EVE General Discussion

Alright why is 0 investment allowed then? Bot/AFK miners are the 0 investment crowd, 0 investment should have 0 return because you cannot get something from nothing. I don't mine so I don't have an anecdote for that, all I can say is anecdotes don't corroborate well.

Darth I'll try not to quote that guy's shitposts anymore.

It's not 0 investment. For a player, not a bot, it's admittedly very low investment, but it's not none. And CCP has responded in the past that the low investment nature of the activity was intended.

I've never seen a post stating AFK mining was an exploit and have seen several to the contrary. The recent public declaration of exploit for AFK sentry domi's was even specifically separated from AFK mining. And that was because the sentry domi exploit truly did require 0 effort beyond initial setup and could perpetuate itself endlessly without additional inputs.

That is what AFK mining is. Or so i thought. If I'm mistaken and we're using different definitions please let me know.

And it should be noted that if I don't make the investment of checking back often enough I lose the benefit of gathering ore due to hold capacity or asteroid depletion at some point. That being the case I do get to a 0 reward point unless I apply additional effort.

AFK PVE is against the rules, as stated by CCP.

I hope that helps clarify the terminology.

Then allow me to clarify that I have no issue with "low investment" mining.

And what, if anything is separating the terms AFK mining and Botting at this point?

He can always man up and unblock. That's HIS problem.

Pass this on to your boyfriend ally,

Dear Darth

If miners HAD tanked, what would mineral prices be now?

Regards
Strawman

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 don't. I understood it to be low investment/low value and this has been reinforced by both CCP words and actions.

I have always advocated mining aligned over fitting for tank. Moving in the direction of your intended warp should not have an impact on your yield, certainly not to the extent that tanking does. This activity requires that attention be paid, however, so it is dismissed out-of-hand. So the gankers ganked.

Nobody ever had to fit for tank. No PVP ships have to fit for mining. All anybody ever needed to do was pay attention.

I +1'd your post because it's not that bad aside from a few misconceptions.