These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Miners: Why do you mine?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Anvil44
Quantshure
#101 - 2011-10-28 23:31:36 UTC
I pay to play Eve. That makes it 'My Game'. I play whatever I want as I want. If it causes other players issues, oh well. Especially as other players have no problem causing me issues (been podded a few times but have no kills myself)

Why do you need to ask? Are you truly trying to buoy up your ego because you don't mine or run missions? What do you do? PvP? Why? Doesn't the monotony get to you? I mean you can pod someone but they can still come back in 5 minutes to fight you again...

I like to put on Eve's music or maybe my own music and mine sometimes...Eve is just that pretty of a game that letting your mining lasers attack those asteroids can be almost therapeutic.

As a few smart people have mentioned, if you like what you are doing, then do it.

I don't normally respond to troll threads like this but this sounded like something my wife would ask...who doesn't understand computer games in the first place. Lol

I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it.
People's Republic ofChina
My Other Capital Ship is Your Mom
#102 - 2011-10-29 11:21:42 UTC
Anvil44 wrote:
I pay to play Eve. That makes it 'My Game'.


You pay for access to the servers, nothing beyond that. You can be permanently banned at the discretion of CCP with no refunds to said 'Game'. The rest of this response is another one of those worthless why do you ask posts.

Carry on.
Sha'mir Drakand
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#103 - 2011-10-29 21:55:01 UTC
In all honesty, I find mining, in general, fun. And this extends beyond the universe of EVE. In most games that I've played that possess a mining aspect to them, I've enjoyed it. for the several months that I played WoW, I controlled the Copper and Tin markets, pulling in hundreds of gold each day before even hitting level 30, and doing copious amounts of mining to add even more revenue. I played flash games such as Motherload, indy games on XBL like Miner Dig Deep, and Total Miner. Something about Mining in gaming has always interested me, and EVE is no different. While I do enjoy that I can catch up on TV shows or perhaps some of my reading, the fact is that Mining in EVE is the most fascinating path for me.

I hope this helps to answer your question ^.^
Tasko Pal
Spallated Garniferous Schist
#104 - 2011-10-30 05:27:02 UTC
Anshio Tamark wrote:
Tasko Pal wrote:
Anshio Tamark wrote:

...I'm not even going to try and find out what kind of messed up mind-set you need to derive amusement from shooting others... The only ones I can think of who would derive pleasure from inflicting damage on others, whether physical, mental or economical, would be psychopaths or sociopaths... Until someone can come up with a proper argument to justify shooting others, I won't try to understand why one would drop that low. Well, I've got other games to play anyway. I can live without EVE for a while.


Hey look! A proper argument hiding in there. Channel your inner psychopath/sociopath.

Hey, I never said I don't understand that inflicting damage on others is a common strategy to winning in combat (it's actually the only common way to win). What I said is I don't understand how people can derive pleasure from it.


Sounds to me like you'd get more mileage from trying to understand that impulse rather than telling us how much you don't care to understand what's going on. The psychopath/sociopath argument, "I shoot other people because it's fun to cause them pain." is just as valid an explanation as any other.
Tasko Pal
Spallated Garniferous Schist
#105 - 2011-10-30 05:50:33 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:

Few things:

1) You have treated mining, manufacturing, and sales as some organic whole. This is inaccurate. There is no necessary link between those fields.


Given that these are closely related activities, then the link exists whether or not it is necessary.

Quote:
2)While minerals do have a value it is not necessarily an inherent value. If a player decouples from the "eve is real"/immersion mentality, then the mineral value is artificial. This sounds like quibbling, until you reconsider the impact this can have on opportunity costs.


So you have absolutely no preference about what you should be doing? Bouncing a shuttle off a station for three hours is just like running a 0.0 raid or working a RL job for three hours?

Quote:
3)You have chosen to cherry pick the opportunity costs which you wish to take into account and ignored those which undermine your argument. In addition, you seem to assume that all opportunity costs can be measured in ISK.


In his defense, it often doesn't take much work by a new player to find a more profitable strategy. It is not that rare to find people going through considerable difficulty to build something which is less valuable than selling the minerals at the station. In other words. they're working, often at the expense of having fun in the game, to lose money.

Quote:
Really, Joshua's post contains some very good hints on how MIMAF is possible.... so long as you are able to step back from prior (and common) bias.


MIMAF is only possible, if your time is free. And your time is free only if you have no time preference (that is, you don't care what you use your time for, such as the questions in my response to your point #1).
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#106 - 2011-10-30 12:55:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Ryllic Sin
I Accidentally YourShip wrote:

... you are still doing the same tedious task of scan rocks....


