These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Specific Examples of Where Risk Should Be Inserted Successfully Into High-sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#521 - 2012-10-11 23:26:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
This becomes untrue if there is a legitimate risk to the AFK miner. A legitimate risk is desirable, as it holds the ATK player's attention.

As you and many others pointed out that risk could be reduced through fitting or as ganking proved could still be taken without concern but with greater possibility of consequence.

And by changing fittings, yield will be trimmed down, accomplishing the stated goals of this thread's OP.

That's right. Risk works.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#522 - 2012-10-11 23:30:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Darth Gustav wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
This becomes untrue if there is a legitimate risk to the AFK miner. A legitimate risk is desirable, as it holds the ATK player's attention.

As you and many others pointed out that risk could be reduced through fitting or as ganking proved could still be taken without concern but with greater possibility of consequence.

And by changing fittings, supply will be trimmed down, accomplishing the stated goals of this thread's OP.

That's right. Risk works.

I agreed on that earlier in the thread, but my latest series of posts were more directed at La Nariz and Andski's claims that AFK mining was unwelcome in any form and an EULA violation equivalent to the AFK PvE exploit declared not to long ago when CCP has, or appears to have, a clear distinction between the two.

Edit: And more importantly the fact that subsequent interaction is needed to continue gaining reward is needed while AFK mining but not needed in the AFK PvE exploit.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#523 - 2012-10-11 23:35:56 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
This becomes untrue if there is a legitimate risk to the AFK miner. A legitimate risk is desirable, as it holds the ATK player's attention.

As you and many others pointed out that risk could be reduced through fitting or as ganking proved could still be taken without concern but with greater possibility of consequence.

And by changing fittings, supply will be trimmed down, accomplishing the stated goals of this thread's OP.

That's right. Risk works.

I agreed on that earlier in the thread, but my latest series of posts were more directed at La Nariz and Andski's claims that AFK mining was unwelcome in any form and an EULA violation equivalent to the AFK PvE exploit declared not to long ago when CCP has, or appears to have, a clear distinction between the two.

Edit: And more importantly the fact that subsequent interaction is needed to continue gaining reward is needed while AFK mining but not needed in the AFK PvE exploit.

If there is a distinction it is not made in the EULA.

Clearly mining for endless hours while nominally not paying attention anymore than once per hour or so is not intended.

No other profession's ships are expected to function while their player/captain is mowing the lawn, for example.

This makes mining AFK a clear violation of the aforementioned clause of the EULA, specifically; one can not use a specific type of gameplay to earn items faster than others under similar conditions.

It is absolutely certain that most professions in Eve are impossible to efficiently perform while AFK.

How can this not be a violation of the EULA?

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#524 - 2012-10-12 00:00:28 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
This becomes untrue if there is a legitimate risk to the AFK miner. A legitimate risk is desirable, as it holds the ATK player's attention.

As you and many others pointed out that risk could be reduced through fitting or as ganking proved could still be taken without concern but with greater possibility of consequence.

And by changing fittings, supply will be trimmed down, accomplishing the stated goals of this thread's OP.

That's right. Risk works.

I agreed on that earlier in the thread, but my latest series of posts were more directed at La Nariz and Andski's claims that AFK mining was unwelcome in any form and an EULA violation equivalent to the AFK PvE exploit declared not to long ago when CCP has, or appears to have, a clear distinction between the two.

Edit: And more importantly the fact that subsequent interaction is needed to continue gaining reward is needed while AFK mining but not needed in the AFK PvE exploit.

If there is a distinction it is not made in the EULA.

Clearly mining for endless hours while nominally not paying attention anymore than once per hour or so is not intended.

No other profession's ships are expected to function while their player/captain is mowing the lawn, for example.

This makes mining AFK a clear violation of the aforementioned clause of the EULA, specifically; one can not use a specific type of gameplay to earn items faster than others under similar conditions.

It is absolutely certain that most professions in Eve are impossible to efficiently perform while AFK.

How can this not be a violation of the EULA?

