These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Market Discussions

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

AFK Miners Fail Economics Forever

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#21 - 2012-11-16 20:40:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Malphilos
Darth Gustav wrote:
Malphilos wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Malphilos wrote:


For the unenlightened, please explain how it's worse than mining with someone at the keyboard.

That'd be fine..

People at keyboards have limits. Limits are actually good for economies. They reinforce minimum values, rather than allowing them to sag indefinitely.

When everyone can gather resources with zero effort those resources' value sufferes. As a result, the value of the profession as a whole suffers, too.

Only when resources are finite in availability will there be no difference between a miner ATK and a bot/AFK miner.

Thanks for the great question.


You're welcome! I have more:

When they're sitting at their keyboard, does it matter where their eyes are pointing?
What if they're at the keyboard but asleep?
How do wireless keyboards fit into this scheme?
What's the impact of running EVE and Firefly on the same display? While sleeping?
In what units are you measuring effort (as in "zero effort")?

Only the last question deserves any answer.

Effort is described in terms of work, or force divided by distance, to achieve it.

In this case I'm going to use Joules (J) for the unit. Nevertheless, a zero value here is equal to a zero value for any other unit of work I'm familiar with.

I hope that helps.


Oh, I think they're all valid and reasonable questions. I think it's just that the answers lack the punch you're seeking.

I am also saddened that you've seen fit to so effectively rebut the entire premise of the "zero effort" claim before we're finished having fun with it. Now the OP will have to re-work the entire screed. Cry
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2012-11-16 20:42:40 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
Here's a thought: you do pay for electricity right? you could have invested an hour of effort to make far more than you made leaving your system on all day AFK mining and then saved on power.


incorrect assumption #2; the computer is only on in order to play eve.


Incorrect assumption 2a: I turn my computer off. My computer is on when I sleep, when I'm at work, when I take my cats to the vet. The only time it's not on, is if the electricity goes off, or I go on vacation for more than a weekend.

The real problem with the opportunity cost argument is that you make the assumption that actively playing Eve to increase ISK/hour is more important to these people than whatever else they're doing at that time. It's obviously not, or they'd be actively playing EvE instead of AFKing.

Hell I know people that afk mine on one account while actively running null sec anoms on the other, thereby increasing their ISK/hour over doing each activity separately.So by actively mining, you're actually giving up the opportunity make more ISK than you could by AFK mining and doing something else more profitable.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#23 - 2012-11-16 20:45:18 UTC
De'Veldrin wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
Here's a thought: you do pay for electricity right? you could have invested an hour of effort to make far more than you made leaving your system on all day AFK mining and then saved on power.


incorrect assumption #2; the computer is only on in order to play eve.


Incorrect assumption 2a: I turn my computer off. My computer is on when I sleep, when I'm at work, when I take my cats to the vet. The only time it's not on, is if the electricity goes off, or I go on vacation for more than a weekend.

The real problem with the opportunity cost argument is that you make the assumption that actively playing Eve to increase ISK/hour is more important to these people than whatever else they're doing at that time. It's obviously not, or they'd be actively playing EvE instead of AFKing.

Hell I know people that afk mine on one account while actively running null sec anoms on the other, thereby increasing their ISK/hour over doing each activity separately.So by actively mining, you're actually giving up the opportunity make more ISK than you could by AFK mining and doing something else more profitable.

Eventually you devalue the gatherable resources enough that it doesn't matter though.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Dave stark
#24 - 2012-11-16 20:47:48 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
Here's a thought: you do pay for electricity right? you could have invested an hour of effort to make far more than you made leaving your system on all day AFK mining and then saved on power.


incorrect assumption #2; the computer is only on in order to play eve.


Incorrect assumption 2a: I turn my computer off. My computer is on when I sleep, when I'm at work, when I take my cats to the vet. The only time it's not on, is if the electricity goes off, or I go on vacation for more than a weekend.

The real problem with the opportunity cost argument is that you make the assumption that actively playing Eve to increase ISK/hour is more important to these people than whatever else they're doing at that time. It's obviously not, or they'd be actively playing EvE instead of AFKing.

Hell I know people that afk mine on one account while actively running null sec anoms on the other, thereby increasing their ISK/hour over doing each activity separately.So by actively mining, you're actually giving up the opportunity make more ISK than you could by AFK mining and doing something else more profitable.

Eventually you devalue the gatherable resources enough that it doesn't matter though.


that situation only becomes reality when ice, and all of it's refined products are worth exactly 0 isk on the market.

that will never happen, hence there will always be afk ice miners.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#25 - 2012-11-16 20:50:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Dave stark wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
Here's a thought: you do pay for electricity right? you could have invested an hour of effort to make far more than you made leaving your system on all day AFK mining and then saved on power.


incorrect assumption #2; the computer is only on in order to play eve.


