These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

An open question to CCP about AFK mining.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
No More Heroes
Boomer Humor
Snuffed Out
#121 - 2013-04-05 20:10:09 UTC  |  Edited by: No More Heroes
I Love Boobies wrote:
Harvesting Moon Goo is the ultimate AFK mining. Dunno what the OP is complaining about, with the alliance he is in and so on. Blink


Ah yes, except that aside from the initial effort required to capture and setup the pos and arrays, we have enemies. The local Venal residents like to shoot our moons, they can be reinforced in one seige cycle by a dreadnought group. We must form up 256 dudes in battleships with logi and recon support when this happens. Every time. The enemy sees our overwhelming force and doesnt show up. We rep our pos. Life goes on.

If we dont form up this overwhelming force each and every time, our enemies may overcome a smaller force and capture our moon. Peace through superior fire-power. So you see- despite the highsec narrative of afk income from passive moon mining, it is quite labor-intensive having these moons. Its not like highsec where you put down your pos 4 jumps from Jita and everyone leaves it alone. And a magical NPC army spawns and destroys anyone who shoots it lest they be paid a fee.

.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#122 - 2013-04-05 20:11:39 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Not that I think he is saying that... but it would definitely lend credit to being hardcore that's for sure. Would also eliminate a lot of the problems many threads are complaining about. Not to mention making risk vs reward a reality. In all elements.


Risk vs reward would be exactly the same. Time vs reward would be the one thing changing.



Except the rate at which those titans were built would require a LOT more effort on the parts of the alliances to defend them at the price of all those people needing to log in, not just for reinforce timers while they play on different pilots.

It would require a TON more time (yep time) and at keyboard effort and attention to accomplish it all. That time is the risk in the game of timers.


An afk builder would still produce jsut as fast as an offline player right now. There is no added risk unless they cahnge what need to be done to stop the production, in this case, destroying the production facility. You could AFK build in the same "secure" space as you offline build right now. The timers would still be on the tower to prevent them from being sneak-killed just like right now.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2013-04-05 20:13:39 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Time investment on a player level is irrelevant. They both perform the same ingame actions at the same rate with player B having their character active longer thus reaping more reward. If you were trying to argue that playing longer was somehow an exploit you could use this argument, but trying to equate AFK'ing to botting doesn't work with this reasoning.
^^ This.
Player A's decision to babysit his mining ship for whatever reason does not make Player B's decision not to do that into something prohibited.


I disagree time investment matters in an activity such as this. Hence the difference in rates.

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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#124 - 2013-04-05 20:18:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Not that I think he is saying that... but it would definitely lend credit to being hardcore that's for sure. Would also eliminate a lot of the problems many threads are complaining about. Not to mention making risk vs reward a reality. In all elements.


Risk vs reward would be exactly the same. Time vs reward would be the one thing changing.



Except the rate at which those titans were built would require a LOT more effort on the parts of the alliances to defend them at the price of all those people needing to log in, not just for reinforce timers while they play on different pilots.

It would require a TON more time (yep time) and at keyboard effort and attention to accomplish it all. That time is the risk in the game of timers.


An afk builder would still produce jsut as fast as an offline player right now. There is no added risk unless they cahnge what need to be done to stop the production, in this case, destroying the production facility. You could AFK build in the same "secure" space as you offline build right now. The timers would still be on the tower to prevent them from being sneak-killed just like right now.



And thats why only online and at keyboard progress would be a testament to how hardcore an alliance would be considered.

Not from what they do afk or offline. Imagine having to logon and click every 5 minutes to "complete" a module or "part" of that ship during the process.

Would definitely bring a whole new value to each and every big ship in the game.

Wouold definitely encourage a lot more industrialists in the game as well. Busy busy busy.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#125 - 2013-04-05 20:21:43 UTC
No More Heroes wrote:
I Love Boobies wrote:
Harvesting Moon Goo is the ultimate AFK mining. Dunno what the OP is complaining about, with the alliance he is in and so on. Blink


Ah yes, except that aside from the initial effort required to capture and setup the pos and arrays, we have enemies. The local Venal residents like to shoot our moons, they can be reinforced in one seige cycle by a dreadnought group. We must form up 256 dudes in battleships with logi and recon support when this happens. Every time. The enemy sees our overwhelming force and doesnt show up. We rep our pos. Life goes on.

If we dont form up this overwhelming force each and every time, our enemies may overcome a smaller force and capture our moon. Peace through superior fire-power. So you see- despite the highsec narrative of afk income from passive moon mining, it is quite labor-intensive having these moons. Its not like highsec where you put down your pos 4 jumps from Jita and everyone leaves it alone. And a magical NPC army spawns and destroys anyone who shoots it lest they be paid a fee.


Then make moon harvested by a special type of ships. It will put moon mining on an equal footing as rock mining for time requirement. The yields and possibility of depletion per server cycle can be adjusted like asteroid belt to prevent player really having to be online 23.5/7 to get the same return as a tower currently.