Because it does not accrue items faster unless you redefine time. Apparently some find the redefinition of time acceptable while I do not. The issue at hand is user inputs. So long as a situation is not being setup where:

A: Inputs are being made via mechanation bypassing the need for user inputs or
B: A situation is being setup where user inputs can be avoided for longer than game mechanics were intended for

We should not have an issue. But we do, or so you contend. I contend otherwise for the following reasons:

1. CCP has set up the system which allows AFK mining to be viable:
- Long miner cycle times
- Asteriod ore content
- Limitless ice content
and has recently reinforced it.
- Enlarged base ore capacity with 2 ships surpassing what was possible with a fully cargo fit hulk prior
- Introduction of a new frigate which has a far longer mining time frame before needing emptied as compared to the mining frigates and cruisers that came before

2. CCP provides no avenue for a player to gain an advantage to being at the keyboard while at a belt over one who is not. There is no incentive to be the one at the keyboard.

3. Human inputs for continuing to gather more ore once limits of the resource or ship are reached cannot be bypassed without automation. An AFK player is not a botter and cannot reactivate his miners or empty his hold until he comes back to the keyboard at which point he is no longer AFK. As such beyond the point that the initial input have effectively expired the ship/character no longer creates any benefit for the player.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#525 - 2012-10-12 00:07:42 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Because it does not accrue items faster unless you redefine time. Apparently some find the redefinition of time acceptable while I do not. The issue at hand is user inputs. So long as a situation is not being setup where:

A: Inputs are being made via mechanation bypassing the need for user inputs or
B: A situation is being setup where user inputs can be avoided for longer than game mechanics were intended for

We should not have an issue. But we do, or so you contend. I contend otherwise for the following reasons:

1. CCP has set up the system which allows AFK mining to be viable:
- Long miner cycle times
- Asteriod ore content
- Limitless ice content
and has recently reinforced it.
- Enlarged base ore capacity with 2 ships surpassing what was possible with a fully cargo fit hulk prior
- Introduction of a new frigate which has a far longer mining time frame before needing emptied as compared to the mining frigates and cruisers that came before

2. CCP provides no avenue for a player to gain an advantage to being at the keyboard while at a belt over one who is not. There is no incentive to be the one at the keyboard.

3. Human inputs for continuing to gather more ore once limits of the resource or ship are reached cannot be bypassed without automation. An AFK player is not a botter and cannot reactivate his miners or empty his hold until he comes back to the keyboard at which point he is no longer AFK. As such beyond the point that the initial input have effectively expired the ship/character no longer creates any benefit for the player.

I'll stipulate that may be true. I'm not certain it doesn't qualify, but since CCP seem to be developing in the direction of flooding supply, I can agree it's not worth deliberation.

Its potential allowance under the EULA notwithstanding, it remains bad for Eve in every conceivable facet and should, at a minimum, be reasonably subjected to some form of increased risk, as stated in the OP. Devaluing a profession to the point where a new generation of players are not incentivized to participate in it is bad game design, and needs to be fixed.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#526 - 2012-10-12 00:08:32 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
It is absolutely certain that most professions in Eve are impossible to efficiently perform while AFK.

Addressing this directly, there are many professions which cannot draw any task related benefit from interaction:
Moon mining
PI
Mining
Manufacturing
Research
Skill training
Evei Shard
Shard Industries
#527 - 2012-10-12 00:13:04 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
It is absolutely certain that most professions in Eve are impossible to efficiently perform while AFK.

Addressing this directly, there are many professions which cannot draw any task related benefit from interaction:
Moon mining
PI
Mining
Manufacturing
Research
Skill training


Don't forget trading. Unless you are obsessive-compulsive about it, you can set up buy/sell orders and walk away for quite a while and still turn a decent profit.

Profit favors the prepared
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#528 - 2012-10-12 00:16:03 UTC
Evei Shard wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
It is absolutely certain that most professions in Eve are impossible to efficiently perform while AFK.

Addressing this directly, there are many professions which cannot draw any task related benefit from interaction:
Moon mining
PI
Mining
Manufacturing
Research
Skill training


Don't forget trading. Unless you are obsessive-compulsive about it, you can set up buy/sell orders and walk away for quite a while and still turn a decent profit.

