These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New Order Mining Permits Now Worthless?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2014-03-19 02:13:11 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Ore has no ownership while not mined, and once mined it belongs to the miner.
It's not ore they claim ownership of is it?

It's space. The tax/admin fee/shakedown payment is to cover your use of the space, not for taking ownership of minerals in that space.
They have no real claim to the space itself either. Anyone can come and do what they do for any reason, they have no exclusive right to it. They did rather smartly skirt that fact by considering all actors with similar methods to be allies in the fight, but it doesn't change the fact that the fight can't be made exclusively theirs whether they want it or not.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#62 - 2014-03-19 02:19:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Same can be said of mining, and for stretches of time, when I don't feel like investing much time in game I am one myself. But the fact remains that every complaint lodged at miners can be lodged at manufacturers and researchers save the fact that they are often docked or even offline. This makes them no better than the so called "bot aspirants," their activity supports periods of inattentiveness which can be spent with a focus outside of the client. If the miner takes that risk and gets caught it's fair game being undocked, but for incurring that risk they suffer greater scorn. That doesn't make sense to me.


So no to the question, but in relation to mining, there is a very easy argument to show that there are miners who AFK while undocked in space. Same for haulers and pilots just autopiloting through highsec where they wouldn't think to do the same in lowsec or most areas of nullsec.

There is also evidence of scripts being used to control mining characters with very little player involvement.

The second of those, the true bots, don't belong in the game at all and CCP hunts them out wherever they can; but the first group that AFK don't offer much to the game either while AFK.

The larger part of the NO activities whether you like them or not try to create content out of those players.

While there are other miners caught up in that also, the activities of the few affect the reputation of all. If you are interested in being able to mine in peace in highsec, you should embrace what the NO is trying to achieve. Get past the roleplay and look at the underlying aims and goals.

If they actually ever achieve an AFK free highsec (almost impossible) and removal of all bots from highsec, they'll look for some other reason to gank, but at the moment their motivation is supported by genuine reasons for a large number of them.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#63 - 2014-03-19 02:26:29 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
So does a pure manufacturer not play the game?

Certainly. Especially because they aren't undocked in open space pretending that they are actually playing.
Wait, so let me get this strait. Being undocked and active (which is debatable because one can be looking at the client while not issuing inputs) is the defining point for playing, but removing undocking removes the obligation to be active? Seems like "bot aspirant" is just a meaningless justification here, and not an RP one. If you want to RP someone who likes ganking barges, fine. If you don't want to RP but still like ganking barges, fine. But denigrating players for some BS reasons? Kinda justifies the flak you get as you are perpetuating the mud slinging.



No, I highly doubt it justifies them making real life threats and saying they hope I get cancer, and so forth.

And yes, it works exactly like that. A manufacturer is rarely logged in, but while he is he is actively engaged in playing the game. A miner likely is not, while being undocked in open space. The crime is far greater.

I'm not denigrating players, btw. Because they're not actually playing.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#64 - 2014-03-19 02:27:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
They have no real claim to the space itself either.

So, ignore them. I'm sure they won't mind.
Arancar Australis
Dead Sun Rising Enterprises
#65 - 2014-03-19 02:29:06 UTC
Alyth Nerun wrote:
Arancar Australis wrote:
Erotica 1 wrote:
Divine Entervention wrote:
Mining permits are bullshit, don't buy them. anyone trying to convince you to do so is only trying to get you to give them isk for free.
We are the good guys. We are here to help. www.minerbumping.com


There are no good guys or bad guys in the equation

I stopped reading right there, what good is a post based on such a wrong assumption. Of course we are the good guys because we follow the CODE which is based on pure rational arguments and the moral high ground per se.



I was wondering how long it would take to get my first troll for my piece.

Thank you!!

Cheers,

AA
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2014-03-19 02:36:29 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

So no to the question, but in relation to mining, there is a very easy argument to show that there are miners who AFK while undocked in space. Same for haulers and pilots just autopiloting through highsec where they wouldn't think to do the same in lowsec or most areas of nullsec.

There is also evidence of scripts being used to control mining characters with very little player involvement.