When this si done, we will even have worked out part of the "work the fields" that should be done in Null. How is that idea?
Dave Stark
#126 - 2013-04-05 20:22:14 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Not that I think he is saying that... but it would definitely lend credit to being hardcore that's for sure. Would also eliminate a lot of the problems many threads are complaining about. Not to mention making risk vs reward a reality. In all elements.


Risk vs reward would be exactly the same. Time vs reward would be the one thing changing.



Except the rate at which those titans were built would require a LOT more effort on the parts of the alliances to defend them at the price of all those people needing to log in, not just for reinforce timers while they play on different pilots.

It would require a TON more time (yep time) and at keyboard effort and attention to accomplish it all. That time is the risk in the game of timers.


An afk builder would still produce jsut as fast as an offline player right now. There is no added risk unless they cahnge what need to be done to stop the production, in this case, destroying the production facility. You could AFK build in the same "secure" space as you offline build right now. The timers would still be on the tower to prevent them from being sneak-killed just like right now.



And thats why only online and at keyboard progress would be a testament to how hardcore an alliance would be considered.

Not from what they do afk or offline. Imagine having to logon and click every 5 minutes to "complete" a module or "part" of that ship during the process.

Would definitely bring a whole new value to each and every big ship in the game.

Wouold definitely encourage a lot more industrialists in the game as well. Busy busy busy.


i dread to think how many people would strongly risk being banned just to bot through something that ********.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#127 - 2013-04-05 20:23:02 UTC
0/10.

the state was referring to 3rd party macros, duh.

yk
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#128 - 2013-04-05 20:23:19 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Time investment on a player level is irrelevant. They both perform the same ingame actions at the same rate with player B having their character active longer thus reaping more reward. If you were trying to argue that playing longer was somehow an exploit you could use this argument, but trying to equate AFK'ing to botting doesn't work with this reasoning.
^^ This.
Player A's decision to babysit his mining ship for whatever reason does not make Player B's decision not to do that into something prohibited.


I disagree time investment matters in an activity such as this. Hence the difference in rates.

Time investment of the character is what matters. If that character is sitting at a belt after having activated their miners/harvesters on a valid target they have performed the only activity needed to reap the yield of that resource up to the capacity of that resource or the capacity of their ship. This is the design of mining.

The ingame investment of the AFK player in your scenario is greater, thus they reap the greater reward. They still accrued reward at the same rate.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#129 - 2013-04-05 20:26:37 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


i dread to think how many people would strongly risk being banned just to bot through something that ********.


Everybody would only fly in destroyer because you can recycle alts after running all the available military training that give you them for free. New player system would litteraly be flodded with alts doing the same 4 mission for the free dessy.
Rengerel en Distel
#130 - 2013-04-05 20:27:51 UTC
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1769806#post1769806

Luckily this has been answered before, no need for the thread to continue.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#131 - 2013-04-05 20:28:14 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Time investment on a player level is irrelevant. They both perform the same ingame actions at the same rate with player B having their character active longer thus reaping more reward. If you were trying to argue that playing longer was somehow an exploit you could use this argument, but trying to equate AFK'ing to botting doesn't work with this reasoning.
^^ This.
Player A's decision to babysit his mining ship for whatever reason does not make Player B's decision not to do that into something prohibited.


I disagree time investment matters in an activity such as this. Hence the difference in rates.


Just like multiboxing, the player time investement is calculated on how much time the capsuler was in game, not how many hours was spent at the keyboard giving commands. It's the same hole in the net that admit both.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#132 - 2013-04-05 20:29:55 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Time investment on a player level is irrelevant. They both perform the same ingame actions at the same rate with player B having their character active longer thus reaping more reward. If you were trying to argue that playing longer was somehow an exploit you could use this argument, but trying to equate AFK'ing to botting doesn't work with this reasoning.
^^ This.
Player A's decision to babysit his mining ship for whatever reason does not make Player B's decision not to do that into something prohibited.


I disagree time investment matters in an activity such as this. Hence the difference in rates.

Time investment of the character is what matters. If that character is sitting at a belt after having activated their miners/harvesters on a valid target they have performed the only activity needed to reap the yield of that resource up to the capacity of that resource or the capacity of their ship. This is the design of mining.

The ingame investment of the AFK player in your scenario is greater, thus they reap the greater reward. They still accrued reward at the same rate.


See this is where everything hinges and CCP will have to step in to tell us what's what. You are claiming that the AFK miner invests more time for more resources. I am claiming that because they are not playing the game and the game is essentially playing itself the AFK miner invests less time but receives more resources.

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
Dave Stark
#133 - 2013-04-05 20:31:45 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


i dread to think how many people would strongly risk being banned just to bot through something that ********.


Everybody would only fly in destroyer because you can recycle alts after running all the available military training that give you them for free. New player system would litteraly be flodded with alts doing the same 4 mission for the free dessy.


don't even need to be a new player to do those any more, any one can do them, just need to do all 10 and you can do it again from the start.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#134 - 2013-04-05 20:33:34 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Time investment on a player level is irrelevant. They both perform the same ingame actions at the same rate with player B having their character active longer thus reaping more reward. If you were trying to argue that playing longer was somehow an exploit you could use this argument, but trying to equate AFK'ing to botting doesn't work with this reasoning.
^^ This.
Player A's decision to babysit his mining ship for whatever reason does not make Player B's decision not to do that into something prohibited.