Every action in MMOs becomes tedious after a while, missions are tedious, PvP is tedious (if I want the least tedious PvP, I play a FPS, they are far more fun because they do real PvP (i.e - it is mostly competitve on a level playing field, the opposite to most MMOs) and simply do it so much better)...

Whilst I do a bit of everything, I often mine for days on end as it lets me chat, play for very short periods & do other stuff (Work, read, etc) plus is no less tedious than any other aspect of the game.
Suki Okiwana
Sceptical Hippo Inc.
#107 - 2011-10-30 13:43:29 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Velicitia wrote:

1. All three professions are linked. If no one mines, there are no minerals (yeah, drone poo and trash modules... but meh). No minerals, and no one produces anything. No production, and we're all shooting each other in noobships...

2. Yes, I will concede that the value is not inherent (at least at current values -- CCP does have "base values" listed in the static dumps... ). Whether or not a player chooses to accept or deny "eve is real" has no bearing on this -- arguably the pixel minerals cease to have value once you log out. However, whilst you are logged in, they have value based on what the market dictates. Taking this out of EVE for a minute, if I found a troy ounce (~31.1 g, worth approx $1740) that I wanted to use to make a few things that in total I sold for $1000, you'd say I was a ******* moron for giving away $1700 worth of material as $1000 worth of finished goods. So why are you so willing to say that minerals you mine have a value of zero?

3. I do not believe I was cherry-picking what opportunity costs were involved; however if you wish to elaborate, some interesting points may be raised...


1) I grant that the professions can influence one another, so in that sense they are linked. However, the link is more akin to cell receptors than anything. THere is a possibility of interfacing, but the interface is not necessary. Having no interactions would defintely be inefficient, but would not make any of the professions 100% impossible. You can mine but not manufacture or sell. You can manufacture without mining or selling. You can sell without mining or manufacturing.

2) Actually I would not necessarily chide you for selling at $1000. TO illustrate what I mean let us assume that you turned that troy ounce into jewlery and sold it to friends and family. If the enjoyment of making the jewelry and/or putting a smile on the faces of loved ones is greater than the difference in monetary value ($700) you could make by selling it on a faceless market, then I would only call you a ******* moron if you sold it on said market. The opportunity cost is not any/all actions other than what you chose, but rather the things of greater/equal value.

This is why I said you ignored some opportunity costs. Going back to your widget making example: The player who places the finished widgets on the market for significantly less than current widget price may not be incurring an economic loss. By placing the widgets on the market at such a low price he insures that they will sell quickly and without having to monitor them. This lets him go back to doing things that he thinks are more fun.

If the player considers the "fun" of the game to be something other than ISK accumulation, and by this I mean that if said aspect were removed he would quit playing, then ISK (and anything that can be turned into ISK) decreases in value. This includes the possibility of going to 0 value. Before you object that this does not happen, consider that there always has been/will be people who log in and do anything but chat to friends. The population may be larger/smaller at different times, but it is nonetheless still there.

The largest mistake many people make in EVE is thinking that everything can/should be measured in ISK.


Microeconomics assume profit maximization and rational consumer behaviour. What you are doing is akin to telling a mathematician 1 + 1 = 3 because it sounds pretty and by 3 you actually mean chicken as that's how you call them in your own little world. There is no communication without a common language, if you want to argue the validity of a basic microeconomic assumption use the language of microeconomics and offer a better alternative.
I Accidentally YourShip
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#108 - 2011-10-30 13:49:19 UTC
Suki Okiwana wrote:

Microeconomics assume profit maximization and rational consumer behaviour. What you are doing is akin to telling a mathematician 1 + 1 = 3 because it sounds pretty and by 3 you actually mean chicken as that's how you call them in your own little world. There is no communication without a common language, if you want to argue the validity of a basic microeconomic assumption use the language of microeconomics and offer a better alternative.



1 + 1 = cow, get it right.
Brom MkLeith
Epsilon Inc
#109 - 2011-10-30 15:22:44 UTC
I mine because it allows me to make ISK without having to pay 100% attention to the game. When I have that kind of time to dedicate to the game I mission in ships paid for by mining. Or if I can really spent time staring at the screen then I go stalk the Gallente Ice Fields hunting ganker wannabes in ships I paid for with game play rather than with real money.
I Accidentally YourShip
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#110 - 2011-10-30 15:34:15 UTC
Brom MkLeith wrote:
I mine because it allows me to make ISK without having to pay 100% attention to the game. When I have that kind of time to dedicate to the game I mission in ships paid for by mining. Or if I can really spent time staring at the screen then I go stalk the Gallente Ice Fields hunting ganker wannabes in ships I paid for with game play rather than with real money.



