These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#481 - 2012-10-11 20:53:35 UTC
Alaekessa wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Alaekessa1 wrote:
No, the bottom line is that most high-sec miners don't want to play eve

For a start, they ARE playing Eve if they are "highseccers".

And by "not playing", you mean they're not playing the way YOU want them too?


That's a problem for you. Why?


No, they are specifically performing a repetitive "set and forget" action that does NOT constitute playing the game. They are the ones who for whatever reason decided to make mining into a chore. Grab/make some friends, find a nice, quiet out-of-the-way system that has the minerals you want and IDK engage in mining ops. AFK miners aren't engaging in anything aside something AFK once they've started their mining lasers cycling.

When you actually play a game, you are engaged in participation with other players.

I'd love to see someone AFK "play" baseball or cricket or football.

I really think you guys are subsetting.

There's a very large core of miners that "find a nice, quiet out-of-the-way system that has the minerals you want and engage in mining ops".

The other you speak of may in fact be BOTS.

Now if you want to discuss BOTS then you have my absolute, undivided and full support.

"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..."

Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#482 - 2012-10-11 20:57:01 UTC
there are bots and there are those who press f1-f2 and then go back to watching a movie or reading a book for the next hour

apparently dragging your mouse and pressing f1-f2 every hour is perfectly fine

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#483 - 2012-10-11 20:58:21 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:

I have always advocated mining aligned over fitting for tank. Moving in the direction of your intended warp should not have an impact on your yield, certainly not to the extent that tanking does. This activity requires that attention be paid, so it is dismissed out-of-hand. So the gankers ganked.

Nobody ever had to fit for tank. No PVP ships have to fit for mining. All anybody ever needed to do was pay attention.

I +1'd your post because it's not that bad aside from a few misconceptions.

And if they had "aligned", "tanked", "paid attention", what would the mineral price be now?

Would it have been profitable to gank them?

So you're starting to understand that miners arrived at EXACTLY the same outcome, just down a different path. The path that was, incidentally, chosen by the gankers.

"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..."

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#484 - 2012-10-11 20:58:21 UTC
Hecate Shaw wrote:
I know this won't go over well, but near as I can tell suicide ganking is about as much an intended profession as AFK mining; both are more unintended consequences, not designed. Mining itself is an intended profession, and with the costs associated with an exhumer it was sometimes a losing one. So...CCP took steps to keep the intended profession working (killing mission loot refining, bufing the barges, no insurance for CONCORD kills, etc) to the determent of one of the unintended ones. That means that the other unintended one got a huge buff, and is now bordering on out of control. Should it be worked on (including using some of the OP's suggestions), yes; but mining is the official profession, and we should expect it to be preserved.

To all those scornfully proclaiming that mining barges shouldn't be fit with yield as the foremost consideration: how about we turn the tables and have CCP design a mechanic that forces all PvP-fit ships to also be able to mine a certain amount per second? Would you find that a fair and sensible rule? While I may agree that something must be done about AFK mining, do you see how absurd your argument really is? The argument is as absurd as me petitioning the local DoT to force city buses to all be fitted with armor so they can also be used for police SWAT operations.


I'd agree with you that suicide ganking and AFK mining were not designed to exist. Buffing the barges and ganking nerfs were not needed to bolster the profession. All that was originally needed were the meta 0 drops, drone regions nerf and some BPO material cost reshuffling. No one is arguing for the destruction of the profession we just want the risk:reward of highsec balanced in line with the other sec statuses.

Forcing anything is a dumb idea. Miner's weren't forced to fit a tank there was a plethora of ways to handle the threat of a gank. I see how absurd your argument is about pvp ships being forced to mine an amount of m3. I don't see how wanting to increase risk or decrease reward in highsec in order to balance it out with the rest of the game is absurd. Please show me how that's absurd.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#485 - 2012-10-11 21:00:10 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
~many moronic pubbie posts~


you are still posting poorly

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#486 - 2012-10-11 21:03:05 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Several of you ~people~ arguing against this topic are posting very poorly. I'll leave this here for you to improve your posting abilities (courtesy of Hratli Smirks http://www.kugutsumen.com/content.php?136-The-Hratli-Smirks-Guide-to-Posting):

Quote:
Hello, I'm Skymarshal H. Ratli Smirks, the hero of 49-U. I've been asked by Vinata to write a guide to help you eager Kugutsumen posters not smear virtual poop all over these forums. Which you persist in doing every time your webbed, cheeto-stained man-paw shoves your cursor over the “post new reply” button.

Yes, you are a bad poster. And by “you” I mean you personally. However, if you follow these guidelines you may become a less-bad poster, which is something we look forward to with the utmost anticipation.