I disagree time investment matters in an activity such as this. Hence the difference in rates.

Time investment of the character is what matters. If that character is sitting at a belt after having activated their miners/harvesters on a valid target they have performed the only activity needed to reap the yield of that resource up to the capacity of that resource or the capacity of their ship. This is the design of mining.

The ingame investment of the AFK player in your scenario is greater, thus they reap the greater reward. They still accrued reward at the same rate.


See this is where everything hinges and CCP will have to step in to tell us what's what. You are claiming that the AFK miner invests more time for more resources. I am claiming that because they are not playing the game and the game is essentially playing itself the AFK miner invests less time but receives more resources.


They accept multiboxing even if the number of man hours at the keyboard is lower than it should require by singla players. They can't really dissalow afk mining with all the well known limitation making it much less profitable/efficient than multiboxing.

Off work now so no more posting ...
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#135 - 2013-04-05 20:51:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
This question has been asked many times in the past, and I'm pretty sure that CCP gave it a big, resounding "NO, AFK MINING IS OKAY!!" by giving the retriever and mackinaw almost the same mining output as their bigger sisters while having a tremendous ore bay.

I fly a retriever and I still think its mining output should be cut down to somewhere between the current and the old retriever.

I Love Boobies wrote:
Harvesting Moon Goo is the ultimate AFK mining. Dunno what the OP is complaining about, with the alliance he is in and so on. Blink
Absolutely not. It requires a lot of physical presence of a lot of people to defend that income.

Mining in a procurer or retriever on a NPC corp alt is the ultimate form of AFK-mining. You get a massive ore bay and high enough EHP vs. ship value to not be worth ganking, unless the ganker intended to spend as much as you were going to lose. The procurer has less ore bay but still plenty, and way higher EHP.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#136 - 2013-04-05 21:02:33 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Tippia wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Is AFK mining against the EULA?
No.

Quote:
The underlined portion pertains directly to AFK mining.
…or rather, it would, if being AFK somehow made you acquire stuff at an accelerated rate, which it doesn't.


It does allow you to acquire stuff at an accelerated rate. You are acquiring things as if you were present at the keyboard when you are not. This means the AFK miner will acquire things quicker than the ATK miner.

"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."

Ordinary game play has not been defined by CCP hence the gray area and this thread.


LMAO seems straight forward and basic to me. No matter how much you would like it to be against EULA it is not.

No grey black and white and if you search previous post will see dev replies.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#137 - 2013-04-05 21:03:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
La Nariz wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

The ingame investment of the AFK player in your scenario is greater, thus they reap the greater reward. They still accrued reward at the same rate.


See this is where everything hinges and CCP will have to step in to tell us what's what. You are claiming that the AFK miner invests more time for more resources. I am claiming that because they are not playing the game and the game is essentially playing itself the AFK miner invests less time but receives more resources.

I would imagine that most consider providing input to the client to be playing the game. Because in reality it's just staring and waiting for timers to expire, which is nothing more than passive observation, that separates an AFK miner from an ATK miner by definition.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#138 - 2013-04-05 21:16:44 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

The ingame investment of the AFK player in your scenario is greater, thus they reap the greater reward. They still accrued reward at the same rate.


See this is where everything hinges and CCP will have to step in to tell us what's what. You are claiming that the AFK miner invests more time for more resources. I am claiming that because they are not playing the game and the game is essentially playing itself the AFK miner invests less time but receives more resources.

I would imagine that most consider providing input to the client to be playing the game. Because in reality it's just staring and waiting for timers to expire, which is nothing more than passive observation, that separates an AFK miner from an ATK miner by definition.


Passive observation is fine but not required there are plenty of things to do while mining, chatting, marketing, etc. So those that choose passive observation are choosing to do less than they could and losing out on acquiring things. AFK mining however is almost-no observation which wouldn't be a problem except that over time it becomes an unfair advantage over ordinary play.

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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#139 - 2013-04-05 21:21:27 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
I disagree time investment matters in an activity such as this. Hence the difference in rates.
…except, of course, that there is no difference in rates and that as a result, unsurprisingly, spending twice the time yields twice the income.

You can disagree as much as you like, but earning 4 volume units in 4 time units is the same rate as earning 8 volume units in 8 time units. Your disagreeing only makes you fail at pre-school maths.

Quote:
See this is where everything hinges and CCP will have to step in to tell us what's what.
CCP don't particularly need to step in to tell us that 4/4 = 8/8.

Quote:
I am claiming that because they are not playing the game and the game is essentially playing itself
…which is, of course, false. The game doesn't play itself — it just counts down a timer, which is the same for the both player A and B, after which both player A and B yield the same rewards. Same reward for the same time = same rate. There is nothing even remotely accelerated about either of them (but of course, being at the keyboard means that player A will earn more than player B).
Dave Stark
#140 - 2013-04-05 21:22:02 UTC
but afk is ordinary play, or at least a lack of interaction with the game. the choice to be afk or not is completely arbitrary and not being afk doesn't change anything.