The second of those, the true bots, don't belong in the game at all and CCP hunts them out wherever they can; but the first group that AFK don't offer much to the game either while AFK.

The larger part of the NO activities whether you like them or not try to create content out of those players.

While there are other miners caught up in that also, the activities of the few affect the reputation of all. If you are interested in being able to mine in peace in highsec, you should embrace what the NO is trying to achieve. Get past the roleplay and look at the underlying aims and goals.

If they actually ever achieve an AFK free highsec (almost impossible) and removal of all bots from the game, they'll look for some other reason to gank, but at the moment their motivation is supported by genuine reasons for a large number of them.
As stated, I have no issue with the RP motivations of the NO, or the activities they engage in. I am, however, under no obligation to embrace their goals. Actually, by creating demand for materials in the form of lost ships while directly interfering with supply, they are working actively against those in game who depend upon roughly static PvE income that has large portions don't fluctuate with the market.

The only people who draw benefit are the people with an irrational hatred of others not looking at the client at all times, and even then only by way of self satisfaction. If you have a genuine reason why the game as a whole should condemn AFK play, please feel free to present it, but frothing at the mouth because someone is watching TV while their miners cycle or while slowboating a freighter doesn't cut it.
Arancar Australis
Dead Sun Rising Enterprises
#67 - 2014-03-19 02:38:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Arancar Australis
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Arancar Australis wrote:

Don't hide behind some higher calling or some misguided notion that an AFK player harms the game (as an AFK player has no effect on your game play). Be honest and upfront and change the manifesto to " We do not like that you do not play the game in the way we believe that you should be playing, so we will do what we can to enforce our ideal of game style and replace yours with it".

For my part, i'll keep mining in my own way - minus a permit. If i get ganked or bumped, I accept that as being part of the game and will go back and reship or jump back to my asteroid friends (as they dont have delusions of holy relevance). P

Cheers,

AA


AFK generation of resources (whether done by EULA-compliant methods or outright botting) does indeed have an effect on the gameplay of others.

It reduces mineral prices, increases supercapital proliferation, and as such increases the power of nullsec entities that can field supercapital fleets at the expense of nullsec entities that don't have supercap fleets and aspiring future nullsec entities.


Isn't it ironic that, for all that the New Order get called 'Goon Pets' because of James' former affiliation with Goons and his continuing friendship with Mittens, the activities of the NO (both blowing up barges, and reporting the bot miners) actually harm the Goons.



To use your own reasoning then, the reduction of the mineral prices which allows those large null sec alliances to buy more capitals would also allow those smaller alliances to also acquire supercapitals as they are now at a cheaper cost to buy. (yes, i know, my arguement is not strong and easily argued against, but i hope you would get my meaning Big smile )

Since after all, not much is stated when the Code is about doing their holy work, that they are keeping the prices of minerals higher to prevent the large Nullsec alliances from acquiring more firepower.

As to the old line of James=mittens=goon pets, i've never subscribed to it as i don't know or really care if it is true or not. As far as i am concerned, the Code. players are ones whoa re playing the game as they see fit to play, irrespective of their affliation on a main. To be honest i would equate James to Jim Bakker, tv evangelist icon Big smile

All in all this is a game open to all forms of playstyles and opinions...and also open to people doing something about their opinions ingame.

Cheers,

AA

P.S. I don't know about you but i am seeing this whole tpopic as being fun Lol and worry about those who are so gung ho about it.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2014-03-19 02:40:45 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
So does a pure manufacturer not play the game?

Certainly. Especially because they aren't undocked in open space pretending that they are actually playing.
Wait, so let me get this strait. Being undocked and active (which is debatable because one can be looking at the client while not issuing inputs) is the defining point for playing, but removing undocking removes the obligation to be active? Seems like "bot aspirant" is just a meaningless justification here, and not an RP one. If you want to RP someone who likes ganking barges, fine. If you don't want to RP but still like ganking barges, fine. But denigrating players for some BS reasons? Kinda justifies the flak you get as you are perpetuating the mud slinging.



No, I highly doubt it justifies them making real life threats and saying they hope I get cancer, and so forth.

And yes, it works exactly like that. A manufacturer is rarely logged in, but while he is he is actively engaged in playing the game. A miner likely is not, while being undocked in open space. The crime is far greater.

