These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#501 - 2012-10-11 21:31:14 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
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 is a fact. By the reasoning in the query, sleeping is a valid activity to perform while mining AFK.

A player mining without going AFK cannot accomplish this feat.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#502 - 2012-10-11 21:31:17 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
~moronic pubbie posts~


Going AFK and doing nothing isn't against that clause in the EULA so bathroom breaks are okay. Going AFK and doing something above normal like say for 12 hours while your mackinaw shoots ice rocks is what that clause is getting at. A GM can clarify this much better than I can, why don't you petition it.

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
#503 - 2012-10-11 21:34:11 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
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.


This is dumb. People aren't doing it because mining barges are now intrinsically un-profitiable. Which could be changed to inject risk into highsec. I'm not a fan of it being done this way because it takes the control of risk out of the players hand. I'd revert barge EHP buffs to the mack and hulk which would return control of risk to the player.

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
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#504 - 2012-10-11 21:36:18 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
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.

The game shouldn't care about invested time, only real time. This is especially true in the case of mining where most time from an attentive miner is wasted.

And when it's not it is because of fitting choices:
At Keyboard - I mine at the keyboard so I need less tank/more yield and must warp out when gankers appear
Away From keyboard - I need more tank incase of a gank since I'm not paying attention

or ensures both miners stop producing temporarily:
At Keyboard - I have to warp out due to a ganker
Away From keyboard - I lost a ship due to not being tanked and being AFK

For the AFK miner there is no benefit in real time and the ratio actual of work to reward is the same or less.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#505 - 2012-10-11 21:36:22 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Mining has never been so well balanced than now.


NPC Alts Say The Darnedest Things

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#506 - 2012-10-11 21:38:52 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
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.


They are the same, both are automated/almost automated activities. Both should not be legal. Mining is horribly unbalanced. Low/null/wh mining is almost worthless while highsec mining is the king. Mackinaws are the new hulks and the skiff is something used for comedy ops. Mining is broken and needs fixing, I've said how to do this in a previous post that I'm sure the brilliant Science and Trade Institute has taught you how to do.

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
#507 - 2012-10-11 21:42:18 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

The game shouldn't care about invested time, only real time. This is especially true in the case of mining where most time from an attentive miner is wasted.

And when it's not it is because of fitting choices:
At Keyboard - I mine at the keyboard so I need less tank/more yield and must warp out when gankers appear
Away From keyboard - I need more tank incase of a gank since I'm not paying attention

or ensures both miners stop producing temporarily:
At Keyboard - I have to warp out due to a ganker
Away From keyboard - I lost a ship due to not being tanked and being AFK

For the AFK miner there is no benefit in real time and the ratio actual of work to reward is the same or less.


Invested time is part of the non-trivial cost for activities. Invested time should matter real time should not apply here. Wasted attention is part of that non-trivial cost for activities and can be paid other ways. The miner can pay a player to watch for them or have dedicated logistics to handle the problem.

Fitting choices are now irrelevant but before they had to do with players controlling their own risk.

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
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#508 - 2012-10-11 21:44:08 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
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.


They are the same, both are automated/almost automated activities. Both should not be legal. Mining is horribly unbalanced. Low/null/wh mining is almost worthless while highsec mining is the king. Mackinaws are the new hulks and the skiff is something used for comedy ops. Mining is broken and needs fixing, I've said how to do this in a previous post that I'm sure the brilliant Science and Trade Institute has taught you how to do.

No, one isn't automated in any way shape or form. All the work accomplished is done via user inputs and works the same way it would if at the keyboard including the stoppage of that work. The difference is that the actions to start that work again must be completed by the player in the same manner as if they were at the keyboard the entire time.
Hecate Shaw
United Freemerchants Society
#509 - 2012-10-11 21:46:47 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
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 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.
You ignore the fact that mining aligned doesn't increase yield over the bots, so they would NOT in fact "outperform and render obsolete AFK miners and bots". We aren't able to mine 23/7, the bots are; AFK miners can't quite manage that, but close enough. The yield differences from paying close attention to what amounts to watching paint dry aren't THAT good. I'm sorry, but there just isn't any way to call anything about the current mining system 'engaging', and the long odds of an actual gank don't make it more so. Imagine, if you will, spending 4 hours at a go watching paint dry, only moving infrequently to catch a drip, and being told that there is a remote chance, at some point, that someone might come in and destroy the wall. It'll keep you awake for a few sessions, might be enough to wake you up a few times for a short while when you hear the mailman outside, but it isn't enough to keep things interesting indefinitely
until and unless it actually happens. You're working against psychology and human nature. Your suggestions in the OP are good, but not a long-term solution; CCP has to do something, but opening the barges up to PvP combat isn't the solution.

