolved "Site" then I don't see it happening. The "Bot" program would have to "See" the little arrows on the probe squares as well as interpret the image past the spinning spheres - as well as "Seeing" the sites and, (in 3 dimensions), align the probe formation over the target sites. . . I just see the Probe mini game as the closest thing to a Captcha EvE has.

I really think/hope it would defeat the Bots. I hope you are wrong - but I'm not a programmer and you may see how to get past the above issues - so it could come to be that what you predict is what happens.

But I still think this is the most elegant suggestion I've seen for ages. It will add game play. It will add fun to mining. So even if it doesn't get rid of Bots it still has merit. If it can reduce Botting then that is just a brilliant bonus!


It'd certainly add something to mining other than to warp around, lock the nearest shiney rock and shoot it until you've got it all in the hold then move to the next one. I'd love to see this in as it'll also make it a bit more complex for the Suicide Gankers to hit a normal miner... I'd assume a botter program would have to scan every so often as an algorithm which would probably make it easier to spot as it'd be scanning in a more regular pattern than a real player would.

The only losers would be the lazy people and potentially the botters if it was implemented as has been discussed here and the new players are taught to scan (I never saw a tutorial for it though they might have one now).
Tina Mori
Maniacal Miners INC
The Legends In The Game
#49 - 2012-03-26 22:39:11 UTC
You are aware that Ice used to be available in very hi-sec system, ie Jita?

CCP removed all ore from high traffic systems because of lag, now the lag problem is fixed, no ore has been put back

If you look, you`ll find that Caldari regions have the least amount of Ice already, because of it
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#50 - 2012-03-27 15:58:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
I support this idea.

Make the sites contain only one type of ore, so people can look for ore-specific signatures instead of stripping sites of only a specific ore and letting it despawn.

Give sites a despawn timer (unless they are mined out) of a week. This way it will reduce the amount of available resources in busy areas and create signature-rich pockets that explorers can search for (or a few rare null-sec signatures in high sec).

A big advantage of using this system is that mining involves more steps and types of players. It is also much easier to tweak this system to modifiy spawnrate and location.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Adrian Slave Toucher
Doomheim
#51 - 2012-04-05 00:57:24 UTC
+1...


Also, support touching your slaves
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#52 - 2012-04-05 05:33:08 UTC
Voddick wrote:
Issue
Respawning belts just don’t make sense from a RP or anti-bot perspective. Remove them from the game and spawn random, small ice and ore Gravimetric sites instead. Idea


Criteria
It is critical that these mining sites in empire be accessible from the system scanner and not probes to ensure mining remains ‘new-player’ friendly. These sites should be small enough to last 30 minutes or so (40,000 m3) in a hulk before running out of ore. Also, a site despawn time of 3 to 4 hours should be set to ensure that fresh sites are always available.


Low Sec
Low sec should have full access to the high end ores and ice currently found only in null sec. They should also offer increasing quantities of ore to facilitate large, group mining ops. Everyone knows that no one bothers mining in low sec because the ore value is trivial. Low sec is every bit, if not more dangerous than null sec. The rewards should reflect this.


Null Sec
Low and null sec mining sites should require scan probes to find to reflect their difficulty and value. Without this mechanic low sec roams would consist of jumping into a system, hitting scan and then warping in on a “helpless” mining op. With probes, the miners can at least have a fighting chance with the directional scan and local.


Bots can be programmed to scan you know.

And some of us just dont care about RP.

So no.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#53 - 2012-04-05 13:39:58 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
Bots can be programmed to scan you know.

Not that I particularly agree with the OP, but do you have any evidence that there is a scanning bot? I've certainly never heard of one.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#54 - 2012-04-05 17:05:51 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Bots can be programmed to scan you know.

Not that I particularly agree with the OP, but do you have any evidence that there is a scanning bot? I've certainly never heard of one.


If they can mine roids or gank rats... they can use d-scan or probes.

Its all in the config.

As for substantive evidence? I have none.

But it doesn't take allot of imagination and common sense to see its plausible.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#55 - 2012-04-05 17:29:32 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
If they can mine roids or gank rats... they can use d-scan or probes.

Its all in the config.

As for substantive evidence? I have none.

But it doesn't take allot of imagination and common sense to see its plausible.

I especially like the part where you use evidence to support your hypothesis.

Probing is different from utilizing d-scan or killing rats, due to the fact that it requires intuitive use of a 3 dimensional interface. But if you wish for evidence beyond that, just look at the bots available. None of them have probing functionality.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination or common sense to claim that incursion bots are plausible, that doesn't mean it's technically possible or viable. No matter how much imagination you have, technical limitations are technical limitations.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Zircon Dasher
#56 - 2012-04-05 18:12:13 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:

But if you wish for evidence beyond that, just look at the bots available. None of them have probing functionality.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination or common sense to claim that incursion bots are plausible, that doesn't mean it's technically possible or viable. No matter how much imagination you have, technical limitations are technical limitations.


"I was on the sites that sell botting programs just to do research...... honest!!"

Discussing the way someone may go about cheating is frowned upon by CCP.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#57 - 2012-04-05 18:20:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Simi Kusoni
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:

But if you wish for evidence beyond that, just look at the bots available. None of them have probing functionality.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination or common sense to claim that incursion bots are plausible, that doesn't mean it's technically possible or viable. No matter how much imagination you have, technical limitations are technical limitations.


"I was on the sites that sell botting programs just to do research...... honest!!"

Discussing the way someone may go about cheating is frowned upon by CCP.

Bots and their capabilities are well known, discussion of them is frowned upon only when you are naming them, linking to sites or (to a lesser degree) promoting their use.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#58 - 2012-04-05 21:05:24 UTC
I've suggesting this for a while. Give barges and exhumers a new high slot expressly built for a new "mining probe launcher" that fires specialized probes that only detect grav sites. Remove belts and replace them with grav sites that always respawn in system during downtime. It won't eliminate botting, but it will make it harder.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Kneebone
K-H Light Industries
#59 - 2012-04-06 00:30:36 UTC
The ramifications of removing static belts goes beyond mining and I feel are being overlooked by many who are posting in this thread. There are plenty of people that rat in High/Low/Null for bounties, rep grinding, ISK making, etc. The static belts also give way to PvP in the belts. Removing static belts in low/null and requiring them to be scanned with a probe launcher will be a massive change to the fabric of low and null.

CCP would need to balance the mining aspect with the PvE and PvP relationships of belts.
Zircon Dasher
#60 - 2012-04-06 02:25:57 UTC
Kneebone wrote:
The ramifications of removing static belts goes beyond mining and I feel are being overlooked by many who are posting in this thread. There are plenty of people that rat in High/Low/Null for bounties, rep grinding, ISK making, etc. The static belts also give way to PvP in the belts. Removing static belts in low/null and requiring them to be scanned with a probe launcher will be a massive change to the fabric of low and null.

CCP would need to balance the mining aspect with the PvE and PvP relationships of belts.


Already a large portion of PVP happens on gates and stations, and "waiting at top belt" PVP would just change to "waiting at top planet" PVP. So is your objection that ratters and miners will be too safe from roaming ganks?

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.