Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
novellus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 21:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
The problem:
EVE is a beautiful game, and has a really cool immersive "space" feel. Planets are AU apart. A kilometer is actually a kilometer. Planets orbit their respective star, and moons orbit their respective planets (albeit, they don't move *sadface*).
One thing that feels like a major break from this "space exploring" feel (read: immersion) is the asteroid belts. Simply put, the asteroid belts in EVE don't make any sense. You have hundreds of small rocks within a 50km radius, that respawn, and that's considered a belt. Wait, what?? That's just weird :x
Where are the grand vistas of asteroid belts stretching off into the endless horizon? Where are the massive chunks of space-rock with veins of veldspar, omber and plagioclase hidden underneath its surface?
Since the original conception of asteroid belts, EVE has dramatically changed. With the Odyssey expansion, scanning is now common-place, and has a very low barrier to entry. Which leads me to...
The idea:
Asteroid belts would be literal "belts" that encircle that system's star, with an orbital path similar to a planet.
Q: So what would being at an asteroid belt look like? A: Instead of a 50km arc of depletable space-rocks, instead, you'll see a line of asteroids that may be 10km wide, stretching off into the infinite horizon, complete with rocks of varying density and size. You can quite literally travel down this line, and asteroids will be procedurally generated / removed from the grid as you travel.
Q: What about the current belts that exist in a system? A: Static belts in a system would be converted to warpable "belt beacons" that take you directly to the asteroid belt, at a particular point in the belt's orbit. You do not need to scan down these sites.
Q: What about scan-able sites? A: Yes! Because of density/gravity fluctuations over millions of years, asteroid belts have regions where certain types of ore tend to cluster together (or some other semi-reasonable explanation). Let's call them "density cluster" sites. A density cluster site can be scanned down much like how an anomaly can be scanned down, and certain types of ore can be found in its highest abundance.
Q: Can I just warp to some random point on the belt and just mine to my heart's content? A: You can! It's just that the ore to be found there is decent (good), compared to the known warpable beacon sites (better), or the scan-able density cluster sites (best). As always, combat scan probes can uncover your sorry mining butt.
Q: Wouldn't procedurally generated asteroids affect performance? A: Not if it's done right. A new "endless" asteroid belt such as what I'm proposing would be more spread out, especially compared to what is currently found in EVE. To compensate, asteroid size would be increased, and the spacing tweaked accordingly. This smallish number of large, procedurally generated asteroids would be created/removed from grid as someone travels and its path. Most of these "filler" asteroids would be empty husks of useless material, or some form of cheapish generic material (veldspar veins, anyone?).
Q: If asteroids are larger, how are they depleted, to keep in balance with what currently exists? A: Asteroids would have "veins" that would be depleted; the actual asteroid itself wouldn't disappear. Multiple veins can exist on a single asteroid, so you would manually need to switch veins as you deplete them. Almost exactly the same gameplay process that currently exists, but more interesting and realistic.
Q: Could you sneak in a mini-game here? A: I never thought you would ask! With the implementation of asteroid "veins" on larger asteroids, you could follow a vein with your mining laayyzzaars, or you can uncover new veins, that gives you additional bonuses as you mine (so "active miners" are more generously compensated over afk miners).
Q: Why hasn't been posted before / Wasn't this posted before? A: It has, of course--no idea is completely new. But I tried to present this in a unique, refreshing light.
Thanks for reading! |
Sarah Stallman
International Unification
59
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 21:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
This would actually be a lot of fun. If the minigame worked in a way so as to dramatically reward people who pay attention to what they're doing over people who don't, we could greatly reduce the tendency to ISBox huge mining fleets. I would imagine that the reduction of massive alt-fleets would be enough to counteract the flood of minerals we would otherwise endure.
Even better, if we can drive the price of minerals down while simultaneously increases mining yield everyone would come out ahead. |
novellus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 23:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
Yep -- people paying attention would be a huge step up. I think mining needs a little bit of love. It's currently the most boring, terrible aspect of the game and could use a facelift. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
625
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 23:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
This is a cool idea, and I don't even mine. I doubt it will ever happen, but I'll give it a +1. |
Zerlestes
Mechanized Industrial Warfare Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 23:29:00 -
[5] - Quote
its not terrible its a job i do i f i like to relax or like some income and read a book at the same time ( in empire)
some people have reached the perfect miner they like mining and cant get more yield per skill or imp and the find new ways to perfect mining
aka not managing 1 ship a fleet of ships
without is boxer even 6 accs is possible if mining changes to a playstyle were multiboxing isnt possible many people leave eve or many accs cant be used anymore |
novellus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 23:32:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'm not advocating removing multi-boxing mining. I do, however, think that rewarding active-play (with additional bonuses) might be interesting. |
Sarah Stallman
International Unification
61
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 23:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Zerlestes wrote: without is boxer even 6 accs is possible if mining changes to a playstyle were multiboxing isnt possible many people leave eve or many accs cant be used anymore
As presented, mining via IS Boxer would still be possible, but the yield would drop off dramatically. |
Zella Polaris
Pitchfork Militia Catastrophic Uprising
40
|
Posted - 2013.11.15 23:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
A hundred, no, a thousand -- no, A MILLION TIMES THIS.