Incorrect assumption 2a: I turn my computer off. My computer is on when I sleep, when I'm at work, when I take my cats to the vet. The only time it's not on, is if the electricity goes off, or I go on vacation for more than a weekend.

The real problem with the opportunity cost argument is that you make the assumption that actively playing Eve to increase ISK/hour is more important to these people than whatever else they're doing at that time. It's obviously not, or they'd be actively playing EvE instead of AFKing.

Hell I know people that afk mine on one account while actively running null sec anoms on the other, thereby increasing their ISK/hour over doing each activity separately.So by actively mining, you're actually giving up the opportunity make more ISK than you could by AFK mining and doing something else more profitable.

Eventually you devalue the gatherable resources enough that it doesn't matter though.


that situation only becomes reality when ice, and all of it's refined products are worth exactly 0 isk on the market.

that will never happen, hence there will always be afk ice miners.

Oh, come on, it doesn't have to be zero.

If the ice blocks you pull in are only worth 10 ISK, then making 300 ISK for a half hour of AFK mining isn't worthwhile, is it?

300 ISK could be attainable by running the same anomalies you mentioned only slightly (<1%) more efficiently due to lack of multitasking distractions.

The devaluation clearly does not have to be zero, though the threshold will be different for various players/bot farms.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2012-11-16 20:55:04 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
Here's a thought: you do pay for electricity right? you could have invested an hour of effort to make far more than you made leaving your system on all day AFK mining and then saved on power.


incorrect assumption #2; the computer is only on in order to play eve.


Incorrect assumption 2a: I turn my computer off. My computer is on when I sleep, when I'm at work, when I take my cats to the vet. The only time it's not on, is if the electricity goes off, or I go on vacation for more than a weekend.

The real problem with the opportunity cost argument is that you make the assumption that actively playing Eve to increase ISK/hour is more important to these people than whatever else they're doing at that time. It's obviously not, or they'd be actively playing EvE instead of AFKing.

Hell I know people that afk mine on one account while actively running null sec anoms on the other, thereby increasing their ISK/hour over doing each activity separately.So by actively mining, you're actually giving up the opportunity make more ISK than you could by AFK mining and doing something else more profitable.

Eventually you devalue the gatherable resources enough that it doesn't matter though.

I'm not sure that is even possible at this point as the resources being AFK'd are in such high demand. They can never 0 out though they can approach it. The best that can happen is it stabilizes as some decide it's not even worth their AFK time. Worse case we get no new miners and the activity stagnates at the minimum return that demand will allow.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2012-11-16 20:58:19 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
De'Veldrin wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
Here's a thought: you do pay for electricity right? you could have invested an hour of effort to make far more than you made leaving your system on all day AFK mining and then saved on power.


incorrect assumption #2; the computer is only on in order to play eve.


Incorrect assumption 2a: I turn my computer off. My computer is on when I sleep, when I'm at work, when I take my cats to the vet. The only time it's not on, is if the electricity goes off, or I go on vacation for more than a weekend.

The real problem with the opportunity cost argument is that you make the assumption that actively playing Eve to increase ISK/hour is more important to these people than whatever else they're doing at that time. It's obviously not, or they'd be actively playing EvE instead of AFKing.

Hell I know people that afk mine on one account while actively running null sec anoms on the other, thereby increasing their ISK/hour over doing each activity separately.So by actively mining, you're actually giving up the opportunity make more ISK than you could by AFK mining and doing something else more profitable.

Eventually you devalue the gatherable resources enough that it doesn't matter though.


I'm not sure that would happen. The active miners would leave far before the AFKers, because their ISK/per unit of effort will fall below what they consider acceptable levels first. This will actually raise the value of the materials as the supply dries up. I expect the market would stabilize long before AFK miners cared to consider changing their ways.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-11-16 21:01:25 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:

Oh, come on, it doesn't have to be zero.

If the ice blocks you pull in are only worth 10 ISK, then making 300 ISK for a half hour of AFK mining isn't worthwhile, is it?

300 ISK could be attainable by running the same anomalies you mentioned only slightly (<1%) more efficiently due to lack of multitasking distractions.

The devaluation clearly does not have to be zero, though the threshold will be different for various players/bot farms.