As I already posted, I'm willing to stipulate this. It's not central to the theme that runaway supply due to negligible risk is bad for Eve. Devaluing a profession to uselessness is bad for every single player in the long-run.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Hecate Shaw
United Freemerchants Society
#529 - 2012-10-12 00:46:22 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Evei Shard wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
It is absolutely certain that most professions in Eve are impossible to efficiently perform while AFK.

Addressing this directly, there are many professions which cannot draw any task related benefit from interaction:
Moon mining
PI
Mining
Manufacturing
Research
Skill training


Don't forget trading. Unless you are obsessive-compulsive about it, you can set up buy/sell orders and walk away for quite a while and still turn a decent profit.

As I already posted, I'm willing to stipulate this. It's not central to the theme that runaway supply due to negligible risk is bad for Eve. Devaluing a profession to uselessness is bad for every single player in the long-run.
I think you are overlooking the fact that there is a built-in self-correction mechanism, though it is very slow to kick in. Simply put, if the prices of minerals drop too low, fewer people will bother mining. As more and more drift into more profitable areas, the price of minerals will slowly rise again (lower supply with equal demand equals rising prices) until it lures more miners in again. The cycle is self-correcting and repeating, with no need for intervention. The cycle time can be extremely long, but it is there and does work without the need for external intervention.

As much as I do think that some adjustments similar to those you outlined would be good for sheer novelty and to break up the tedium, the numbers would simply adjust - higher mineral prices created by your changes would last for a while, then more miners would be attracted and prices would drop once again. More than "risk", I think what is needed to lower the impact of bots and change the mining profession would be some means of engaging the miner, something for us to actually do that gets rid of the tedium. Contrary to what the gankers would say, the new mechanism would have to be something constant or at least frequent, and not likely to cost the miner a sizable fraction of the value of what they mine (unlike ganking).
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#530 - 2012-10-12 01:00:03 UTC
Hecate Shaw wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Evei Shard wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
It is absolutely certain that most professions in Eve are impossible to efficiently perform while AFK.

Addressing this directly, there are many professions which cannot draw any task related benefit from interaction:
Moon mining
PI
Mining
Manufacturing
Research
Skill training


Don't forget trading. Unless you are obsessive-compulsive about it, you can set up buy/sell orders and walk away for quite a while and still turn a decent profit.

As I already posted, I'm willing to stipulate this. It's not central to the theme that runaway supply due to negligible risk is bad for Eve. Devaluing a profession to uselessness is bad for every single player in the long-run.
I think you are overlooking the fact that there is a built-in self-correction mechanism, though it is very slow to kick in. Simply put, if the prices of minerals drop too low, fewer people will bother mining. As more and more drift into more profitable areas, the price of minerals will slowly rise again (lower supply with equal demand equals rising prices) until it lures more miners in again. The cycle is self-correcting and repeating, with no need for intervention. The cycle time can be extremely long, but it is there and does work without the need for external intervention.

As much as I do think that some adjustments similar to those you outlined would be good for sheer novelty and to break up the tedium, the numbers would simply adjust - higher mineral prices created by your changes would last for a while, then more miners would be attracted and prices would drop once again. More than "risk", I think what is needed to lower the impact of bots and change the mining profession would be some means of engaging the miner, something for us to actually do that gets rid of the tedium. Contrary to what the gankers would say, the new mechanism would have to be something constant or at least frequent, and not likely to cost the miner a sizable fraction of the value of what they mine (unlike ganking).

I'm not overlooking this mechanism. You're talking about the systematic devaluation of an entire profession. What happens to new players who want to get into mining, when the markets "regulate" prices to the point of it being useless?

You obviously seem to grasp the idea that risk can be beneficial. The opposite is true too - a lack of risk devalues not just materials, but the entire profession built around gathering them.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#531 - 2012-10-12 01:09:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Touval Lysander
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

And by changing fittings, yield will be trimmed down, accomplishing the stated goals of this thread's OP.

For those that don't know, apart from a DCII, tank on an exhumer is MID slots.

Fittings for yield is in the LOW slots.

ofc. We could fit shield and armor tank I suppose. C'mon... Why not? I reckon it's a great idea. MAKE them miners fit shield and armor.

Yeah, c'mon......

NO MORE having 3 MINING lasers on their MINING VESSEL. Make them carry 2 autos as well.
NO MORE Michii implants. MAKE them fit "go fast" implants.
NO MORE Orca MINING boosts. Make them use SKIRMISH WARFARE...

