These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#561 - 2012-10-12 19:48:06 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Bots won't be negatively affected too much depending on how they respond, but I don't think player enforcement is the best answer for them. AFK miners won't pay, but if you do your part they won't mine either. Your revenue becomes the at the keyboard miners no doubt, but the AFK miners provide proof of intent and incentive to be at the keyboard for anyone who doesn't choose to move.

I just want to point out that bumping ATK pilots, even out of refusal to pay some extortion fee, does not have the desired effect of increasing the rewards for those who are paying attention ad displaying adaptive behavior.

Besides that, though, you're absolutely right. ATK players will be the easiest to "extort" and bumping them has the most impact because they are the only ones with the potential to even be responsive. A bot is likely to reapproach the rocks none the wiser, while an AFK player will merely be annoyed and have no context of why.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#562 - 2012-10-12 19:57:17 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Bots won't be negatively affected too much depending on how they respond, but I don't think player enforcement is the best answer for them. AFK miners won't pay, but if you do your part they won't mine either. Your revenue becomes the at the keyboard miners no doubt, but the AFK miners provide proof of intent and incentive to be at the keyboard for anyone who doesn't choose to move.

I just want to point out that bumping ATK pilots, even out of refusal to pay some extortion fee, does not have the desired effect of increasing the rewards for those who are paying attention ad displaying adaptive behavior.

Besides that, though, you're absolutely right. ATK players will be the easiest to "extort" and bumping them has the most impact because they are the only ones with the potential to even be responsive. A bot is likely to reapproach the rocks none the wiser, while an AFK player will merely be annoyed and have no context of why.

For me, were I actually inclined to participate, the benefit of at the keyboard miners wouldn't be amongst my real concerns, though I may claim otherwise. In the end the isk if any you extort from at the keyboard miners would likely nullify if not exceed any gain they got over time from the minor reduction of supply any individual with my available playtime could cause towards actual bots and AFK miners.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#563 - 2012-10-12 19:59:40 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Bots won't be negatively affected too much depending on how they respond, but I don't think player enforcement is the best answer for them. AFK miners won't pay, but if you do your part they won't mine either. Your revenue becomes the at the keyboard miners no doubt, but the AFK miners provide proof of intent and incentive to be at the keyboard for anyone who doesn't choose to move.

I just want to point out that bumping ATK pilots, even out of refusal to pay some extortion fee, does not have the desired effect of increasing the rewards for those who are paying attention ad displaying adaptive behavior.

Besides that, though, you're absolutely right. ATK players will be the easiest to "extort" and bumping them has the most impact because they are the only ones with the potential to even be responsive. A bot is likely to reapproach the rocks none the wiser, while an AFK player will merely be annoyed and have no context of why.

For me, were I actually inclined to participate, the benefit of at the keyboard miners wouldn't be amongst my real concerns, though I may claim otherwise. In the end the isk if any you extort from at the keyboard miners would likely nullify if not exceed any gain they got over time from the minor reduction of supply any individual with my available playtime could cause towards actual bots and AFK miners.

Blowing them up is much, much more effective, to be sure. Blink

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Pipa Porto
#564 - 2012-10-13 01:49:12 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
No one said there wasn't any risk, but unless those POS require at ALL times A) Continuous attention for maintenance and opperation or b) Continuous defense from an actual ongoing attack then you are making demands of the miner that you don't have to make on the moons and the moons don't get removed from the list of AFK professions.

Once an hour doesn't cut it. Defense every other day doesn't cut it. We're not talking risk but activity here. So if accruing minerals while not actively doing something as player towards that end is an EULA violation then every few minutes those moons aren't touched that same violation occurs.

And to the point of defense, there is still a way, other than ganking to affect miners that is far easier, faster and requires far fewer people to be done efficiently than tanking down an undefended POS. Bumping. An AFK miner has less defense against this than an otherwise undefended POS with a single gun has against a 1000 man fleet.


Moons only require defense when they're attacked.
Miners only require defense when they're attacked.

I see no problem.

Also, Moons require the constant input of ISK in the form of fuel. Where's the constant fixed cost of running an Exhumer?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Pipa Porto
#565 - 2012-10-13 01:51:04 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:

I'm pretty sure he meant nebulous legality in terms of the EULA, which is an absolutely true statement.

I could be wrong however I understood that only to be an issue when claims of its use as a greifing tool were invoked. To be specific bumping is not illegal but greifing, even when bumping is the mechanism used, is against the EULA.

I don't claim to have GM information, which I wouldn't be allowed to share even if I did, but from what I understand it's only not grief behavior if it is tied to an in-game motivation, such as James 315's business model.

I think that the point is quite valid that it is not legitimate gameplay in and of its own right outside of such contexts.


The line about Freighter bumping has quietly made an Exit from the page on griefing.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#566 - 2012-10-13 02:02:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Pipa Porto wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
No one said there wasn't any risk, but unless those POS require at ALL times A) Continuous attention for maintenance and opperation or b) Continuous defense from an actual ongoing attack then you are making demands of the miner that you don't have to make on the moons and the moons don't get removed from the list of AFK professions.