Having not looked at the changes in ice prices lately, I'd have to ask is this happening? Are we really approaching 0 at any appreciable rate to be concerned or is the argument more academic than realistic in nature at this point?
Dave stark
#29 - 2012-11-16 21:02:24 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:

Oh, come on, it doesn't have to be zero.

If the ice blocks you pull in are only worth 10 ISK, then making 300 ISK for a half hour of AFK mining isn't worthwhile, is it?

300 ISK could be attainable by running the same anomalies you mentioned only slightly (<1%) more efficiently due to lack of multitasking distractions.

The devaluation clearly does not have to be zero, though the threshold will be different for various players/bot farms.


the problem is, due to the demand prices will never be low enough for any one to consider not doing it.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#30 - 2012-11-16 21:03:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:

Oh, come on, it doesn't have to be zero.

If the ice blocks you pull in are only worth 10 ISK, then making 300 ISK for a half hour of AFK mining isn't worthwhile, is it?

300 ISK could be attainable by running the same anomalies you mentioned only slightly (<1%) more efficiently due to lack of multitasking distractions.

The devaluation clearly does not have to be zero, though the threshold will be different for various players/bot farms.

Having not looked at the changes in ice prices lately, I'd have to ask is this happening? Are we really approaching 0 at any appreciable rate to be concerned or is the argument more academic than realistic in nature at this point?

They have fallen a long way, one could say we're approaching some low number.

Whether the math says that low number is zero or not is any player's guess, I think.

But there's no doubt we're approaching a very low number based on trends.

Dave stark wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:

Oh, come on, it doesn't have to be zero.

If the ice blocks you pull in are only worth 10 ISK, then making 300 ISK for a half hour of AFK mining isn't worthwhile, is it?

300 ISK could be attainable by running the same anomalies you mentioned only slightly (<1%) more efficiently due to lack of multitasking distractions.

The devaluation clearly does not have to be zero, though the threshold will be different for various players/bot farms.


the problem is, due to the demand prices will never be low enough for any one to consider not doing it.


When supply becomes large enough, demand's effects are blotted out.

Value = Demand / Supply.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#31 - 2012-11-16 21:07:51 UTC
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
AFK ice mining is like collecting cans on the street to cash in at an aluminum recycling plant for some nickels. The entry barrier is nonexistent, any moron can do it. This, combined with perfect information (current ice prices are known to all and the locations of ice belts are readily available) means that ice prices are as low as they can possibly be in the market.

But we all know that miners mine themselves into poverty, they've done it since the start of EVE. They complain that they don't make enough money and ask for more yield, which causes them to make either the same or often less than they did before. They then proceed to ask for more yield againBig smile


You have conflated two issues into one argument. The first issue is AFK mining, the other is boosting yield. These two are independent of each other, and neither is related to the true reason that mining income has dropped off a precipice recently.

More yield will reduce mining income, regardless of whether the mining is done AFK or actively. While you have successfully defined this issue, there have not been any significant boosts to mining yield recently: the highest mining yield is still the Hulk. Other ships have higher yields now, but they do not match the Hulk. They are, effectively, playing catch-up.

One recent change that has had a severely deleterious impact upon mining income was the barge buff. The virtual immunity to ganking afforded by these new ships means that there is no risk to the activity. The lack of risk means more people are actually mining. The population of miners tripled after that buff, and it is this population boost that has brought down the ISK/hr value of mining, not AFK mining, not increases to yield.

As for ice prices: even at their peak of about 400k per unit, ice was not worth mining actively. Putting the same amount of effort into the game, one could make far more ISK per hour flying those same characters in missions, or mining ore. Ice harvesting has only ever been suitable for semi-AFK gameplay at best. Most ice harvesters are aware of this, and accept the fact that their fleet will be bringing in a mediocre income: even at 4M ISK/hr, the income from that fleet is still better than no income at all. This is basic economics: some income is better than no income at all, and the reward of the activity is reflected by the effort required to perform the activity and the risk involved in performing that activity.

Finally, I challenge your assertion that AFK miners could be doing "any other activity". The entire point of AFK mining is that one is, in fact, away from the keyboard (or at the very least, away from the game while at the keyboard doing something else). The very status of being AFK indicates that one could not possibly be doing any other activity in EVE.

Thanks for the article. I hope my contribution will allow your next one to be a little better informed.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#32 - 2012-11-16 21:17:26 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Eventually you devalue the gatherable resources enough that it doesn't matter though.


Well, at some point the AFKers will devalue the resource to the point where Darth Gustav and Suddenly Forums ForumKing will either stop participating in the activity, or resort to the traditional carebear response of complaining on the forums and hoping CCP will "fix" it.