1. No antiquated terrible meme posting. These are memes that were potentially at one point effective and maybe even amusing, then discarded, taken up by CAOD, SHC, and posters like you, and driven into the ground. They are obsolete. At this point seeing “u mad bro” posted, or references to people “being mad,” is like listening to your grandparents use slang ten years out of date. It is wince-inducing.

2. Images you pulled off 4chan. Yes, we know 4chan is hilarious and the captions are soooo funny! Post all the pictures you want there! But post words here you ******* illiterate.

3. Various permutations of the word “fail” that do not adhere to classic, pre-internet usage. Likewise "epic." Keep that **** at home.

4. I heartily encourage you to lurk before posting. Lurking is useful because it introduces you to local posting conventions and generally gives you a handle on the regular forum denizens.

5. When you find a good post, take a few moments to examine it critically and figure out what makes it a good post. What makes it amusing? What makes it enjoyable to read? Do the same to a bad post. What makes it garbage? What makes it painful to read? Try to incorporate what you learned into your next post.

6. Along the lines of #5, study the good posters and the good trolls. Look at their language, their tone, and even their gimmicks. What makes them effective? You don't have to copy them, but pay attention.

7. Don't do emotes in a post. This isn't a Vampire the Masquerade RP room on IRC.

8. Recognize ironicposting and written sarcasm.

Unless you are confident in your command of the Art of Posting, I recommend being succinct. Writing long, elaborate posts is really only fine if you are confident in your ability to hold the reader's attention and keep them interested/amused throughout the length of the post. You remember that scene from The Shawshank Redemption where Tim Robbins had to crawl five hundred yards through a raw sewage pipe? That's what reading a long bad post is like.

This goes for angry rageposting too. I don't personally endorse rageposting because it is terribly boring, but some of you ******* love rageposting like Suas loved cocaine. Whatever, I can't personally stop you. Just make it brief.

Posts about how awesome you and your legion of space badasses are and how you are about to rain fire and pit bulls onto your hapless space adversaries are also boring. If you post these, you will likely be trolled.

Don't get trolled. If someone posted something obviously provocatively wrong and you feel compelled to correct it and it wasn't posted by CrusaderKnight then you are probably about to get trolled. Looking at you, TEST.

Know when to get out of a thread. Threads usually degenerate into complete circular jackassery, and spending further time in that cesspit arguing is a waste. When it becomes clear that further debate is pointless, leave.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#487 - 2012-10-11 21:08:26 UTC
Andski wrote:
there are bots and there are those who press f1-f2 and then go back to watching a movie or reading a book for the next hour

apparently dragging your mouse and pressing f1-f2 every hour is perfectly fine

As it should be.

That's not your call what someone does in RL while doing something in a game. I could be doing indescribable things to myself under my desk while shooting at a POS in YK just as easily.

HOW people play Eve is not your problem provided it does not break the EULA.

Why aren't the simplest of people understanding this one fundamental - it's the POINT of playing games - to ENJOY ONESELF.

If it's mining. So be it.
If it's killing miners. So be it.
If it's owning 75% of 0.0. So be it.

If YOU are not enjoying yourself, that's NOT THE MINERS FAULT

"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..."

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#488 - 2012-10-11 21:12:18 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Touval Lysander wrote:
~moronic pubbie post~


Right here from the EULA:

3. You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.

Hmmm its almost as if CCP has implicitly stated that any AFK activity is not allowed.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#489 - 2012-10-11 21:16:25 UTC
La Nariz wrote:

Know when to get out of a thread. Threads usually degenerate into complete circular jackassery, and spending further time in that cesspit arguing is a waste. When it becomes clear that further debate is pointless, leave

For one to expect others to follow advice, one needs to lead by example.

It would seem that you guys cannot and will not answer the simplest of logic because the simplest of questions debunks the entire theory.

So in true, "oh damn, good question, how the hell can we answer that" glory, you pretend the question does not exist.

Darth saw my question - I'm not blocked. And you Goon, you're either an alt or a sockpuppet of FA Darth (c'mon Goon, show some pride) to put some dog poo in my path.

QUESTION ONE: If miners HAD tanked, aligned, paid attention, what would be different about the mineral prices?

QUESTION TWO: Would ganking have been profitable?

QUESTION THREE: What would be different to current outcome?

"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
#490 - 2012-10-11 21:18:22 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
~moronic pubbie post~


Right here from the EULA:

3. You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.

Hmmm its almost as if CCP has implicitly stated that any AFK activity is not allowed.

Bolding another important part. This is important in that in this case AFK play actualy provides a reduced rate of acquisition in comparison to "normal" play or botting.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#491 - 2012-10-11 21:19:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Touval Lysander
La Nariz wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
~moronic pubbie post~


Right here from the EULA:

3. You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.

Hmmm its almost as if CCP has implicitly stated that any AFK activity is not allowed.

Oh ffs. That's the rule against BOTS.

Show me the rule where ANYONE can't watch TV while they mine, sit on a bridge, rat or other such activity.

"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..."

Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#492 - 2012-10-11 21:22:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Highsec mining definatly needs some sort of risk injected into it. As it stands right now there is no real threat to them.



There is. It's you but you're afraid of picking T3 battle cruisers or a couple brutixes to do it. Don't blame anyone else than yourself.

brb

Hecate Shaw
United Freemerchants Society
#493 - 2012-10-11 21:22:55 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Hecate Shaw wrote:
I know this won't go over well, but near as I can tell suicide ganking is about as much an intended profession as AFK mining; both are more unintended consequences, not designed. Mining itself is an intended profession, and with the costs associated with an exhumer it was sometimes a losing one. So...CCP took steps to keep the intended profession working (killing mission loot refining, bufing the barges, no insurance for CONCORD kills, etc) to the determent of one of the unintended ones. That means that the other unintended one got a huge buff, and is now bordering on out of control. Should it be worked on (including using some of the OP's suggestions), yes; but mining is the official profession, and we should expect it to be preserved.

To all those scornfully proclaiming that mining barges shouldn't be fit with yield as the foremost consideration: how about we turn the tables and have CCP design a mechanic that forces all PvP-fit ships to also be able to mine a certain amount per second? Would you find that a fair and sensible rule? While I may agree that something must be done about AFK mining, do you see how absurd your argument really is? The argument is as absurd as me petitioning the local DoT to force city buses to all be fitted with armor so they can also be used for police SWAT operations.


I'd agree with you that suicide ganking and AFK mining were not designed to exist. Buffing the barges and ganking nerfs were not needed to bolster the profession. All that was originally needed were the meta 0 drops, drone regions nerf and some BPO material cost reshuffling. No one is arguing for the destruction of the profession we just want the risk:reward of highsec balanced in line with the other sec statuses.

Forcing anything is a dumb idea. Miner's weren't forced to fit a tank there was a plethora of ways to handle the threat of a gank. I see how absurd your argument is about pvp ships being forced to mine an amount of m3. I don't see how wanting to increase risk or decrease reward in highsec in order to balance it out with the rest of the game is absurd. Please show me how that's absurd.


The question is, who exactly thinks the "risk/reward balance" is not in balance? Think of it this way: risk isn't the only factor to be considered in highsec, especially in mining. Miners pay a huge price in sheer boredom. Factor that in and I'd say mining is pretty much in balance. I'm all for anything new that would make mining more interactive, but not turning unarmed ships into sitting duck targets again. Making all belts scan sites, changing the mechanic to make it more interactive, anything but making barges dodge suicide attackers they have no real defense against.
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#494 - 2012-10-11 21:23:24 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
~moronic pubbie post~


Right here from the EULA:

3. You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.

Hmmm its almost as if CCP has implicitly stated that any AFK activity is not allowed.

Bolding another important part. This is important in that in this case AFK play actualy provides a reduced rate of acquisition in comparison to "normal" play or botting.

If that is the interpretation, you'd better start reporting and fast

I just saw 10,000 Goons go AFK for a **** when the FC said "BIO break guys".

"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..."

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#495 - 2012-10-11 21:23:32 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
~more pubbie posting~


You have failed to corroborate any of your arguments. You have failed to be persuasive in any of your arguments. You have failed to do anything aside from howl "EVIL GOONS PVP IS BAD." Now since you're on the losing side of an argument you want the winners to leave the thread. You are a clown, an obese unfunny clown but I'll answer your questions anyway.

1. Mineral prices would remain as they were before the barge buff.

2. It would have ONLY been profitable iff the miner was stupid. The smart miners would not get ganked with the same frequency as the stupid miners.

3. No one can tell you that, go pay a 1-900 number psychic for the answer because it doesn't exist in the real world.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#496 - 2012-10-11 21:25:31 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
~moronic pubbie post~


Right here from the EULA:

3. You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.

Hmmm its almost as if CCP has implicitly stated that any AFK activity is not allowed.

Bolding another important part. This is important in that in this case AFK play actualy provides a reduced rate of acquisition in comparison to "normal" play or botting.


I argue that it accelerates it because the person can be AFKing an activity for longer than they would be doing the activity normally. So they accrue more for less time.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#497 - 2012-10-11 21:27:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Hecate Shaw wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Hecate Shaw wrote:
I know this won't go over well, but near as I can tell suicide ganking is about as much an intended profession as AFK mining; both are more unintended consequences, not designed. Mining itself is an intended profession, and with the costs associated with an exhumer it was sometimes a losing one. So...CCP took steps to keep the intended profession working (killing mission loot refining, bufing the barges, no insurance for CONCORD kills, etc) to the determent of one of the unintended ones. That means that the other unintended one got a huge buff, and is now bordering on out of control. Should it be worked on (including using some of the OP's suggestions), yes; but mining is the official profession, and we should expect it to be preserved.