If you hunt gankers, they are typically in high sec, this requires either a suicide gank of your own or a wardec. I doubt you do the second, so you suicide gank? You're just as bad as the rest of us but a hypocrite as well.
Reicheck
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2011-10-30 17:06:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Reicheck
I mine if I need the minerals for making modules I use and sometimes lose when I hit too many triggers.
I mine as a change of pace from missioning.
I mine as a change of pace from scanning.
I rescue drones because you absent minded drone abusing monsters have no sense of how lonely it is for the faithful, hardworking, sensitive little guys to be sitting there in the deep not knowing why they were abandoned.

3 out of 5 sentences in this post apply to the op's troll. Straight

No sig here.
Brom MkLeith
Epsilon Inc
#112 - 2011-10-31 01:27:29 UTC
I Accidentally YourShip wrote:
Brom MkLeith wrote:
I mine because it allows me to make ISK without having to pay 100% attention to the game. When I have that kind of time to dedicate to the game I mission in ships paid for by mining. Or if I can really spent time staring at the screen then I go stalk the Gallente Ice Fields hunting ganker wannabes in ships I paid for with game play rather than with real money.



If you hunt gankers, they are typically in high sec, this requires either a suicide gank of your own or a wardec. I doubt you do the second, so you suicide gank? You're just as bad as the rest of us but a hypocrite as well.


No, I do not suicide gank anyone. As soon as a wannabe-ganker opens fire they become a criminal and you can fire at will. Or, they are -10 security status and anyone in the system can fire at them without Concord retaliation. That's what it means when another pilot has a skull in a red box next to their portrait.

It is a real challenge to catch them before Concord does.
Zircon Dasher
#113 - 2011-10-31 02:05:27 UTC
Tasko Pal wrote:
Zircon Dasher wrote:

Few things:

1) You have treated mining, manufacturing, and sales as some organic whole. This is inaccurate. There is no necessary link between those fields.


Given that these are closely related activities, then the link exists whether or not it is necessary.

Quote:
2)While minerals do have a value it is not necessarily an inherent value. If a player decouples from the "eve is real"/immersion mentality, then the mineral value is artificial. This sounds like quibbling, until you reconsider the impact this can have on opportunity costs.


So you have absolutely no preference about what you should be doing? Bouncing a shuttle off a station for three hours is just like running a 0.0 raid or working a RL job for three hours?

Quote:
3)You have chosen to cherry pick the opportunity costs which you wish to take into account and ignored those which undermine your argument. In addition, you seem to assume that all opportunity costs can be measured in ISK.


In his defense, it often doesn't take much work by a new player to find a more profitable strategy. It is not that rare to find people going through considerable difficulty to build something which is less valuable than selling the minerals at the station. In other words. they're working, often at the expense of having fun in the game, to lose money.

Quote:
Really, Joshua's post contains some very good hints on how MIMAF is possible.... so long as you are able to step back from prior (and common) bias.


MIMAF is only possible, if your time is free. And your time is free only if you have no time preference (that is, you don't care what you use your time for, such as the questions in my response to your point #1).


1) I already stated that thier is a link so I am unsure of what your point/objection is.

2) My preferences are immaterial to the conversation. Just as limiting the conversation to your preferences is also pointless. For some people bumping a station with a shuttle may be equally (un)enjoyable as running a "0.0 raid". Given that EVE is a leisure activity (unless your RL job is EVE), and choices surrounding Work vs. Leisure do not necessarily depend on the type of leisure, preferencing spending three hours at a RL job over spending said time in EVE may have nothing to do with what you do when logged on to EVE.

3) I assume that by: "they're working" you mean expending time and energy? You claim the people are working to the exclusion of fun (assuming this is thier words and you didnt decide what is "fun" for them) and at an ISK loss. All this tells us is that there is some value generated thier actions that is not ISK or fun based. It is still reasonable to claim that the value generated, whatever it is, is in excess to the value lost by doing something un-fun or at a loss possible ISK. Because we do not know what the specific thing is that generates such value, we cannot make the claim that there would be an economic gain achieved by not "working, often at the expense of having fun in the game, to lose money." It is entirely possible that there would be an actual economic loss, in fact, by ceasing to do such work.