Given the last thing CCP did to "fix" mining (the introduction of the ridiculously tanked barges), I don't expect anything to be seriously done about mining in the future. I've written a blog post about my ideal changes to mining that will still allow the AFKers to ply their trade while rewarding active players.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Gaia Ma'chello
Photosynth
#33 - 2012-11-16 21:29:13 UTC
Hm. I got 3 accounts that Ive kept PLEXed for 3 years, 2 faction BS's dead space fit, a T3, A dozen other ships and 13 bil in the wallet. And I afk mine.

What have I failed again?
Anslo
Scope Works
#34 - 2012-11-16 21:30:34 UTC
Gaia Ma'chello wrote:
Hm. I got 3 accounts that Ive kept PLEXed for 3 years, 2 faction BS's dead space fit, a T3, A dozen other ships and 13 bil in the wallet. And I afk mine.

What have I failed again?


Apparently failed to be a "non-bot aspirant." I.E. anyone who isn't their pet. Roll

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2012-11-16 21:31:41 UTC
OP failed to explain anything in his post
Ginger Barbarella
#36 - 2012-11-16 21:33:25 UTC
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
Yes they do. The AFK will stop reading here and flame me, but you won'tBig smile

Although AFK mining will always generate an accounting profit (your ISK quantity goes up), AFK mining is one of the worst activities imaginable for making money.

This seems counter intuitive to some people - if you're making money, you're winning right? WRONG.

You see, there is this really cool thing called "implicit cost" also known as opportunity cost. When you do something you give up the chance to do something else. Normally, this is par for the course and totally ok. But AFK ice mining is special.

AFK ice mining is like collecting cans on the street to cash in at an aluminum recycling plant for some nickels. The entry barrier is nonexistent, any moron can do it. This, combined with perfect information (current ice prices are known to all and the locations of ice belts are readily available) means that ice prices are as low as they can possibly be in the market.

But we all know that miners mine themselves into poverty, they've done it since the start of EVE. They complain that they don't make enough money and ask for more yield, which causes them to make either the same or often less than they did before. They then proceed to ask for more yield againBig smile

AFK takes stupid up to 11. AFK miners are collectively mining themselves into mediocrity because "I can make teh isk while watching Kaylee on Firefly" mentalityCool.

They may be making accounting profits but the facts are they make zero or worse economic profits. Quite literally, you'd be better of doing any other activity than AFK mining.

But since AFK miners only understand a wallet blink, they will think they're gaming the system by making money afk. But in reality they're selling themselves as short as you possibly could.

So, AFKers, you fail economics forever.


You really didn't think this out, did you?

I'll give you a 1/10 for the time and ISK LOST (see what I did there?) while you posted that failed understanding of what this game is all about.

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2012-11-16 22:11:19 UTC
Gaia Ma'chello wrote:
Hm. I got 3 accounts that Ive kept PLEXed for 3 years, 2 faction BS's dead space fit, a T3, A dozen other ships and 13 bil in the wallet. And I afk mine.

What have I failed again?



I got all that and a capital ship in less than a year of playing, and I never afk mine. I very rarely mine in general. Sounds like all that afk mining is holding you back.
Smiknight
Smiknight Corporation
#38 - 2012-11-16 22:18:05 UTC
Omg, I know who the OP is now. It's Al Gore, I'd recognize his fuzzy math speech anywhere!
A reward devoid of risk is no reward at all, but is instead a handout.
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#39 - 2012-11-16 22:49:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Inquisitor Kitchner
Dave stark wrote:
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
So, AFKers, you fail economics forever.


ah i love you GCSE business students.

once your teacher has covered motivation theory, come back here and realise how amusing and incorrect you are.



Cool, I've studied business studies, economics and politics and on my management and motivation module i got 97% on the exam.

Let's look at a really basic motivation model shall we?

Quote:
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs


1. Physiological needs
The definition of physiological needs is quite obvious; they are the physical requirements for human survival. If these requirements are not met, the human body cannot function properly, and will ultimately fail. Physiological needs are thought to be the most important; they should be met first. Therefore, a human lacking food, love, esteem, or safety would consider the greatest of his/her needs to be food.