I WOULD MINE. I would become the biggest carebear the universe had to offer if this actually happened. Please, CCP. This is a fighter for the Pitchfork Militia corporation. Threat level: Meh |
Zerlestes
Mechanized Industrial Warfare Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 00:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
fly a hulk thats aktive mining or a Covetor more yield and aktive mining
better belts hell Yeah other mining mechaniks No
miners need more long term content its not ok that a char can reach the yield of a mack in under 2 weeks |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
201
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 00:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
First, you are welcome for reading your idea.
Second, this is really cool. The asteroid "belts" in Eve feel more like a series of rouge asteroids that got clobbered by the gravity of a passing planet rather than actual belts; and that has always bothered me. This actually makes them into belts.
Third (concerning the whole "reward the active players" idea), it gives incentives to a desired play-style (actively mining) rather than cutting out an undesired play-style (afk mining). No, I don't afk mine nor do I multi-box a fleet of exhumers, but I would rather a system that gives players a reason to mine actively at keyboard than one that kills it for those that do afk mine/multi-box mine just cause I don't.
+1 |
|
Zerlestes
Mechanized Industrial Warfare Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 00:19:00 -
[11] - Quote
the whole reward the active players idea need to be balanced t cant be that 1 aktive player makes more than 2 or 3 players using the not so aktive way |
Sarah Stallman
International Unification
61
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 00:26:00 -
[12] - Quote
Zerlestes wrote:the whole reward the active players idea need to be balanced t cant be that 1 aktive player makes more than 2 or 3 players using the not so aktive way
Why not? Do we want to rebalance it so a less attentive player is as good at other activities, like station trading or plexing? |
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Desperado-Enforcement LLC
26
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 00:33:00 -
[13] - Quote
If even a tiny portion of this was implemented it would be an improvement. You've described performance as not a problem, but even with lower density, the number of 'roids needed to fill a belt would be immense. I could see this being implemented at a limited scale with belts that orbit planets instead of the star, but having a belt diameter of over 100,000km is not feasible. (set up an interceptor with mwd and do a fly by of a planet, you'll see what I mean, at 5 km/s you can travel 432000km per 24 hrs). Some fancy grid loading mechanics could be used to cover for dynamic generation of asteroids, but it would be pretty strange to implement.
Mining needs an overhaul, and including some of the exploration mechanics would be a good way to do that. Also, having the ability to mine off grid from any easy warp ins other than probing would give a significant amount of protection from griefers without preventing ganks all together. I hate to disagree with you,-ábut there is nothing subjective about "boring" in connection to "mining". -á-á-á-á -- Solstice Project's Alt |
Zerlestes
Mechanized Industrial Warfare Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 00:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
nope only that the main point off mining the reason many players mine and like to mine is that its not so aktive if anyone likes to mine aktiv there are more then enought ways time the lasers use the survey scanner fly a Covetor
my main point is lets say i play with 2 accs
(and multiboxing is in eve more than common i think in the statistik every eve player has 2,5 accs)
and mine the not so aktive way with 2 accs and have the same ammount or more work than one aktive miner if i dont have more yield i think then is something wrong |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
681
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 00:46:00 -
[15] - Quote
What we'd need for this to work is the planet beacons to be actually placed at the centre of the planet. but have the diameter of the planet +10% so that when you warp to the planet you end up in whatever belt surrounds it.
Not having people war from different sides of the system to land in exactly the same spot as now.
Each planet could say have multiple belts at different 'depth zones' from the planet. one at 0 for example would be 10000km from the planet etc and maybe one at 100000km from the planet. It would take a rework of some of the warp to mechanics but I reckon could be done.
This would actually afford a lot of surprise gank protection as to reliably gank a miner you'd have to know exactly where they warped from and to what belt they warped to to land anywhere near them. Of course you could still scan them down with probes etc to get a pinpoint but then you risk them seeing the probes and warping off.
I like it. Bring back some of the feel of the original Frontier game I played decades ago. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
http://taoistdragon.blogspot.com.au/ |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
581
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 01:02:00 -
[16] - Quote
Can we put more NPC rats in the belts to make mining somewhat more challenging? Hostile NPC miners would also be an interesting touch to add some competition. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Sarah Stallman
International Unification
62
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 01:52:00 -
[17] - Quote
Zerlestes wrote:i think its not fair to bind the yield to things like miningames
I also mine with three accounts, but I find the current system dull and pointless. It's an easy way to slowly make **** for money, yes, but I could honestly get more value for my time flipping burgers at McDonald's and buy PLEX. The only reason anyone mines is because the game depends on it, not because any significant number of people actually enjoy it.
Now, this is not to say the mini-games need to be particularly hard or involved. I am not at all opposed to multi-account mining, but there should definitely be some serious diminishing returns. |
Caviar Liberta
Moira. Villore Accords
213
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 02:39:00 -
[18] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Can we put more NPC rats in the belts to make mining somewhat more challenging? Hostile NPC miners would also be an interesting touch to add some competition.
Someone sits there cloaked for the NPC hauler. Pop the hauler and thanks for doing the minning NPC.
Not sure if they are still in game but some npc use to drop minerals. |
Zerlestes
Mechanized Industrial Warfare Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 02:48:00 -
[19] - Quote
there are people who enjoy it i love mining and i know i m one in 10.000 but there are hardcore miner who do nothing else then mining seeking the last % yield in there setup |
Sarah Stallman
International Unification
62
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 02:59:00 -
[20] - Quote
I too am one of the strange people who enjoy mining, but by that I mean I enjoy getting ISK to play something else. The total amount of minerals being pulled after any change needs to be about stable for the market's sake. So anything that reduces the number of alt mining fleets must be offset by an increase in individual production. So you'll be seeing a lot more corp ops and less solo alt fleets. This is good for almost everyone. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
582
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 03:07:00 -
[21] - Quote
Caviar Liberta wrote:Someone sits there cloaked for the NPC hauler. Pop the hauler and thanks for doing the minning NPC. Not sure if they are still in game but some npc use to drop minerals. I was thinking more along the lines that they compete with player miners by actively deplete any minerals - I wasn't necessarily thinking they'd drop vast amounts of loot (if any). I was also thinking they'd be more heavily armed and armoured, so as to pose a bit more of a threat to miners (especially AFK ones). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
FlinchingNinja Kishunuba
Crunchy Crunchy Zero Hour Alliance
218
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 03:21:00 -
[22] - Quote
The problem is that if CCP get anything wrong and miners are put off and shift activity or leave Eve would suffer massively. The only option I see is similar to the current POS method, rather than a major change of existing mechanics start adding new parts. You can then shift from a legacy active method to a new active method. You can then review and dial down the legacy carefully with more control and reduce shock.
Planet ring mining is a method for this in my opinion. It could do what you suggest in parallel with the current system and allow a controlled active-active shift with close review. You can then refresh the asteroid belt system with a fallback to the ring system if required. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
583
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 04:52:00 -
[23] - Quote
FlinchingNinja Kishunuba wrote:The upside is that if CCP get anything wrong and bots are put off and shift activity or leave Eve would benefit greatly. Fixed it for you. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
FlinchingNinja Kishunuba
Crunchy Crunchy Zero Hour Alliance
219
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 05:00:00 -
[24] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:FlinchingNinja Kishunuba wrote:The upside is that if CCP get anything wrong and bots are put off and shift activity or leave Eve would benefit greatly. Fixed it for you.
Agree bots are an issue but this thread isn't about that. |
Sarah Stallman
International Unification
62
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 05:06:00 -
[25] - Quote
Well, except that it kind of is. Mining is a simple enough activity that I suspect it is exceedingly hard to find. Just need enough random variation to pretend to be human, but on the whole it's just emulating three mouse clicks per rock. Having the interaction be slightly more complex would assist in finding these bots. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1085
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 05:11:00 -
[26] - Quote
I hate mining. I hate miners. I do like admiring scenic vistas. This sounds like something I would visit. Even with miners floating about, picking at the ore.
If mining requires more intelligence than that of a potato (it currently does not) then perhaps it would encourage a new type of miner. One who I wouldn't hate and one who would not inspire me to keep the Catalysts rolling off the production line.
+1 for scenic vistas of majestic space-rocks glittering in the harsh unfiltered light of an active star.
+1 for a change to mining that will make it more interesting.
+1 for putting zombified ISBotter fleets at less of a staggering advantage compared to living breathing 1- or 2-account humans. Being successful in EVE should require fewer alts, no matter what you're doing. |
Isis Dea
State Protectorate Caldari State
368
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 07:21:00 -
[27] - Quote
+1 CCP should endorse. |
Will Harold
Derelik Mining Coalition
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 07:36:00 -
[28] - Quote
I will support this. +1 |
Anomaly One
30
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 08:31:00 -
[29] - Quote
-1 from me, there are many ways to add to active mining, having to use explosives for the rock, explosive roids, random comets landing on grid to be mined, better drones etc. this one isn't good.
also Quote: You can quite literally travel down this line, and asteroids will be procedurally generated / removed from the grid as you travel. this doesn't add to immersion at all, seeing rocks appear as I travel down the line, I pretty much rather they keep it this way, warp to belts etc. and add NEW rare belts or something that can be discovered from scanning, along with the other changed proposed to mining a long time ago, using mines, explosives... no more "minigames" especially for mining. *~~*running my own mission and have some class bully run up and blow me up because they think its funny, then give the excuses that I was just firing fireworks at you*~~* |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
585
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 08:32:00 -
[30] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:+1 for putting zombified ISBotter fleets at less of a staggering advantage compared to living breathing 1- or 2-account humans. Being successful in EVE should require fewer alts, no matter what you're doing. CCP needs to introduce roving drone fleets that suicide-gank mining bot fleets. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |