These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

AFK: The State of Highsec Mining and the Effect of Upcoming Changes

Author
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#81 - 2016-08-31 01:24:54 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:


Sarcasm?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Caco De'mon
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#82 - 2016-08-31 01:29:00 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Sarcasm?



Shuusshhshsuuushsss! You'll give it all away!

*"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."

Penance Toralen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#83 - 2016-08-31 01:46:55 UTC
Lawrence Lawton wrote:
The ship of choice is the Procurer or Skiff, which features a tank strong enough to discourage casual gank attempts,


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=491069&find=unread

CCP Fozzie wrote:
For a bit of insight into the current usage of the top 7 mining ships, here's the breakdown of mining yield by volume (last 90 days including ore, ice, and gas):
Retriever: 23%
Mackinaw: 22%
Hulk: 21%
Skiff: 14%
Procurer: 8%
Covetor: 7%
Venture: 4%
Other: 1%


CCP's statisics directly contravene your reference to the Procurer and Skiff. Electing a tanked option has a lower yield, lower ore capacity and lower strip range. So the trade-off in performance is there.


Lawrence Lawton wrote:
the pilots make use of NPC corps which are immune to wardecs. These fleets run all day every day with the benefit of a CONCORD response.


Without a corp, a player has a 11% tax. Is unable to anchor a POS, and will not be able to own the forthcoming Industrial Array. Cannot have a Player Owned Custom Office. Again another trade-off, accepting ongoing income lost to NPC or having to renumerate another player for industrial process.


Lawrence Lawton wrote:

The effects:

  • The markets are depressed by a flood of ore and ice, and there is an incentive to compete with even more AFK mining.
  • The value of mining outside of highsec is reduced, because it is often more practical to import compressed Veldspar and Scordite from Highsec for things like capital construction.
  • Player interactions are rare. A prospective miner who visits a belt and tries to interact with the local population is met with a wall of silence.


The removal of IsBoxer significantly reduced bulk mining fleets.

I would direct you into the thread discussing the November boost mechanic changes. Considering the number of posts making reference to the Rorqual, mining does occur outside of high-sec. Mining is an action which not only provides needed minerals, but also serves in Sov for the defence index. A new high tier mining drone is being introduced for use exclusive to the Rorqual. Increased incentive for non-HighSec mining.

And what is wrong with being paranoid?

Lawrence Lawton wrote:
The New Order and CODE. work to manually rebalance the risk:reward ratio of Highsec mining using the only tactic available: suicide ganking. It is due to our efforts over the past four years that the AFK mining has been moderately curtailed, and that many AFK miners have been forced into Skiffs and Procurers.
If miners have been "forced into Skiffs and Procurers" then it is the complete opposite of saying "ship of choice is the Procurer or Skiff".

System wide boosts are used for Ice Mining - but those days are numbered. It is more common that Orca's are used in the dual role of both boosts and hauling ore. So they are already on grid in high-sec. Currently the information about the Rorqual is incomplete, but null-sec pilots are expressing concern about an anchored pinata. It is welcome the step that mining boosts are no longer invulnerable being a POS shield.
Lawrence Lawton
The Lawton School for Pubbies Who Can't Mine Good
Novus Ordo.
#84 - 2016-08-31 02:22:42 UTC
Piugattuk wrote:
What is it with "code" and "afk miners" fixation, ok lets put legs on this beast;

Code; hi miner.

Miner, hello.

Ok...odd silence as they both wonder what else to say...

Code, What are you up too?

Miner, mining.

What is there to say???


It's spelled CODE. with capitalization and a period.
Let me walk you through a typical conversation: (censored):

EVE System > Channel changed to Local : [system]
CODE.: Attention miners of [system]. This system is patrolled by the New Order and permits are required for operation. They cost 10m ISK and last for a year. Convo me to buy one.
Miner1: oo codie scum in system
Miner2: no permit minning is free
Miner4: Pirates get out!
[Miners 4,5,6,7 dock up]
CODE.: Miner3 are you at your keyboard?
CODE.: Kill: Miner3 (Retriever) Kill: Miner3 (Capsule) No Permit, AFK
Miner1: miner3 was caring for his sick cat for a minute and u shot him coward!
Miner2: lol u cant shot a ship that shots back
CODE.: This is James 315 territory. Permits are required or risk gank. The Code
Miner4: James was baned
Miner1: ur scared to shoot me
CODE.: Kill: Miner1 (Procurer) No Permit
CODE.: James 315 pays my salary.
Miner1: no fair! scum hisec is free
Miner4: slave
Miner2: my corpie had a permit and u shot him neway scam scam
CODE.: What is his name?
Miner2: miner7
CODE.: The killboard shows him in a max-yield covetor with cargo rigs when he died. The Code states Gallant tanks his ships to improve their EHP. His permit was revoked.
Miner2: lol permit scam dont buy! dont need it
CODE.: ...

