No, pretty terrible idea fashioned around what you’d like and not what would be better for the game.
2 Likes
Look, if bots can be adapted to something with a random element such as courier missions, how would dynamic belt spawns change anything at all?
Right now basic bot concept is warp to book mark, lock first item in overview (set to asteroids only), mine.
With dynamic… Open probe window, filter to only ore anomalies, warp to belt. Lock closest target (again roid only overview), approach and mine.
This does nothing to stop a botter except May be add a line or two of commands. Yet for this you want to waste how many hours of code/development? Or worse, you want to waste this effort just because static belts bother you?
I’m all for change and improvement. We should all strive for perfection. However, I can see a bad trade off when presented. This is a bad tradeoff. Yeah May be if every other problem and wish list item was solved, great make belts dynamic. Till then, no.
And if you suggest the belts need to be probed down… So you are asking new players to have to train proving just to mine? Seems like a bad idea to me.
2 Likes
the biggest issue is risk/reward for these.
NPC fleets hit stupid hard, and have tiny amounts of reward for bopping them off grid.
1 Like
The haulers have a change to drop bpcs for the better versions of the heavy mining drones, those used by Rorquals. Those are very lucrative. Shout the hauler, warp out, probe the hauler down and kill it.
At a very low chance. Have to keep average isk in mind, and when you do, you find it’s not really that great.
1 Like
Are you under the impression that AFK mining means mining while not logged in?
Also this sounds like a reward to miners since it would be more difficult to gank them.
Moon mining activities also requires a structure to pop the moon stuff. Do you suggest a structure be required to mining minerals? If so that would be a huge disadvantage to new industrialists and cause the price of ships and modules to skyrocket.
Also, just because people complain about something doesn’t mean it needs to be fixed or changed to satisfy the complainers. Sometimes they just need to stfu or have people ignore, as is the case with people who cry about miners.
Theres no reason to touch the regular belt mining. In hi sec the rocks dont last that long anyway to be mined afk. Only part in this game where the bot mining and afk mining is a thing is null sec ore anomalies. Whats the solution? I have no idea
The good news is that you’re a quick study. There’s nothing of value here.
OP mistakenly believes that his personal problems are game design problems.
My mining crystals degrade.
So, you could make all types of miners use crystals.
Well, except civilian lasers.
I wouldn’t hate that.
–Rock Smiting Gadget
Great to see many against this, I expected gankers to be against this because the have to actually go hunting, as silly as people think this is it is my belief that if your gonna worry about a fleet of mining ships because they do as they do doo, then give everyone the ability to mine afk.
All things being equal people will still be unhappy, my point being if this is a non issue then it is, static belts encourage bots, anomalies such as guristas forsaken anoms, mission mining, and the new moon mining should be the new way to mine.
Statics are bit obsolete with enough places to mine, especially now with the addition of the moon mining.
But you have yet to prove that dynamically spawning belts discourage botters. If a bot can be setup to run courier missions which do contain dynamic start and stop points, dynamic belt spawns should pose no problems. Heck, ice belts do have dynamic spawns and there still seems to be botters happily running those sites.
So you are asking for added complexity requiring programming resources on something that won’t even accomplish one of your states goals. Why is this a good idea again?
1 Like
Well the canonical reason is that they used to use various other methods like those giant space drills but some clever nugget discovered how to make the lasers work so they went with that.
I did mining IRL as a blast hole driller. Drill a hole, fill it with explosives, blow it up.
Mining with a laser is hare-brained but sure lets say 20k years of technological development partially cracks the rock in addition to sucking it up. I’ve always wondered why there wasn’t a more resource intensive way of doing it that produced better yields. Surely introducing a cost to some forms of mining fleets is better than everything converging on rorqual fleets.
1 Like
Well, it is supposed to be a laser combined with a localized tractor beam.
Though I do agree with you about the costs.
–Gadget pew-pews rocks dead
2 Likes
Is there anything beyond a whiny non sequitur here?