Though it might be entertaining if CCP were to create ships that looked and were named exactly like a normal barge, but had weapons hardpoints instead.
Herr Hammer Draken
#510 - 2012-10-11 21:48:25 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Kitty Bear wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


Guess what......not EVERYONE in Eve wants to live in 0.0. SURPRISE!

Perfectly fine but their reward should not be equal to mine out in nullsec.




It's not

The highsec miner has no access to
Arknor
Bistot
Crokite
Mercoxit

If the Highsec Miner is part of a playercorp, he has no access to Moon Materials.


Your point is accepted. Now why would you want to drive down the prices of commodities which are available in high-sec on a macroeconomical scale by removing any risk?


Stop with the no risk in high sec. That statement is flat out wrong. It is a flat out lie. It is misinformation.

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#511 - 2012-10-11 21:48:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
La Nariz wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

The game shouldn't care about invested time, only real time. This is especially true in the case of mining where most time from an attentive miner is wasted.

And when it's not it is because of fitting choices:
At Keyboard - I mine at the keyboard so I need less tank/more yield and must warp out when gankers appear
Away From keyboard - I need more tank incase of a gank since I'm not paying attention

or ensures both miners stop producing temporarily:
At Keyboard - I have to warp out due to a ganker
Away From keyboard - I lost a ship due to not being tanked and being AFK

For the AFK miner there is no benefit in real time and the ratio actual of work to reward is the same or less.


Invested time is part of the non-trivial cost for activities. Invested time should matter real time should not apply here. Wasted attention is part of that non-trivial cost for activities and can be paid other ways. The miner can pay a player to watch for them or have dedicated logistics to handle the problem.

Fitting choices are now irrelevant but before they had to do with players controlling their own risk.

Real time should apply and does in a variety of activities as invested time cannot be quantified or for the most part confirmed. A non-aligned miner could be at the keyboard just as well as he could not. And a miner could align and go AFK only coming back as often as needed to realign in a new direction.

Edit: And what good are dedicated logistics for a ship that can't jetison ore, activate it's miners or warp off in the case of danger?
Herr Hammer Draken
#512 - 2012-10-11 21:58:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Hammer Draken
La Nariz wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

The game shouldn't care about invested time, only real time. This is especially true in the case of mining where most time from an attentive miner is wasted.

And when it's not it is because of fitting choices:
At Keyboard - I mine at the keyboard so I need less tank/more yield and must warp out when gankers appear
Away From keyboard - I need more tank incase of a gank since I'm not paying attention

or ensures both miners stop producing temporarily:
At Keyboard - I have to warp out due to a ganker
Away From keyboard - I lost a ship due to not being tanked and being AFK

For the AFK miner there is no benefit in real time and the ratio actual of work to reward is the same or less.


Invested time is part of the non-trivial cost for activities. Invested time should matter real time should not apply here. Wasted attention is part of that non-trivial cost for activities and can be paid other ways. The miner can pay a player to watch for them or have dedicated logistics to handle the problem.

Fitting choices are now irrelevant but before they had to do with players controlling their own risk.


Misinformation much! A Retriever, Mac, Hulk, Covetor max yield fit can all be ganked by a single catalyist in high sec space.
I will not insult your intelligence by holding your hand and showing you how it is done. So fitting is still very relevant to eve.
A corp mate had his Mack ganked yesterday. Lost 5 more Macks last week to ganks in high sec in corp. So maybe you can not figure out how to gank Macks but someone else has. Point is high sec the miner is not safe from ganks like the misinformation that is being spread says it is.

I can tell you who has figured out the high sec miner ganks, The Tuskers. They even ganked a Mack in .8 space so not safe anywhere in high sec really.