Once an hour doesn't cut it. Defense every other day doesn't cut it. We're not talking risk but activity here. So if accruing minerals while not actively doing something as player towards that end is an EULA violation then every few minutes those moons aren't touched that same violation occurs.

And to the point of defense, there is still a way, other than ganking to affect miners that is far easier, faster and requires far fewer people to be done efficiently than tanking down an undefended POS. Bumping. An AFK miner has less defense against this than an otherwise undefended POS with a single gun has against a 1000 man fleet.


Moons only require defense when they're attacked.
Miners only require defense when they're attacked.

I see no problem.

Nor do I, so long as we're not calling AFK mining an EULA violation, which is what started the line of conversation that resulted in that post.

Pipa Porto wrote:
Also, Moons require the constant input of ISK in the form of fuel. Where's the constant fixed cost of running an Exhumer?

I'd say that is countered in part by the fact that the aforementioned total character dedication isn't needed. Such is the nature of a POS and the functions contained thereon. You get a thing in space to do stuff you don't have to be there to actually do but you have to manage the upkeep instead.

And just to be an ass I'll point out that it can't be bumped! Big smile
Pipa Porto
#567 - 2012-10-13 02:08:59 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Nor do I, so long as we're not calling AFK mining an EULA violation, which is what started the line of conversation that resulted in that post.


The AFK Mining as EULA violation comes from CCP's insistence that AFK PVE Activities are EULA violations. Which is, on its face, ridiculous, but as they've made that ruling we must ask, what's the difference between AFK mining Ice in a Mackinaw and AFKing other PVE activities that were originally intend to require effort (remember, Mining started out with Battleships and Miner 2s)?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#568 - 2012-10-13 02:18:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Pipa Porto wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Nor do I, so long as we're not calling AFK mining an EULA violation, which is what started the line of conversation that resulted in that post.


The AFK Mining as EULA violation comes from CCP's insistence that AFK PVE Activities are EULA violations. Which is, on its face, ridiculous, but as they've made that ruling we must ask, what's the difference between AFK mining Ice in a Mackinaw and AFKing other PVE activities that were originally intend to require effort (remember, Mining started out with Battleships and Miner 2s)?

I'm not CCP, so like others I can only speculate until we get a concrete answer, but as AFK mining and barges, these predated that ruling by quite a bit; barges were already in the game when I first played in summer '09 so I'm not sure when they were introduced but it far predates the ruling regarding AFK PvE (a few months ago?).

Also as I understood the setup in question it was an exploit because it created a situation where no user inputs were needed while bounties continued to accumulate.

I'm not aware of a way to achieve the same while mining without using clearly EULA violating methods.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#569 - 2012-10-13 16:49:19 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Legality isn't nebulous for bumping. It's entirely legal, but legality is a non-issue as it prevents the miner from mining. Mining vessels lack the speed and agility to recover quickly from a series of bumps from a vessel for for the task and an AFK miner cannot even accomplish trying.

And lastly vigilance is not itself an act unless physically guarding the POS with said fleet at all times. Putting in a plan of readiness is an exertion of effort no doubt and having people willing and able to execute it is a worthy achievement, but it is still not a continuous act requiring the total task dedication of any one character at all times in which the act of procuring minerals is occurring.


EULA legality is what I was referring to.

Surveillance is an act that is done at all times and it has to do with guarding the POS. Fleeting up to defend the POS does not occur unless you can spot that its being/been attacked. Don't forget that it costs isk in the form of fuel (PI taxes) to mine these moons. It costs the miner nothing to mine asteroids/ice. Perhaps a mining permit should be required to balance this out.

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
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#570 - 2012-10-13 16:58:11 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
It costs the miner nothing to mine asteroids/ice.


By your own argument, it follows that the below statements equally apply

It costs the Mission runner nothing to run missions
It costs the Nulsec Belt Ratter nothing to clear belts
It costs Explorers nothing to salvage/hack or gas/oremine
It costs FW pilots nothing to plex
It costs Incursion runners nothing to deal with sansha hoards
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#571 - 2012-10-13 17:02:08 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
It costs the miner nothing to mine asteroids/ice.


By your own argument, it follows that the below statements equally apply

It costs the Mission runner nothing to run missions
It costs the Nulsec Belt Ratter nothing to clear belts
It costs Explorers nothing to salvage/hack or gas/oremine
It costs FW pilots nothing to plex
It costs Incursion runners nothing to deal with sansha hoards




You're taking that out of context. All of those aside from FW cannot be done AFK, except for maybe mission running in a drone boat. They all require invested time aside from FW.

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
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#572 - 2012-10-13 17:18:43 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Kitty Bear wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
It costs the miner nothing to mine asteroids/ice.


By your own argument, it follows that the below statements equally apply

It costs the Mission runner nothing to run missions
It costs the Nulsec Belt Ratter nothing to clear belts
It costs Explorers nothing to salvage/hack or gas/oremine
It costs FW pilots nothing to plex
It costs Incursion runners nothing to deal with sansha hoards




You're taking that out of context. All of those aside from FW cannot be done AFK, except for maybe mission running in a drone boat. They all require invested time aside from FW.