All we really want is for people to buy permits and follow the Code.
Serene Repose
#85 - 2016-08-31 02:47:48 UTC
...signifying...nothing....

We must accommodate the idiocracy.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2016-08-31 03:08:31 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Why isn't a transaction a type of interaction?

The question is ill phrased.

Interaction as a term means that two people do something with each other actively.
There are no "types of interaction", only "ways of interacting with each other".

Interaction demands presence, physical or not.
It can even be over longer time-frames, but it demands presence.

Transactions describe an exchange of goods/money.
It does not demand interaction.

The interaction with the market interface leads to a transactions of goods/isk with another player.
The two of them are never actively interacting with each other.

Never
In
The
Process
Is
Anything
Interactive
Between
The
Two
Players
Happening.

Why is relinquishing items in exchange for isk between 2 players not "doing something actively"?

Agreed that there is presence needed, barring an EULA violation, but that's satisfied by transactions not happening spontaneously without user input from both parties.
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#87 - 2016-08-31 03:35:37 UTC
Lawrence Lawton wrote:
Piugattuk wrote:
What is it with "code" and "afk miners" fixation, ok lets put legs on this beast;

Code; hi miner.

Miner, hello.

Ok...odd silence as they both wonder what else to say...

Code, What are you up too?

Miner, mining.

What is there to say???


It's spelled CODE. with capitalization and a period.
Let me walk you through a typical conversation: (censored):

EVE System > Channel changed to Local : [system]
CODE.: Attention miners of [system]. This system is patrolled by the New Order and permits are required for operation. They cost 10m ISK and last for a year. Convo me to buy one.
Miner1: oo codie scum in system
Miner2: no permit minning is free
Miner4: Pirates get out!
[Miners 4,5,6,7 dock up]
CODE.: Miner3 are you at your keyboard?
CODE.: Kill: Miner3 (Retriever) Kill: Miner3 (Capsule) No Permit, AFK
Miner1: miner3 was caring for his sick cat for a minute and u shot him coward!
Miner2: lol u cant shot a ship that shots back
CODE.: This is James 315 territory. Permits are required or risk gank. The Code
Miner4: James was baned
Miner1: ur scared to shoot me
CODE.: Kill: Miner1 (Procurer) No Permit
CODE.: James 315 pays my salary.
Miner1: no fair! scum hisec is free
Miner4: slave
Miner2: my corpie had a permit and u shot him neway scam scam
CODE.: What is his name?
Miner2: miner7
CODE.: The killboard shows him in a max-yield covetor with cargo rigs when he died. The Code states Gallant tanks his ships to improve their EHP. His permit was revoked.
Miner2: lol permit scam dont buy! dont need it
CODE.: ...

All we really want is for people to buy permits and follow the Code.


So there you go, you just admitted that all those AFK "miners" infecting the roids that the majority docked up and the lone AFK'er gets ganked, by your own words you admit that AFK is not a problem as the miners run away, man what can I say, except sorry for you.
TackyTachy1
Doomheim
#88 - 2016-08-31 03:49:41 UTC
Big words and serious BS aside, if you think my three Skiffs are running AFK then take your shot, and that's if I'm even there when you get there. The only Skiffs I ever lost was in lo-sec and even then I was in Super Stupid mode, should've had Prospects instead. I do a lot of mining 'cause my other stuff gets blowed up a lot, and I either buy and fit or turn the minerals over to my factory alt. Either way it's lots of fun and although I'm now in a real quiet system with few miners and ne'er a peep from the little Code boys I can remember when it was great fun CodeBumping.

Forum Rep for a bunch of characters, couple corps and one seriously Lost In Space multiboxer.