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#513 - 2012-10-11 22:06:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitty Bear
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?


cpl of serious Q's for you

Before the bargechange
1a) What ship & Fittings did you use to gank a hulk
1b What were the common fittings used on those hulks according to your killmails
1c) what was the total cost of your ship + fittings
1d) what was the total cost of the hulk + fittings according to your killmails

Since the bargechange
2a) What ship & Fittings do you use to gank a mackinaw
2b What are the common fittings used on those mackinaws according to your killmails
2c) what was the total cost of your ship + fittings
2d) what was the total cost of the mackinaw + fittings according to your killmails


The pre/post change in exhumer is based on each ship being the 'mining ship of choice' before or after the change to the hulls
thankyou.




ps
if you are unable OR unwilling to supply the requested information, i would welcome those answers from any other ganking proponent in this thread, or from any miner that has been a victim and can supply this information.

once again, cheers
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#514 - 2012-10-11 22:07:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
KillerPriest wrote:


Show me where CCP says this is a PVP ONLY game.



CCP doesn't need to state that, it's common sense.

- You shoot me -> that an aggressive act against me, so it's pvp.
- You trade and undercut my prices -> that's an aggressive act towards me, so it's pvp.
- You do missions in highsec and pump isk into the economy, therefore devaluing the isk I have in my wallet, which I'd consider aggression, so it's pvp.
- You mine, pumping minerals into the game, thus devaluing the minerals I have in stock, so it's pvp.

etc..etc..

It could be extended to any activity in the game except station spinning.

Eve is a PvP only game.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Bodega Cat
Expedition Spartica
#515 - 2012-10-11 22:12:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Bodega Cat
La Nariz 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?


Explain to me how emulating bot behavior and not being present at the keyboard while the game is playing itself is playing EVE.


Well, not to throw my hat in the ring for the other side, but EVE traditionally has many features that support a passive interest and participation factor.

Skills training would be the obvious example, and even shooting a POS would be another...
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#516 - 2012-10-11 22:25:10 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:
KillerPriest wrote:


Show me where CCP says this is a PVP ONLY game.



CCP doesn't need to state that, it's common sense.

- You shoot me -> that an aggressive act against me, so it's pvp.
- You trade and undercut my prices -> that's an aggressive act towards me, so it's pvp.
- You do missions in highsec and pump isk into the economy, therefore devaluing the isk I have in my wallet, which I'd consider aggression, so it's pvp.
- You mine, pumping minerals into the game, thus devaluing the minerals I have in stock, so it's pvp.

etc..etc..

It could be extended to any activity in the game except station spinning.

Eve is a PvP only game.

THIS ^^^

I have stated this countless times in many threads.

And yet there are some people that think PvP is a singular phrase to mean Ship v Ship - if it were it would be called SvS...

I've even heard people say buying/selling is Player versus Market (like the market is an entity). Forgetting of course that the market is supplied by Players.

Now I see the thread has descended into what constitutes AFK to justify ganking.

It's going places......

"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..."
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#517 - 2012-10-11 22:27:48 UTC
Bodega Cat wrote:
La Nariz 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?


Explain to me how emulating bot behavior and not being present at the keyboard while the game is playing itself is playing EVE.


Well, not to throw my hat in the ring for the other side, but EVE traditionally has many features that support a passive interest and participation factor.

Skills training would be the obvious example, and even shooting a POS would be another...

Data cores
PI
Moon goo
BPO/BPC research copies
Manufacturing
Ratting with a carrier
APíng freighters

Any more...

"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..."
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#518 - 2012-10-11 23:11:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
sorry double post.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#519 - 2012-10-11 23:11:50 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
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.

The game shouldn't care about invested time, only real time. This is especially true in the case of mining where most time from an attentive miner is wasted.

And when it's not it is because of fitting choices:
At Keyboard - I mine at the keyboard so I need less tank/more yield and must warp out when gankers appear
Away From keyboard - I need more tank incase of a gank since I'm not paying attention
or ensures both miners stop producing temporarily:
At Keyboard - I have to warp out due to a ganker
Away From keyboard - I lost a ship due to not being tanked and being AFK

For the AFK miner there is no benefit in real time and the ratio actual of work to reward is the same or less.

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.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#520 - 2012-10-11 23:25:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
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.

Either way the barge changes didn't usher in the age of AFK ganking. The campaigns of suicide ganking proved this was already prolific quite well.