I'm not denigrating players, btw. Because they're not actually playing.
The miner plays in exactly the same way the manufacturer plays save the fact that the latter incurs less risk of loss by way of exposure. And yes, you are denigrating players. Your refusal to acknowledge it does not change that fact.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2014-03-19 02:41:41 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
They have no real claim to the space itself either.

So, ignore them. I'm sure they won't mind.
I do, but so long as the discussion is going, why not participate?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#70 - 2014-03-19 02:45:00 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The miner plays in exactly the same way the manufacturer plays save the fact that the latter incurs less risk of loss by way of exposure. And yes, you are denigrating players. Your refusal to acknowledge it does not change that fact.


If they're not playing, they're not players. By definition.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2014-03-19 02:47:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The miner plays in exactly the same way the manufacturer plays save the fact that the latter incurs less risk of loss by way of exposure. And yes, you are denigrating players. Your refusal to acknowledge it does not change that fact.


If they're not playing, they're not players. By definition.

They are playing, directing ones attention away from the client temporarily doesn't change that.

Edit: Beyond that, since when was the definition simplified to being active in the client? That would mean that all metagame aspects in a social MMO no longer count as playing.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#72 - 2014-03-19 02:48:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
If you have a genuine reason why the game as a whole should condemn AFK play, please feel free to present it, but frothing at the mouth because someone is watching TV while their miners cycle or while slowboating a freighter doesn't cut it.

If you want the genuine reasons that the NO believe in, then go read the Code; and clearly your view that AFK isn't a problem is something they disagree with.

I doubt those views will ever agree, so if their roleplay doesn'y worry you, then just forget about them. Your view won't have any impact on them and I doubt you'll be affected by them very often.

For my part, I don't have any problem with miners in highsec, nor with gankers.

What I do have a problem with is players who want to make highsec safe. They often claim that gankers drive new players away from the game and the game will collapse at some point because they can't just play in peace.

My view is, making highsec safe and turning it into a themepark is the thing that will lead to the end of the game. No other game offers the environment that EvE offers and that uniqueness is exactly why the game has survived so long. It provides a game for people who don't want the WoW experience.

Turn it into WoW and EvE just becomes the same as every other game that can be played without challenge or thought.

Don't make EvE that. If anything, remove some of the current limits on play so that everything is driven and controlled by players, including their security in any area of space.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#73 - 2014-03-19 02:49:57 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The miner plays in exactly the same way the manufacturer plays save the fact that the latter incurs less risk of loss by way of exposure. And yes, you are denigrating players. Your refusal to acknowledge it does not change that fact.


If they're not playing, they're not players. By definition.

They are playing, directing ones attention away from the client temporarily doesn't change that.


"temporarily" doesn't include 90% of the time.

You can't claim that mining afk is the exception, when it's actually the rule.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2014-03-19 02:53:29 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The miner plays in exactly the same way the manufacturer plays save the fact that the latter incurs less risk of loss by way of exposure. And yes, you are denigrating players. Your refusal to acknowledge it does not change that fact.


If they're not playing, they're not players. By definition.

They are playing, directing ones attention away from the client temporarily doesn't change that.


"temporarily" doesn't include 90% of the time.

You can't claim that mining afk is the exception, when it's actually the rule.

I don't claim AFK cloaking as an exception, which can last far longer. and be a higher percentage.
Arancar Australis
Dead Sun Rising Enterprises
#75 - 2014-03-19 02:57:53 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
So does a pure manufacturer not play the game?

Certainly. Especially because they aren't undocked in open space pretending that they are actually playing.
Wait, so let me get this strait. Being undocked and active (which is debatable because one can be looking at the client while not issuing inputs) is the defining point for playing, but removing undocking removes the obligation to be active? Seems like "bot aspirant" is just a meaningless justification here, and not an RP one. If you want to RP someone who likes ganking barges, fine. If you don't want to RP but still like ganking barges, fine. But denigrating players for some BS reasons? Kinda justifies the flak you get as you are perpetuating the mud slinging.



No, I highly doubt it justifies them making real life threats and saying they hope I get cancer, and so forth.

