These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

AFK: The State of Highsec Mining and the Effect of Upcoming Changes
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Serene Repose
#21 - 2016-08-30 22:03:06 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Soel Reit wrote:
CCP is helping noone (well except PLCool): they just realized a problem in the game and are trying to resolve it.
I know you are part of goons but don't take the same bad manners as mittens when he claims that BoB collapsed thanks to him when he did nothing Lol

helping is the wrong word.

What they did was finally taking a side.

The first rule of EVE is You consent to PvP when you undock.
This resonates with it!
They punish afk gameplay!
No afk fleet boosting unless you bot.

Lol

The first rule of EVE is "trust on one". You really need to brush up on your rule.

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Solecist Project
#22 - 2016-08-30 22:04:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
Edit: wow serene you jumped right in the middle.


@Soel:
The one you look up is the other side of the transaction.

You can't win this.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2016-08-30 22:05:41 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Soel Reit wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:

interaction requires presence.

there is no interaction between players when you randomly buy or sell.
it's a transactions of goods and isk which runs automatically.

For it to be interaction through transactions ...
... you'd have to be long time trader and not a miner.


you interact indirectly, but to the other end there is a player: you can check with who you actually interacted selling him goods through your wallet. Big smile

No.

You're wrong.


Interaction demands presence.


people can interact even if not present at the same time in the same place!
einstain docet Cool
Solecist Project
#24 - 2016-08-30 22:07:41 UTC
Which has nothing to do with the case ...
... because there is no interaction happening in our context. :)

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
max Tekitsu
HC - Ice Pirates
#25 - 2016-08-30 22:09:26 UTC
the bottom line is with these changes as proposed, will cut production of minerals to a 3rd of today's volume, thus ships will cost more and it will be less profitable to mine
Lawrence Lawton
The Lawton School for Pubbies Who Can't Mine Good
Novus Ordo.
#26 - 2016-08-30 22:10:53 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Soel Reit wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:

interaction requires presence.

there is no interaction between players when you randomly buy or sell.
it's a transactions of goods and isk which runs automatically.

For it to be interaction through transactions ...
... you'd have to be long time trader and not a miner.


you interact indirectly, but to the other end there is a player: you can check with who you actually interacted selling him goods through your wallet. Big smile

No.

You're wrong.


Interaction demands presence.


He has not contested that he does not interact with others while mining. He is merely seeking to justify it with market sales, which are a separate activity.
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2016-08-30 22:11:14 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Which has nothing to do with the case ...
... because there is no interaction happening in our context. :)


there is indeed
1 player --> interaction --> server --> interaction --> 2 player
now using math rules you simplify the same factors

1player --> 2player

--> = interaction
eureka!
Solecist Project
#28 - 2016-08-30 22:16:05 UTC
Soel Reit wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
Which has nothing to do with the case ...
... because there is no interaction happening in our context. :)


there is indeed
1 player --> interaction --> server --> interaction --> 2 player
now using math rules you simplify the same factors

1player --> 2player

--> = interaction
eureka!
Thanks!

Here i can safely conclude our conversation ...
... because you don't understand both the words "interaction" and "transaction".

And will report you for trolling if you go on, because you're behaving like an idiot.

Learn.
The.
Words.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2016-08-30 22:19:36 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Soel Reit wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
Which has nothing to do with the case ...
... because there is no interaction happening in our context. :)


there is indeed
1 player --> interaction --> server --> interaction --> 2 player
now using math rules you simplify the same factors

1player --> 2player

--> = interaction
eureka!
Thanks!

Here i can safely conclude our conversation ...
... because you don't understand both the words "interaction" and "transaction".

And will report you for trolling if you go on, because you're behaving like an idiot.

Learn.
The.
Words.


triggered Cool
you simply don't have any more arguments to put up with.
it's ok, i forgive you. Blink
Eternus8lux8lucis
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#30 - 2016-08-30 22:23:04 UTC
Sole.... I gotta side with Soel on this one. All things are interactions in this case through the medium of the internet irregardless of how many 'semi-anonymous' transactions take place through out the process.