2. Safety needs
With their physical needs relatively satisfied, the individual's safety needs take precedence and dominate behavior. In the absence of physical safety – due to war, natural disaster, family violence, childhood abuse, etc. – people may (re-)experience post-traumatic stress disorder or transgenerational trauma. In the absence of economic safety – due to economic crisis and lack of work opportunities – these safety needs manifest themselves in ways such as a preference for job security, grievance procedures for protecting the individual from unilateral authority, savings accounts, insurance policies, reasonable disability accommodations, etc

3. Love and belonging
After physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, the third level of human needs is interpersonal and involves feelings of belongingness. The need is especially strong in childhood and can override the need for safety as witnessed in children who cling to abusive parents. Deficiencies within this level of Maslow's hierarchy – due to hospitalism, neglect, shunning, ostracism, etc. – can impact individual's ability to form and maintain emotionally significant relationships in general, such as friendship, intimacy and family

4. Esteem
All humans have a need to feel respected; this includes the need to have self-esteem and self-respect. Esteem presents the typical human desire to be accepted and valued by others. People often engage in a profession or hobby to gain recognition.

5. Self-actualization
This level of need refers to what a person's full potential is and the realization of that potential. Maslow describes this level as the desire to accomplish everything that one can, to become the most that one can be.



Being an expert on motivation theory yourself you'll know Maslow's Hierarchy of needs forms a pyramid and it is generally considered that you need to accomplish one level before you move onto the next, so I have numbered these in the order that they are. Where do you think AFK miners fit?


  • Physiological needs? Mining sustains their ability to play EVE so yup, got this stage.
  • Safety? With the new mining barge buffs miners have been safer then ever before. So yup.
  • Love and belonging? Well there is a lot of animosity towards miners, but that doen't mean they can't have friends. On the other hand how do you make friends when you're afk? I'll give afk miners the benefit of the doubt on this one.
  • Esteem? No-one respects miners, so nope don't get this stage.
  • Self-Actualisation? You really think AFK mining is the upper limit of your potential as an EVE player? If so I pity you.


Interesting though, turns out afk miners are rubbish at motivational theory as well as economic theory.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#40 - 2012-11-16 22:52:09 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
So, AFKers, you fail economics forever.


ah i love you GCSE business students.

once your teacher has covered motivation theory, come back here and realise how amusing and incorrect you are.



Cool, I've studied business studies, economics and politics and on my management and motivation module i got 97% on the exam.

Let's look at a really basic motivation model shall we?

Quote:
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs


1. Physiological needs
The definition of physiological needs is quite obvious; they are the physical requirements for human survival. If these requirements are not met, the human body cannot function properly, and will ultimately fail. Physiological needs are thought to be the most important; they should be met first. Therefore, a human lacking food, love, esteem, or safety would consider the greatest of his/her needs to be food.

2. Safety needs
With their physical needs relatively satisfied, the individual's safety needs take precedence and dominate behavior. In the absence of physical safety – due to war, natural disaster, family violence, childhood abuse, etc. – people may (re-)experience post-traumatic stress disorder or transgenerational trauma. In the absence of economic safety – due to economic crisis and lack of work opportunities – these safety needs manifest themselves in ways such as a preference for job security, grievance procedures for protecting the individual from unilateral authority, savings accounts, insurance policies, reasonable disability accommodations, etc

3. Love and belonging
After physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, the third level of human needs is interpersonal and involves feelings of belongingness. The need is especially strong in childhood and can override the need for safety as witnessed in children who cling to abusive parents. Deficiencies within this level of Maslow's hierarchy – due to hospitalism, neglect, shunning, ostracism, etc. – can impact individual's ability to form and maintain emotionally significant relationships in general, such as friendship, intimacy and family

4. Esteem
All humans have a need to feel respected; this includes the need to have self-esteem and self-respect. Esteem presents the typical human desire to be accepted and valued by others. People often engage in a profession or hobby to gain recognition.

5. Self-actualization
This level of need refers to what a person's full potential is and the realization of that potential. Maslow describes this level as the desire to accomplish everything that one can, to become the most that one can be.



Being an expert on motivation theory yourself you'll know Maslow's Hierarchy of needs forms a pyramid and it is generally considered that you need to accomplish one level before you move onto the next, so I have numbered these in the order that they are. Where do you think AFK miners fit?


  • Physiological needs? Mining sustains their ability to play EVE so yup, got this stage.
  • Safety? With the new mining barge buffs miners have been safer then ever before. So yup.
  • Love and belonging? Well there is a lot of animosity towards miners, but that doen't mean they can't have friends. On the other hand how do you make friends when you're afk? I'll give afk miners the benefit of the doubt on this one.
  • Esteem? No-one respects miners, so nope don't get this stage.
  • Self-Actualisation? You really think AFK mining is the upper limit of your potential as an EVE player? If so I pity you.


Interesting though, turns out afk miners are rubbish at motivational theory as well as economic theory.

You need a job at CCP.

Your name would henceforth be CCP Maslow.

+1 sir.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom