EVE General Discussion

So then the issue is drones and the aggressive setting. This has nothing to do with mining specifically. So what is the issue if I choose to not engage the rats but I'm still AFK mining?

I'd question your concept of what a barge/exhumer could tank. Pre-buff I would regularly ignore belt rats in a cargo fitted retriever as I was afraid of the aggressive setting getting me concorded (due to a poor understanding of aggression mechanics). There was tank in the mids but the rigs and lows were for cargo. I later did the save with a covetor.

Mind you I mostly mined in Grav sites so tank wasn't terribly high but 4 HS belt rats wasn't enough to get the shield alert yo go off when set to 75% HP with 1 IF fitted.

I'm not asking if it incurs risk, I'm asking if it is an exploit and if so how? You stated the drones made it an exploit, but it's possible without the drones and always has been.

So the drones can't be the reason for calling it an exploit because the drones don't "enable" the AFK'ing, they at best mean you can do it with a more yield centric fit and at worse means that training shield management and shield operation paid off because you still can yield fit without them.

Ok, this argument attacks why AFK mining is negative economically, but it doesn't address why it should be treated as an EULA violation like some seem to think it should be by equating it to the AFK PvE exploit.

The fact that you can deploy drones to facilitate being AFK was YOUR point, not mine. All I did was point out that it isn't needed to AFK mine so it can't be the reason for it being en exploit. So again, while economically disadvantageous (to a limited degree) what makes AFK mining worthy of being considered an exploit?

Also keep in mind that the mantra of risk V reward means that there must be various levels of risk, including low risk, to make varying levels of reward relevant. So mining being low reward isn't inherently bad in the RvR argument.

Edit: "So what if it requires inputs?" This is something that I wholly do not understand. This is, from my understanding, a large contributing factor as to why the exploit was declared. Is it understood to be otherwise?

Ok, so you have a blanket statement made which you are advocating they enforce as you understand it without clarification. I take issue with this reasoning. Additionally I recall the clause you quoted didn't apply as 1) it didn't accelerate acquisition, and 2) the "playstyle" is the same for active and inactive miners (activating miners is always done at the keyboard for both)

Poopin's against the EULA??

That smells.



Well my idea has always been to simply make mining an actual activity. You know where you push buttons and click mouse thing-a-jiggers and ore hold only fills up when you are pushing buttons and clicking stuff.

Lazy miners are fat on too much carrot cake in hi sec. Need to make them burn off more calories by clicking and button mashing.

I just spent another hour reading the EULA again.

I can NOT find the bit were taking a ****, watching TV or reading a book while playing Eve is against the EULA?!

Does anybody know what clause it is?

You want risk in HiSec?

Then bring it to HiSec.

So using drones while mining at the amazing rate of 10k per rat needs to be qualified in the EULA? At 100 rats - which probably would not even spawn in a day - the miner will net a grand total of 1m whole isk.

In 2 years, he'll have enough for a plex!! goddam freeloaders!!

Of course in the EULA we need to point out at the AFK timer will be reset when the miner unloads and is thus ATK and any rats killed will thus not be deemed a violation.

And we need a way to test for AFK miners that are in >0.8 and not subject to rats.

This is getting absurd.

Let's help CCP draft a 700 page EULA so we all know what key to press and when?

We can agree that mining needs to be reworked, as is the goal of this thread's OP.

My problem with the drones conundrum isn't miners in high-sec mining with their drones out. My problem is that there is only one reason used to justify it: lower risk. If you make all PVE universally requie players to be more-or-less ATK, it looks less like miners need hand-holding or coddling. It also adds value to the profession. Providing reasons for miners to stay attentive can be done in many ways, such as increased NPC difficulty, more balanced barges/exhumers (facilitating the legitimate threat of a solo gank in high-sec), and allowing smartbombs to be activated in the vicinity of anchorable containers would go a long way toward providing engaging gameplay than creating exceptions to "rules of principle" does.

That's my problem with the AFK mining. It's really one of principle. The profession would be more valuable if it wasn't an option.