To all those scornfully proclaiming that mining barges shouldn't be fit with yield as the foremost consideration: how about we turn the tables and have CCP design a mechanic that forces all PvP-fit ships to also be able to mine a certain amount per second? Would you find that a fair and sensible rule? While I may agree that something must be done about AFK mining, do you see how absurd your argument really is? The argument is as absurd as me petitioning the local DoT to force city buses to all be fitted with armor so they can also be used for police SWAT operations.


I'd agree with you that suicide ganking and AFK mining were not designed to exist. Buffing the barges and ganking nerfs were not needed to bolster the profession. All that was originally needed were the meta 0 drops, drone regions nerf and some BPO material cost reshuffling. No one is arguing for the destruction of the profession we just want the risk:reward of highsec balanced in line with the other sec statuses.

Forcing anything is a dumb idea. Miner's weren't forced to fit a tank there was a plethora of ways to handle the threat of a gank. I see how absurd your argument is about pvp ships being forced to mine an amount of m3. I don't see how wanting to increase risk or decrease reward in highsec in order to balance it out with the rest of the game is absurd. Please show me how that's absurd.


The question is, who exactly thinks the "risk/reward balance" is not in balance? Think of it this way: risk isn't the only factor to be considered in highsec, especially in mining. Miners pay a huge price in sheer boredom. Factor that in and I'd say mining is pretty much in balance. I'm all for anything new that would make mining more interactive, but not turning unarmed ships into sitting duck targets again. Making all belts scan sites, changing the mechanic to make it more interactive, anything but making barges dodge suicide attackers they have no real defense against.

You ignore the fact that if they hadn't been made perfectly safe in giant bags of hit points and played the game in an egaged fashion, mining aligned, they would not be bored. They'd have to pay attention or inadvertently leave the vicinity of the rocks they're mining. Or they'd have to pay attention to avoid a gank from a hostile landing on-grid. What I'm proposing in the OP are options to make mining more valuable while not completely eliminating ganking as a profession.

If miners are successful and employ sound strategy, they will outperform and render obsolete AFK miners and bots.

Then Eve becomes a better sandbox.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#498 - 2012-10-11 21:28:28 UTC
Hecate Shaw wrote:

The question is, who exactly thinks the "risk/reward balance" is not in balance? Think of it this way: risk isn't the only factor to be considered in highsec, especially in mining. Miners pay a huge price in sheer boredom. Factor that in and I'd say mining is pretty much in balance. I'm all for anything new that would make mining more interactive, but not turning unarmed ships into sitting duck targets again. Making all belts scan sites, changing the mechanic to make it more interactive, anything but making barges dodge suicide attackers they have no real defense against.


People who have experienced more of the game than just highsec. The boredom part of mining I agree it is a poorly designed profession that should be revised. Okay you enter dumb territory where you state that they have no real defense against ganking. Since when is being attentive and tanking your ship not a defense against ganking?

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#499 - 2012-10-11 21:30:18 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Hecate Shaw wrote:

The question is, who exactly thinks the "risk/reward balance" is not in balance? Think of it this way: risk isn't the only factor to be considered in highsec, especially in mining. Miners pay a huge price in sheer boredom. Factor that in and I'd say mining is pretty much in balance. I'm all for anything new that would make mining more interactive, but not turning unarmed ships into sitting duck targets again. Making all belts scan sites, changing the mechanic to make it more interactive, anything but making barges dodge suicide attackers they have no real defense against.


People who have experienced more of the game than just highsec. The boredom part of mining I agree it is a poorly designed profession that should be revised. Okay you enter dumb territory where you state that they have no real defense against ganking. Since when is being attentive and tanking your ship not a defense against ganking?

Nevermind that if you pay attention, the tank is entirely redundant!

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#500 - 2012-10-11 21:30:55 UTC
Andski wrote:
there are bots and there are those who press f1-f2 and then go back to watching a movie or reading a book for the next hour

apparently dragging your mouse and pressing f1-f2 every hour is perfectly fine



I would like you to explain me how you do the difference in between both and also tell me since when you became GM or you opinion on how the game should be played became law.

You have to compete with others and you know it, you don't like to compete via effort (aka loose ships to gank miners) it's your choice but if you want you can.
This is simply about competition, doesn't matter how you think others should play the game, doesn't matter how much they mine or for how much they sell their ice/ore, all it matters is that you have tools to counter this but you don't use them because takes cost.

Mining has never been so well balanced than now.

brb