4) Since this whole conversation started from me claiming that MIMAF is possible, I thank you for supporting my claim. I would argue that a "no time preference" requirement is innacurate. It would be true of someone without a preference on how to spend thier time in-game, but it would also be true of someong who had an absolute preference (in any specific instance) for mining over all other ingame activities.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Zircon Dasher
#114 - 2011-10-31 02:20:34 UTC
Suki Okiwana wrote:
Microeconomics assume profit maximization and rational consumer behaviour.


Everything I have argued assumes othodox economic principles.

Quote:
What you are doing is akin to telling a mathematician 1 + 1 = 3 because it sounds pretty and by 3 you actually mean chicken as that's how you call them in your own little world.


Wut.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Tasko Pal
Spallated Garniferous Schist
#115 - 2011-10-31 04:13:12 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:


2) My preferences are immaterial to the conversation. Just as limiting the conversation to your preferences is also pointless. For some people bumping a station with a shuttle may be equally (un)enjoyable as running a "0.0 raid". Given that EVE is a leisure activity (unless your RL job is EVE), and choices surrounding Work vs. Leisure do not necessarily depend on the type of leisure, preferencing spending three hours at a RL job over spending said time in EVE may have nothing to do with what you do when logged on to EVE.


The point is, anyone who actually bothers to play Eve or run a bot alt in Eve, has time preference. These extreme cases are not interesting because they don't exist in the real world. If your argument depends on the nonexistent extreme cases in order to be true, then it's not worth discussing.

Quote:
3) I assume that by: "they're working" you mean expending time and energy? You claim the people are working to the exclusion of fun (assuming this is thier words and you didnt decide what is "fun" for them) and at an ISK loss. All this tells us is that there is some value generated thier actions that is not ISK or fun based. It is still reasonable to claim that the value generated, whatever it is, is in excess to the value lost by doing something un-fun or at a loss possible ISK. Because we do not know what the specific thing is that generates such value, we cannot make the claim that there would be an economic gain achieved by not "working, often at the expense of having fun in the game, to lose money." It is entirely possible that there would be an actual economic loss, in fact, by ceasing to do such work.


I don't why you bother to make this argument. It's a common noob mistake to do something that costs you fun and isk until someone tells you what you're doing. I did it a few times myself till I figured things out.

Quote:
4) Since this whole conversation started from me claiming that MIMAF is possible, I thank you for supporting my claim. I would argue that a "no time preference" requirement is innacurate. It would be true of someone without a preference on how to spend thier time in-game, but it would also be true of someong who had an absolute preference (in any specific instance) for mining over all other ingame activities.


Your example is flawed since now that we something to optimize, the MIMAF model breaks down. How you use or sell those minerals can generate greater mining capability or more durable ships with larger holds that can mine longer, depending on what flavor of mining optimization you are gunning for. And that's pretty much the story. Once you have a preference, you have a reason to do certain things and not others. And everybody has a preference.
Zircon Dasher
#116 - 2011-10-31 08:01:17 UTC
Tasko Pal wrote:
I don't why you bother to make this argument. It's a common noob mistake to do something that costs you fun and isk until someone tells you what you're doing. I did it a few times myself till I figured things out.


I'm sorry I thought you were using an example of people who engaged in such activities with full knowledge of economic principles and with sufficient game experience. To be honest I was guessing you were refering to people who mine ice for thier corp towers. My mistake.

Tasko Pal wrote:
These extreme cases are not interesting because they don't exist in the real world. If your argument depends on the nonexistent extreme cases in order to be true, then it's not worth discussing.


If such cases are non-existent then there are no EVE players who log on and never leave station (nor access markets while there) and/or ship spin. They may constitute a small percentage of total EVE population, but they do exist.

Quote:
Your example is flawed since now that we something to optimize, the MIMAF model breaks down. How you use or sell those minerals can generate greater mining capability or more durable ships with larger holds that can mine longer, depending on what flavor of mining optimization you are gunning for. And that's pretty much the story. Once you have a preference, you have a reason to do certain things and not others. And everybody has a preference.


Actually as I got to thinking about it I realized that I could have made a better example; one that would have forestalled your non-existence argument.

I got one of my coworkers (he is in his mid 50's) into EVE about a year ago. At first he fiddled around checking out the different aspects of the game while making a few friends in noobcorp. He decided that he liked mining the best because it was relaxing and allowed him to kibbitz with his new friends while looking at the pretty scenery/graphics. So the obvious end point was a hulk. He worked his way to a hulk....then made 6 backups (lol) just in case he was suicide ganked. After that he had no need for isk so he wasnt selling the minerals. Neither was he interested in manufacture (he said it was boring as hell). Slowly the minerals piled up and he eventually gave roughly 1bil in minerals to some random character who was docked in the same station just because he got tired of looking at it. After yelling at him for not giving ME the minerals, he now gives everything away (afaik) to friends and occasionally noob corp people he likes.