If what you are saying is the case then A) we are not interacting here online right now. B) telephones, skype, etc arent interactions and C) nor are face to face interactions. The only thing that changes in the medium of the interaction not the interaction itself. By saying one is more or less the correct definition is just a semantic argument.




@OP: The idea that someone NOT responding when being told, or in this case forced, to do so is just as much akin to null sec style blue balling as anything else. It doesnt automatically make someone a bot when you dont. I often use this tactic because I specifically KNOW the person WANTS to engage me in conversation and by NOT doing it I will **** them off more than if I do. Same with blue balling by runing away and denying classical "PvP" interaction. Denial of what a target wants is a very effective psychological counter and is employed constantly. The fact there have been so many threads and talk about blue balling, running away, carebearism, etc really does show its actual effectiveness as a weapon/tool.

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.
Lawrence Lawton
The Lawton School for Pubbies Who Can't Mine Good
Novus Ordo.
#31 - 2016-08-30 22:24:26 UTC
max Tekitsu wrote:
the bottom line is with these changes as proposed, will cut production of minerals to a 3rd of today's volume, thus ships will cost more and it will be less profitable to mine


Arbitrary numbers aside, if overall mining output goes down, ore and mineral prices will go up, making it more profitable to mine, once you've paid off the investment of your barge. The only way it could be less profitable to mine is if you frequently lose barges because you're AFK.
Solecist Project
#32 - 2016-08-30 22:28:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:
Sole.... I gotta side with Soel on this one. All things are interactions in this case through the medium of the internet irregardless of how many 'semi-anonymous' transactions take place through out the process.


No.

He is talking about a transaction.
A market sale happens automatically.

Player gives good to broker, who hands it to the other player.

Interaction demands presence.
I never said it has to be physical.

He tried, but he has to learn when to admit defeat. :)

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#33 - 2016-08-30 22:29:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
max Tekitsu wrote:
the bottom line is with these changes as proposed, will cut production of minerals to a 3rd of today's volume, thus ships will cost more and it will be less profitable to mine
If mineral production shrinks existing market demand will drive up mineral prices, actually making it more profitable to mine for those that do it actively Roll

The people that will suffer are the AFK and botters; those of us that actively mine have everything to gain if supply goes down.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Lawrence Lawton
The Lawton School for Pubbies Who Can't Mine Good
Novus Ordo.
#34 - 2016-08-30 22:32:41 UTC
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:
@OP: The idea that someone NOT responding when being told, or in this case forced, to do so is just as much akin to null sec style blue balling as anything else. It doesnt automatically make someone a bot when you dont. I often use this tactic because I specifically KNOW the person WANTS to engage me in conversation and by NOT doing it I will **** them off more than if I do. Same with blue balling by runing away and denying classical "PvP" interaction. Denial of what a target wants is a very effective psychological counter and is employed constantly. The fact there have been so many threads and talk about blue balling, running away, carebearism, etc really does show its actual effectiveness as a weapon/tool.


I know all about blue-balling. It's a good method of dealing with anti-gankers.
As a part of avoiding potentially inflammatory language, I am using 'bot' in the literal sense of using third party software to automate mining against the TOS, and 'AFK' for the ones who don't respond when prompted. Whether they are intentionally trying to appear AFK is of little importance to me.
Eternus8lux8lucis
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#35 - 2016-08-30 22:33:14 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:
Sole.... I gotta side with Soel on this one. All things are interactions in this case through the medium of the internet irregardless of how many 'semi-anonymous' transactions take place through out the process.


No.

He is talking about a transaction.
A market sale happens automatically.

Player gives good to broker, who hands it to the other player.

Interaction demands presence.
I never said it has to be physical.

He tried, but he has to learn when to admit defeat. :)

Yet Sole you must be present to participate on both sides of said transaction. Blink You are really just looking to fight again arent you? Forum fight whore Sole!! PTwisted

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.
Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2016-08-30 22:40:21 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:
Sole.... I gotta side with Soel on this one. All things are interactions in this case through the medium of the internet irregardless of how many 'semi-anonymous' transactions take place through out the process.


No.