MAKE
THEM
DO
WHAT
I
WANT
CCP.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#532 - 2012-10-12 01:19:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Touval Lysander wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

And by changing fittings, yield will be trimmed down, accomplishing the stated goals of this thread's OP.

For those that don't know, apart from a DCII, tank on an exhumer is MID slots.

Fittings for yield is in the LOW slots.

I wasn't aware that exhumers had a large number of lows which made fitting a DCU not matter to yield much. Oh wait, they don't and never really have. Not to mention that was referring to prebuff when you needed a MAPC to fit a MSE. Between the DCU and MAPC those were both the lows on a hulk, meaning you had NO yield mods.

Edit: Further thinking about it with the advent of mining rigs those now compete with potential additional tank as well.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#533 - 2012-10-12 01:25:32 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

And by changing fittings, yield will be trimmed down, accomplishing the stated goals of this thread's OP.

For those that don't know, apart from a DCII, tank on an exhumer is MID slots.

Fittings for yield is in the LOW slots.

I wasn't aware that exhumers had a large number of lows which made fitting a DCU not matter to wield much. Oh wait, they don't and never really have. Not to mention that was referring to prebuff when you needed a MAPC to fit a MSE. Between the DCU and MAPC those were both the lows on a hulk, meaning you had NO yield mods.

Edit: Further thinking about it with the advent of mining rigs those now compete with potential additional tank as well.

Not to mention the fact that those mid-slot shield mods use a lot of CPU, which is then not available for mining upgrades.

I guess it's a good thing that sockpuppet strawman shows up in quotes. Roll

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#534 - 2012-10-12 01:27:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Darth Gustav wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

And by changing fittings, yield will be trimmed down, accomplishing the stated goals of this thread's OP.

For those that don't know, apart from a DCII, tank on an exhumer is MID slots.

Fittings for yield is in the LOW slots.

I wasn't aware that exhumers had a large number of lows which made fitting a DCU not matter to wield much. Oh wait, they don't and never really have. Not to mention that was referring to prebuff when you needed a MAPC to fit a MSE. Between the DCU and MAPC those were both the lows on a hulk, meaning you had NO yield mods.

Edit: Further thinking about it with the advent of mining rigs those now compete with potential additional tank as well.

Not to mention the fact that those mid-slot shield mods use a lot of CPU, which is then not available for mining upgrades.

I guess it's a good thing that sockpuppet strawman shows up in quotes. Roll

Be glad you didn't have to read the hyperbole rage that came after the part that was quoted.
Hecate Shaw
United Freemerchants Society
#535 - 2012-10-12 01:56:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Hecate Shaw
Darth Gustav wrote:
Hecate Shaw wrote:
I think you are overlooking the fact that there is a built-in self-correction mechanism, though it is very slow to kick in. Simply put, if the prices of minerals drop too low, fewer people will bother mining. As more and more drift into more profitable areas, the price of minerals will slowly rise again (lower supply with equal demand equals rising prices) until it lures more miners in again. The cycle is self-correcting and repeating, with no need for intervention. The cycle time can be extremely long, but it is there and does work without the need for external intervention.

As much as I do think that some adjustments similar to those you outlined would be good for sheer novelty and to break up the tedium, the numbers would simply adjust - higher mineral prices created by your changes would last for a while, then more miners would be attracted and prices would drop once again. More than "risk", I think what is needed to lower the impact of bots and change the mining profession would be some means of engaging the miner, something for us to actually do that gets rid of the tedium. Contrary to what the gankers would say, the new mechanism would have to be something constant or at least frequent, and not likely to cost the miner a sizable fraction of the value of what they mine (unlike ganking).

I'm not overlooking this mechanism. You're talking about the systematic devaluation of an entire profession. What happens to new players who want to get into mining, when the markets "regulate" prices to the point of it being useless?

You obviously seem to grasp the idea that risk can be beneficial. The opposite is true too - a lack of risk devalues not just materials, but the entire profession built around gathering them.