And yes, it works exactly like that. A manufacturer is rarely logged in, but while he is he is actively engaged in playing the game. A miner likely is not, while being undocked in open space. The crime is far greater.

I'm not denigrating players, btw. Because they're not actually playing.



You have a very narrow definition of playing right? P

I remember playing a turn based space game that involved sending my moves/actions to a central person via mail (yes the internet hasn't been around since the beginning of time). It was a slow torturous process but it was longer than i would take when doing mining, i was doing the same amount of actions as when i mine. So would you say that i wasn't a player as i was interacting less in my mail turn based game?

I agree some of the language that is used by both sides is a lot to be desired. You even use the word "Crime" or "bot aspirant" to give the playing style of the other player a negative connatation. But yet there is no crime committed or intent to aspire to be a bot, but by labelling it as such it makes it eaiser to rally the forces against the person.

Why is it so hard to just say "I don't like the way you play" or "I only want to gank you to wreck your enjoyment of the game" - it works fine for Goons who are considered such a lovely bunch of space faring hippies Roll

Sometimes we make the game harder than what it needs to be.
Mara Denais
Mara Denais Tax Evasion
#76 - 2014-03-19 03:00:52 UTC
Arancar Australis wrote:

I remember playing a turn based space game that involved sending my moves/actions to a central person via mail (yes the internet hasn't been around since the beginning of time).


Oh damn, i forgot about that one. Remind me on the name, please?
I'm stuck with a a lame token-ring LAN-8086 game and i'm sure it's the wrong one :(
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#77 - 2014-03-19 03:03:03 UTC
Michael Ruckert wrote:
Does anyone know if this is a corp? Anyone seen a mining ship with a New Order permit taken out? Or is this just a propaganda war?


Likely just some guy creating exposure to lend credibility to his rather simple scam once he launches it wholesale.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#78 - 2014-03-19 03:04:44 UTC
Arancar Australis wrote:

You have a very narrow definition of playing right? P

I remember playing a turn based space game that involved sending my moves/actions to a central person via mail (yes the internet hasn't been around since the beginning of time). It was a slow torturous process but it was longer than i would take when doing mining, i was doing the same amount of actions as when i mine. So would you say that i wasn't a player as i was interacting less in my mail turn based game?


Of course not, because that's how your game works. Played my share of "play by mail" in my day. It's not a failure to be a player to wait your turn in cards, either, before anyone whips out that tired old line.

EVE is not a turn based game, however.


Quote:

I agree some of the language that is used by both sides is a lot to be desired. You even use the word "Crime" or "bot aspirant" to give the playing style of the other player a negative connatation. But yet there is no crime committed or intent to aspire to be a bot, but by labelling it as such it makes it eaiser to rally the forces against the person.

Why is it so hard to just say "I don't like the way you play" or "I only want to gank you to wreck your enjoyment of the game" - it works fine for Goons who are considered such a lovely bunch of space faring hippies Roll

Sometimes we make the game harder than what it needs to be.


You can dissemble all you please, but one of those groups is engaging in legitimate gameplay, while one is making threats and using language that is against the EULA.

There is no moral equivalency between the two groups. One group are players, one group are real-life threatening, obscenity-spouting slime.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2014-03-19 03:06:36 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

You can dissemble all you please, but one of those groups is engaging in legitimate gameplay, while one is making threats and using language that is against the EULA.

There is no moral equivalency between the two groups. One group are players, one group are real-life threatening, obscenity-spouting slime.
There really is no excuse for real life threats, but those individuals are players as well.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#80 - 2014-03-19 03:18:26 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

You can dissemble all you please, but one of those groups is engaging in legitimate gameplay, while one is making threats and using language that is against the EULA.

There is no moral equivalency between the two groups. One group are players, one group are real-life threatening, obscenity-spouting slime.
There really is no excuse for real life threats, but those individuals are players as well.


Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kinda justifies the flak you get as you are perpetuating the mud slinging.


Well, which is it, then?

And no, when someone crosses the line into making real life threats over a videogame, is when they stop being a player, as well. Then they're nothing anymore, and they should be chased out of the game for the sake of everyone else who can still keep the game within the game.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.