He is talking about a transaction.
A market sale happens automatically.

Player gives good to broker, who hands it to the other player.

Interaction demands presence.
I never said it has to be physical.

He tried, but he has to learn when to admit defeat. :)


player --> npc broker --> player
player --> interaction --> player
player --> through something --> player

you are sorrounded, please give up and give yourself in, or concord will have to get you covered Cool

Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:
Forum fighter whore Sole!! PTwisted

confirmed Roll
Eternus8lux8lucis
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#37 - 2016-08-30 22:42:38 UTC
Lawrence Lawton wrote:
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:
@OP: The idea that someone NOT responding when being told, or in this case forced, to do so is just as much akin to null sec style blue balling as anything else. It doesnt automatically make someone a bot when you dont. I often use this tactic because I specifically KNOW the person WANTS to engage me in conversation and by NOT doing it I will **** them off more than if I do. Same with blue balling by runing away and denying classical "PvP" interaction. Denial of what a target wants is a very effective psychological counter and is employed constantly. The fact there have been so many threads and talk about blue balling, running away, carebearism, etc really does show its actual effectiveness as a weapon/tool.


I know all about blue-balling. It's a good method of dealing with anti-gankers.
As a part of avoiding potentially inflammatory language, I am using 'bot' in the literal sense of using third party software to automate mining against the TOS, and 'AFK' for the ones who don't respond when prompted. Whether they are intentionally trying to appear AFK is of little importance to me.

Yet then if they arent "AFK" then the only person thats wrong here is you my good CODE type person.Blink

Now that being said go blast miners for all I care.Twisted

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#38 - 2016-08-30 22:45:01 UTC
Lawrence Lawton wrote:


The effects:

  • The markets are depressed by a flood of ore and ice, and there is an incentive to compete with even more AFK mining.
  • The value of mining outside of highsec is reduced, because it is often more practical to import compressed Veldspar and Scordite from Highsec for things like capital construction.
  • Player interactions are rare. A prospective miner who visits a belt and tries to interact with the local population is met with a wall of silence.


No, the prices are not depressed.

The issue with low ends and importation is that mining them out in NS is not worth it due to opportunity cost. If you are mining for the low ends you are leaving the high ends sitting there. Better to mine the high ends and import.

How do you know player interactions are rare, at best you can say interactions in local are rare.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Lawrence Lawton
The Lawton School for Pubbies Who Can't Mine Good
Novus Ordo.
#39 - 2016-08-30 22:50:31 UTC
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:
Lawrence Lawton wrote:
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:
@OP: The idea that someone NOT responding when being told, or in this case forced, to do so is just as much akin to null sec style blue balling as anything else. It doesnt automatically make someone a bot when you dont. I often use this tactic because I specifically KNOW the person WANTS to engage me in conversation and by NOT doing it I will **** them off more than if I do. Same with blue balling by runing away and denying classical "PvP" interaction. Denial of what a target wants is a very effective psychological counter and is employed constantly. The fact there have been so many threads and talk about blue balling, running away, carebearism, etc really does show its actual effectiveness as a weapon/tool.


I know all about blue-balling. It's a good method of dealing with anti-gankers.
As a part of avoiding potentially inflammatory language, I am using 'bot' in the literal sense of using third party software to automate mining against the TOS, and 'AFK' for the ones who don't respond when prompted. Whether they are intentionally trying to appear AFK is of little importance to me.

Yet then if they arent "AFK" then the only person thats wrong here is you my good CODE type person.Blink

Now that being said go blast miners for all I care.Twisted


If they aren't really AFK then they will warp off before getting ganked, and they will not be seriously affected by the game changes, so the problem solves itself.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#40 - 2016-08-30 22:53:44 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
May Arethusa wrote:
Quote:
including many bots


Your proof?

Quote:
These miners do not interact with the community


They're buying and sell products, that's interaction. Now we're all real, real sorry that guy you met on your first day didn't speak to you, but there are better ways to farm hugs than whelping catalysts into fictional space police all day.

That's not interaction, it's a transaction.

glad we got that covered.


Why isn't a transaction a type of interaction?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online