No, the entire profession won't be devalued, at least not for any length of time. It will rebound. As for new players, it depends; they will have minimal impact while using anything less than a barge, and by the time they are able use barges could just as easily drift to a different profession. Alternately, they could tough out the downturn and wait for values to go back up. You seem to be ignoring the simple fact that any "risks" of the type you are suggesting will have absolutely no long-term effect on mineral prices. Adding risk may drive some out of mining for a time, but the rising prices of minerals (via your own favorite supply-demand equation) will bring them back as soon as prices rise far enough. Numbers of miners and bots balloon, driving prices back down to previous levels, until the poor return makes them leave yet again. The cycle could ONLY be permanently altered by changing the way mining works or the level of supply, not by adding static risks. CCP needs to make mining more interactive to get rid of the bots and afk miners...THEN we will see prices settle at a new, slightly higher stable level, as there aren't enough legitimate miners to make up the difference in production when the bots vanish.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#536 - 2012-10-12 02:03:49 UTC
Hecate Shaw wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Hecate Shaw wrote:
I think you are overlooking the fact that there is a built-in self-correction mechanism, though it is very slow to kick in. Simply put, if the prices of minerals drop too low, fewer people will bother mining. As more and more drift into more profitable areas, the price of minerals will slowly rise again (lower supply with equal demand equals rising prices) until it lures more miners in again. The cycle is self-correcting and repeating, with no need for intervention. The cycle time can be extremely long, but it is there and does work without the need for external intervention.

As much as I do think that some adjustments similar to those you outlined would be good for sheer novelty and to break up the tedium, the numbers would simply adjust - higher mineral prices created by your changes would last for a while, then more miners would be attracted and prices would drop once again. More than "risk", I think what is needed to lower the impact of bots and change the mining profession would be some means of engaging the miner, something for us to actually do that gets rid of the tedium. Contrary to what the gankers would say, the new mechanism would have to be something constant or at least frequent, and not likely to cost the miner a sizable fraction of the value of what they mine (unlike ganking).

I'm not overlooking this mechanism. You're talking about the systematic devaluation of an entire profession. What happens to new players who want to get into mining, when the markets "regulate" prices to the point of it being useless?

You obviously seem to grasp the idea that risk can be beneficial. The opposite is true too - a lack of risk devalues not just materials, but the entire profession built around gathering them.

No, the entire profession won't be devalued, at least not for any length of time. It will rebound. As for new players, it depends; they will have minimal impact while using anything less than a barge, and by the time they are able use barges could just as easily drift to a different profession. Alternately, they could tough out the downturn and wait for values to go back up. You seem to be ignoring the simple fact that any "risks" of the type you are suggesting will have absolutely no long-term effect on mineral prices. Adding risk may drive some out of mining for a time, but the rising prices of minerals (via your own favorite supply-demand equation) will bring them back as soon as prices rise far enough. Numbers of miners and bots balloon, driving prices back down to previous levels, until the poor return makes them leave yet again. The cycle could ONLY be permanently altered by changing the way mining works or the level of supply, not by adding static risks. CCP needs to make mining more interactive to get rid of the bots and afk miners...THEN we will see prices settle at a new, slightly higher stable level, as there aren't enough legitimate miners to make up the difference in production when the bots vanish.

Tell me what prevents the profession from being devalued? Miners will suddenly exercise reserve and stop mining?

If and when that happens, the profession has been devalued to the extreme.

Any meaningful contribution to it is beyond any player's ability at that point, but new miners least of all.

Risk corrects this situation by balancing supply and demand.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Hecate Shaw
United Freemerchants Society
#537 - 2012-10-12 02:21:20 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Hecate Shaw wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Hecate Shaw wrote:
I think you are overlooking the fact that there is a built-in self-correction mechanism, though it is very slow to kick in. Simply put, if the prices of minerals drop too low, fewer people will bother mining. As more and more drift into more profitable areas, the price of minerals will slowly rise again (lower supply with equal demand equals rising prices) until it lures more miners in again. The cycle is self-correcting and repeating, with no need for intervention. The cycle time can be extremely long, but it is there and does work without the need for external intervention.