With the exception of Incursions, it seems in context to me.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Skaz
Skazmanian Industries
#573 - 2012-10-13 17:52:03 UTC
Ok, tell me this.

How is Highsec safer or more profitable than it was 9 years ago when EVE began?



Hint:
It isn't

-... ..- -.-- / -- -.-- / ... - ..- ..-. ..-. / --- -. / - .... . / -- .- .-. -.- . - / - .... .. ... / ... .. --. -. .- - ..- .-. . / .. -.. . .- / .. ... / ... .... .- -- . .-.. . ... ... .-.. -.-- / ... - --- .-.. . -.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#574 - 2012-10-13 17:55:44 UTC
Skaz wrote:
Ok, tell me this.

How is Highsec safer or more profitable than it was 9 years ago when EVE began?



Hint:
It isn't

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Oh, excuse me. This thread was meant to contain facts.

I started playing in 2005 and high-sec is much, much safer today than it was then.

Much. Much. Safer. CONCORD has been buffed at least 3x since then, 4x if you count their introduction.

Insurance was removed for gank attempts.

Mining barges were given asinine amounts of EHP and an AFK bay.

High-sec is easy-mode squared compared to what it used to be and needs some legitimate risk.

The price drop of ice will demonstrate this clearly. Look it up.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#575 - 2012-10-13 19:11:38 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Skaz wrote:
Ok, tell me this.

How is Highsec safer or more profitable than it was 9 years ago when EVE began?



Hint:
It isn't

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Oh, excuse me. This thread was meant to contain facts.

I started playing in 2005 and high-sec is much, much safer today than it was then.

Much. Much. Safer. CONCORD has been buffed at least 3x since then, 4x if you count their introduction.

Insurance was removed for gank attempts.

Mining barges were given asinine amounts of EHP and an AFK bay.

High-sec is easy-mode squared compared to what it used to be and needs some legitimate risk.

The price drop of ice will demonstrate this clearly. Look it up.

Oh boy, now they'll come out and say ganking got buffed twice for every nerf. Any moment now they'll start reciting the list they've made up~

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Pipa Porto
#576 - 2012-10-14 04:54:13 UTC
Skaz wrote:
Ok, tell me this.

How is Highsec safer or more profitable than it was 9 years ago when EVE began?



Hint:
It isn't


Then you have no idea what you're talking about.

Safety:
9 years ago, CONCORD didn't exist (see m0o).
After its introduction, it was initially tankable (see Zombies smartbombing Yulai).


Profitability:
The introduction of l4s
Exhumers instead of mining in Battleships
Incursions


HS is significantly safer and more profitable than it was 9 years ago.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#577 - 2012-10-15 05:30:12 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Skaz wrote:
Ok, tell me this.

How is Highsec safer or more profitable than it was 9 years ago when EVE began?



Hint:
It isn't

Then you have no idea what you're talking about.

Safety:
9 years ago, CONCORD didn't exist (see m0o).
After its introduction, it was initially tankable (see Zombies smartbombing Yulai).


Profitability:
The introduction of l4s
Exhumers instead of mining in Battleships
Incursions


HS is significantly safer and more profitable than it was 9 years ago.

My my, your strawman is pretty damn flimsy if people can basically see though it.

Highsec: The way of the future.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#578 - 2012-10-15 05:37:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
Pipa Porto wrote:
Also, Moons require the constant input of ISK in the form of fuel. Where's the constant fixed cost of running an Exhumer?

Constantly you say? Care to take a minute to tell the truth?
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#579 - 2012-10-15 05:45:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Skaz wrote:
Ok, tell me this.

How is Highsec safer or more profitable than it was 9 years ago when EVE began?



Hint:
It isn't

Then you have no idea what you're talking about.

Safety:
9 years ago, CONCORD didn't exist (see m0o).
After its introduction, it was initially tankable (see Zombies smartbombing Yulai).


Profitability:
The introduction of l4s
Exhumers instead of mining in Battleships
Incursions


HS is significantly safer and more profitable than it was 9 years ago.

My my, your strawman is pretty damn flimsy if people can basically see though it.

Highsec: The way of the future.

You do realize those items listed under profitability are also available in low and null sec right? And more profitable.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#580 - 2012-10-15 05:55:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Marlona Sky wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:

Then you have no idea what you're talking about.

Safety:
9 years ago, CONCORD didn't exist (see m0o).
After its introduction, it was initially tankable (see Zombies smartbombing Yulai).


Profitability:
The introduction of l4s
Exhumers instead of mining in Battleships
Incursions


HS is significantly safer and more profitable than it was 9 years ago.

My my, your strawman is pretty damn flimsy if people can basically see though it.

Highsec: The way of the future.

You do realize those items listed under profitability are also available in low and null sec right? And more profitable.

yeah good point marlona, why don't you just autopilot over to the nearest nullsec incursion system in your marauder and start raking in the fat loot

in your case, that'd be located in malpais