Nobody objects to people mining. Nobody is particularly worried about it, at least beyond the scope of macroeconomic theorycrafting and thin veneers of roleplay.
Ganks don’t happen because the gankers have strong feelings about whatever activity the gankee is engaging in. Ganks happen because blowing ■■■■ up is fun and the gankee was available to be blown up.
1 Like
Proving or disproving botting can or cannot be done doesn’t matter, it will happen, static belts or not, bots do many in game activities, allowing ALL players to choose to either harvest from planet side or to actively find anomalies, missions, or moon mining, if I give the wrong impression, maybe I should make it bit more clear, if people choose planet side AFK mining then make it less efficient then actually being out in the roids.
Some how people also worry that being able to AFK mine ore planet side will wreck the economy, PI as it is open to all (except alphas), hasn’t wrecked the economy, I think it’s a load of doodler doo’s to say that it will, in fact those that choose to do it get a double wammy, lower efficiency (then space mining), and taxed to export, this benefits the custom station owners, it also has the incentive of pushing people to actively find asteroids by seeking them out (missions, anoms, moons), instead of static belts.
I will never convince people who have already closed their minds to it, but they will moan on about the need for change.
Take this for instance, take it from someone who’s very existence relies on doing one thing, over and over again, day in and day out, they don’t want change, it hurts their play style yet this whole code thing started because someone was worried about others and how they play using the very mechanics of the game (which they have no control over), others gas on about “its tax free” yet others say '“just because you mined them it isn’t free” so many contradictions, so many gassing on about ONE activity…mining, now take the ideal put forth, yet there is no trying to put up something maybe I overlooked that could be key, my goodness why is mining so demonized over other activities?
PI doesn’t wreck the economy because it’s horrible. The interface is terrible, it requires constant clicks, in short it runs like a bad mobile game.
If CCP were to make a new mechanic with an interface as bad as PI, they would be lynched. See the lynching over the agency window yet that is far better than PI is.
if the mechanic were not as bad as PI, then it would be done by a lot more people.
And any offline method like PI can be done by 3 characters per account also, while online methods can only be done by 1.
1 Like
Which, is why I said
No kidding PI interface is bad, I also posted a possible fix, allow raw PI materials to be refined into tier products in engineering or refineries, but that went no where, people want change, present something and nobody can come to any consensus, such is the koo koo’s nest.
Just make it a citadel module option. Depending on the grade of the module and citadel, will influence on the type and count of NPCs that a citadel will launch.
- Requires a corp which leaves the player/s to war-dec
- generates competition if another outfit operates in system
- fuel consumption stimulates the market
- get players away from a play-style so at odds with the rest of the game
For those that still need a mining fix, go into Resource Wars or a Mining Mission Agent.
I don’t wholly agree with your assessment. Ganking may indeed be a repetitious endeavor,but I don’t think its components are. Each situation might contain different variables leading to a similar conclusion. Mining on the other hand surely is. Your idea won’t get much traction with the miners. Your saying a ganker won’t like it because from unwillingness to change. Perhaps. I think its more you are eliminating a niche in the game by the proposal. Saying it evolved out of worry is nonsense. That is what a ganker will object to. This idea won’t work as it upset the hierarchical nature that is long established. Keeping in mind,that establishment is reinforced each day by the Miner’s unwillingness to meet the challenge. Flipside is the gankers awareness of the niche and capitalizing on it. It really looks like a veiled attempt to upset that balance.
Using botting issues as a reason is not something I see as a valid reason. It won’t stop rmt efforts,which are inevitably linked to botting and afk practices. Even if rmt isn’t the driving mechanism there is still an overarching drive. That is PLEX.
Sorry,but I can’t follow this line of thought and agree with it.
I may have misread your post. My response is with the inclusive quote you chose and that player being known as a ganker. However I think I got it right.
2 Likes
Works for me…a bit of tweaking to ensure that there is no serious shock to the mineral markets and I’m fine with it.
Ouch…
1 Like