As much as I do think that some adjustments similar to those you outlined would be good for sheer novelty and to break up the tedium, the numbers would simply adjust - higher mineral prices created by your changes would last for a while, then more miners would be attracted and prices would drop once again. More than "risk", I think what is needed to lower the impact of bots and change the mining profession would be some means of engaging the miner, something for us to actually do that gets rid of the tedium. Contrary to what the gankers would say, the new mechanism would have to be something constant or at least frequent, and not likely to cost the miner a sizable fraction of the value of what they mine (unlike ganking).

I'm not overlooking this mechanism. You're talking about the systematic devaluation of an entire profession. What happens to new players who want to get into mining, when the markets "regulate" prices to the point of it being useless?

You obviously seem to grasp the idea that risk can be beneficial. The opposite is true too - a lack of risk devalues not just materials, but the entire profession built around gathering them.

No, the entire profession won't be devalued, at least not for any length of time. It will rebound. As for new players, it depends; they will have minimal impact while using anything less than a barge, and by the time they are able use barges could just as easily drift to a different profession. Alternately, they could tough out the downturn and wait for values to go back up. You seem to be ignoring the simple fact that any "risks" of the type you are suggesting will have absolutely no long-term effect on mineral prices. Adding risk may drive some out of mining for a time, but the rising prices of minerals (via your own favorite supply-demand equation) will bring them back as soon as prices rise far enough. Numbers of miners and bots balloon, driving prices back down to previous levels, until the poor return makes them leave yet again. The cycle could ONLY be permanently altered by changing the way mining works or the level of supply, not by adding static risks. CCP needs to make mining more interactive to get rid of the bots and afk miners...THEN we will see prices settle at a new, slightly higher stable level, as there aren't enough legitimate miners to make up the difference in production when the bots vanish.

Tell me what prevents the profession from being devalued? Miners will suddenly exercise reserve and stop mining?

If and when that happens, the profession has been devalued to the extreme.

Any meaningful contribution to it is beyond any player's ability at that point, but new miners least of all.

Risk corrects this situation by balancing supply and demand.
See, you've got the answer, just for the wrong reason. Miners WILL stop mining, because the rate of return is too low. Many human miners leave when it isn't worth their time, leaving just bots and afk miners. Prices temporarily go up (less supply, no change in demand). Ex-miners see rising prices, pull the ol' exhumers out of docks, and go back to mining. Mineral prices go down until the human miners decide it isn't worth their time (again), and the whole cycle repeats. Been seeing it since I started playing in '07. Efforts to affect risk (like the last time the rats were increased, or the various Hulkageddons and similar) have only had temporary effects on the prices of minerals; the markets soon fell back into their former levels and patterns. The answer is to reduce regular supply by getting rid of bots and true AFK miners.

Requiring interaction, either by needing to click some non-static target, interact with a changing interface, or even having to scan down smaller belts (say, four times as many as currently exist statically, but each a quarter the size) should get rid of all but the most hard-core bots. When mining is down to almost all human miners, the supply will go down (not as many of us as there are bots) and the prices up to a new stable average.

The point is, over the last 5 years I've seen new risks added to only temporary effect, risks removed to only temporary effect, NPC price ceilings removed to only temporary effect, and so on. The price crash you imagine is not going to happen; we may see a bottoming of the market, but it will rebound as it always has. The way to manage a more permanent fix is not through risks.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#538 - 2012-10-12 02:23:07 UTC
Hecate Shaw wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Hecate Shaw wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Hecate Shaw wrote:
I think you are overlooking the fact that there is a built-in self-correction mechanism, though it is very slow to kick in. Simply put, if the prices of minerals drop too low, fewer people will bother mining. As more and more drift into more profitable areas, the price of minerals will slowly rise again (lower supply with equal demand equals rising prices) until it lures more miners in again. The cycle is self-correcting and repeating, with no need for intervention. The cycle time can be extremely long, but it is there and does work without the need for external intervention.

As much as I do think that some adjustments similar to those you outlined would be good for sheer novelty and to break up the tedium, the numbers would simply adjust - higher mineral prices created by your changes would last for a while, then more miners would be attracted and prices would drop once again. More than "risk", I think what is needed to lower the impact of bots and change the mining profession would be some means of engaging the miner, something for us to actually do that gets rid of the tedium. Contrary to what the gankers would say, the new mechanism would have to be something constant or at least frequent, and not likely to cost the miner a sizable fraction of the value of what they mine (unlike ganking).