You are right that he has a preference: Chatting. This preference does not require interaction with the pixleverse however. For him, all actions inside the pixleverse are equivalent in value so long as they do not impede his overall preference. If pixleverse actions are equivalent in value then there is no preference and, according to your definition, MIMAF becomes possible.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Suki Okiwana
Sceptical Hippo Inc.
#117 - 2011-10-31 12:02:57 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Suki Okiwana wrote:
Microeconomics assume profit maximization and rational consumer behaviour.

Everything I have argued assumes othodox economic principles.


It's spelled "orthodox" and no, you base your "arguments" on arbitrary assumptions made up by you. Your latest little story about that friend who makes 6 hulks just in case, stares at the scenery and gives away minerals for free? You call that rational profit maximizing behaviour? Very cute.

Zircon Dasher wrote:
Suki Okiwana wrote:
What you are doing is akin to telling a mathematician 1 + 1 = 3 because it sounds pretty and by 3 you actually mean chicken as that's how you call them in your own little world.

Wut.


Exactly.
I Accidentally YourShip
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#118 - 2011-10-31 15:20:49 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:


You are right that he has a preference: Chatting. This preference does not require interaction with the pixleverse however. For him, all actions inside the pixleverse are equivalent in value so long as they do not impede his overall preference. If pixleverse actions are equivalent in value then there is no preference and, according to your definition, MIMAF becomes possible.


No, it means that he doesn't care that he is choosing the inefficient route. That doesn't make them free from an economic standpoint.

After multiple people have told you otherwise I'm under the assumption you are aware you are wrong but are attempting to save face, refusing to change your stance and throwing up as much flawed logic as possible to tire others from arguing with you. I don't read minds, you could very well lack the capacity to understand this concept but I find it unlikely.
Zircon Dasher
#119 - 2011-10-31 17:29:56 UTC
Suki Okiwana wrote:
YOU MADE A TYPO!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL


Lol

Quote:
You call that rational profit maximizing behaviour? Very cute.


If doing anything else resulted in negative utility, yes, I would call that rational profit maximization behaviour.

I Accidentally YourShip wrote:
No, it means that he doesn't care that he is choosing the inefficient route.


By all means then, explain why it is inefficient given his preference order/opportunity costs and external constraints.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
I Accidentally YourShip
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#120 - 2011-10-31 22:12:00 UTC  |  Edited by: I Accidentally YourShip
Zircon Dasher wrote:


By all means then, explain why it is inefficient given his preference order/opportunity costs and external constraints.


It's inefficient by an economic viewpoint. An economically sound viewpoint has certain constraints, like not doing a task that requires similar effort than another for less compensation. Task X has a produces 40 of A in Z amount of time, task Y produces 80 of B in Z amount of time. Doing task Y is always better from an economic viewpoint. A can be used directly for benefit , but B can be traded for A in a 1:1 ratio. Time, to a rational human being when taking in information from an economic standpoint, has value. Unlike A and B its value is not fixed but is based on your skills and what task you can do.

How is getting A and using it directly any different from getting B and trading it for A, then using it directly? Both give the same end result, except it happens to be more efficient per unit of time to get B. The A you obtain is not free, used your units of time to obtain it. Time is limited in this case, as humans are mortal.

This can take into account the ease of one task versus another. If attention was already limited by some external factor then the easier task that requires less attention could become more attractive, but this is only if the harder task is making less of its respective compensation per unit of time. This is not often with EVE mining if you compare it to a mission runner in an afk fit like a dual rep sentry Domi which has a similar pace of play as EVE mining.

This does not take into account people enjoying the activity of mining and doing it for fun, neglecting the economically sound viewpoint entirely. There is nothing wrong with this, some people may be of the opinion that you are a little crazy but people are entitled to their opinion as this is a preference, not a fact. It is the people who are deluded into thinking that because they went out and "got the minerals" themselves they paid nothing for them when they in fact paid with their time and at a worse exchange rate than they would have paid if they had done something that was a more profitable activity. That they are somehow making more ISK by not spending it on materials to make finished products which are then sold. This is a logical fallacy that will not die.

There is one thing that EVE mining does well, and that's scalability. The number of missioner accounts that a player can operate at optimal efficiency is much lower than the number of mining ships that a single player can operate. However this removes or at least significantly reduces one of mining's advantages as easy to do semi-afk.