I'm not overlooking this mechanism. You're talking about the systematic devaluation of an entire profession. What happens to new players who want to get into mining, when the markets "regulate" prices to the point of it being useless?

You obviously seem to grasp the idea that risk can be beneficial. The opposite is true too - a lack of risk devalues not just materials, but the entire profession built around gathering them.

No, the entire profession won't be devalued, at least not for any length of time. It will rebound. As for new players, it depends; they will have minimal impact while using anything less than a barge, and by the time they are able use barges could just as easily drift to a different profession. Alternately, they could tough out the downturn and wait for values to go back up. You seem to be ignoring the simple fact that any "risks" of the type you are suggesting will have absolutely no long-term effect on mineral prices. Adding risk may drive some out of mining for a time, but the rising prices of minerals (via your own favorite supply-demand equation) will bring them back as soon as prices rise far enough. Numbers of miners and bots balloon, driving prices back down to previous levels, until the poor return makes them leave yet again. The cycle could ONLY be permanently altered by changing the way mining works or the level of supply, not by adding static risks. CCP needs to make mining more interactive to get rid of the bots and afk miners...THEN we will see prices settle at a new, slightly higher stable level, as there aren't enough legitimate miners to make up the difference in production when the bots vanish.

Tell me what prevents the profession from being devalued? Miners will suddenly exercise reserve and stop mining?

If and when that happens, the profession has been devalued to the extreme.

Any meaningful contribution to it is beyond any player's ability at that point, but new miners least of all.

Risk corrects this situation by balancing supply and demand.
See, you've got the answer, just for the wrong reason. Miners WILL stop mining, because the rate of return is too low. Many human miners leave when it isn't worth their time, leaving just bots and afk miners. Prices temporarily go up (less supply, no change in demand). Ex-miners see rising prices, pull the ol' exhumers out of docks, and go back to mining. Mineral prices go down until the human miners decide it isn't worth their time (again), and the whole cycle repeats. Been seeing it since I started playing in '07. Efforts to affect risk (like the last time the rats were increased, or the various Hulkageddons and similar) have only had temporary effects on the prices of minerals; the markets soon fell back into their former levels and patterns. The answer is to reduce regular supply by getting rid of bots and true AFK miners.

Requiring interaction, either by needing to click some non-static target, interact with a changing interface, or even having to scan down smaller belts (say, four times as many as currently exist statically, but each a quarter the size) should get rid of all but the most hard-core bots. When mining is down to almost all human miners, the supply will go down (not as many of us as there are bots) and the prices up to a new stable average.

The point is, over the last 5 years I've seen new risks added to only temporary effect, risks removed to only temporary effect, NPC price ceilings removed to only temporary effect, and so on. The price crash you imagine is not going to happen; we may see a bottoming of the market, but it will rebound as it always has. The way to manage a more permanent fix is not through risks.

I am trying to make sure that the current upswing in supply is only temporary by encouraging its logical counter.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#539 - 2012-10-12 02:54:11 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Be glad you didn't have to read the hyperbole rage that came after the part that was quoted.

He can see it. He's just faking it.

And really, if you believe that Darth or anyone else - and this is their argument - are the saviours of miners of Eve - then you have got rocks in your head.

Darth and his buddies want to BLOW you up. Cheaply and Easily.

Using markets etc. to justify this virtiole is a feint. They have an agenda and will use whatever means to attain it.

They have absolved themselves of the responsibility for having CCP act to stop the BS AND now they want to paint themselves as the saviours of miners. The CFC ****** up - they were warned repeatedly. They highlighted a problem and it was CORRECTED.

I repeat: Darth and his buddies want to BLOW you up. Cheaply and Easily

They don't give a **** about the markets or "valuing" the miners profession. If they did actually care, they'd use the myriad of options that have been put forward to make ganking profitable and just go do it.


"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Hecate Shaw
United Freemerchants Society
#540 - 2012-10-12 02:54:23 UTC
Try if you want, Darth, but don't be surprised if you don't accomplish anything more than having a lot of miners yelling at you. Me, I'll start being concerned if I see the price of trit drop below 2 isk, and won't actually think anything's really wrong until it drops below 1 isk.