Lawrence Lawton
The Lawton School for Pubbies Who Can't Mine Good
Novus Ordo.
#89 - 2016-08-31 03:54:33 UTC
Piugattuk wrote:

So there you go, you just admitted that all those AFK "miners" infecting the roids that the majority docked up and the lone AFK'er gets ganked, by your own words you admit that AFK is not a problem as the miners run away, man what can I say, except sorry for you.


I admit nothing. I'm not on trial here. That convo is an example of a group of small time miners, and was intended to be humorous.
Mephiztopheleze
Laphroaig Inc.
#90 - 2016-08-31 04:16:02 UTC
Lawrence Lawton wrote:
nobody should be immune from non-consensual PvP anywhere.


There is no such thing as 'non-consensual PvP' in EVE.

You explicitly agree to participate in PvP, in all its many, varied and obtuse forms, the instant you Undock from a station.

/pedantry.

Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze

This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2016-08-31 04:30:32 UTC
Mephiztopheleze wrote:
Lawrence Lawton wrote:
nobody should be immune from non-consensual PvP anywhere.


There is no such thing as 'non-consensual PvP' in EVE.

You explicitly agree to participate in PvP, in all its many, varied and obtuse forms, the instant you Undock from a station.

/pedantry.

If you really want to be pedantic you'd have to acknowledge the difference between consenting to the possibility of attack from undocking and willfully allowing with conscious consent a particular act of aggression.

And to say you agree to all forms of aggression is further false unless you take no precautions to safeguard yourself or escape/avoid aggression.
Lucy Lollipops
State War Academy
Caldari State
#92 - 2016-08-31 04:56:59 UTC
I really hope that changes will make every single afk miner character to quit this game and finally stop paying subscriptions for a so poorly managed game.

I'm actually happy that CCP finally took a decision and faces the consequences of this decision instead of being in the middle...
Mephiztopheleze
Laphroaig Inc.
#93 - 2016-08-31 05:09:08 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
If you really want to be pedantic you'd have to acknowledge the difference between consenting to the possibility of attack from undocking and willfully allowing with conscious consent a particular act of aggression.


Wat(tm)?

I'm serious. I truly cannot make head nor tail of that statement. Unless you envisage the following: I recently "willfully" baited a Machariel into trying to bump my Tengu off a gate. Once said Machariel was itself out of jump range of the gate, I burned at them, locked them up, applied a scram, fired off a Cyno and dropped 20 odd Black Ops battleships on their head.

This "conscious consent" you speak of had already been given: we were both undocked. That's all the consent I, or anyone else, needs to give.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
And to say you agree to all forms of aggression is further false unless you take no precautions to safeguard yourself or escape/avoid aggression.


There is no place in EVE, outside of a Citadel, Station or POS Forcefield where I am in any way prevented from shooting at you (or anyone else). I will face CONCORD retaliation in hisec and have to do the Sentry Gun Salsa in lowsec space, but I'm not actually PREVENTED from shooting at someone else, anywhere in space. The safety mechanism is simply there so players can make the choice to engage in High or Low security space.

Equally, everyone else in EVE is free to shoot at me anytime I'm undocked and the fancy takes them. All it requires is a target lock. This is fine and dandy.

So yes, I would state that the seemingly simple act of Undocking is sending a clear and unambiguous message to every other pilot that you have consciously consented to getting shot at.

Taking precautions to avoid PvP is, in itself, a non-violent act of PvP. You are using your knowledge of game mechanics to your advantage to try to avoid getting shot at. This too, is fine and dandy and I have 100% no issue with that.

Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze

This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2016-08-31 05:35:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Mephiztopheleze wrote:
This "conscious consent" you speak of had already been given: we were both undocked. That's all the consent I, or anyone else, needs to give.
No, that's not how consent works. Consent is more akin to permission than possibility. Unless you asked if you could hot drop him after getting away from the gate you have no idea if he consented. And you know he didn't if he protested.

The actual truth behind that situation is simply that consent isn't needed as opposed to actually having been given. That's why it's called what it is. That's where the term "non-consensual PvP" comes from and does a much better job of describing a game where you can't always choose the terms of your engagements.

Mephiztopheleze wrote:
There is no place in EVE, outside of a Citadel, Station or POS Forcefield where I am in any way prevented from shooting at you (or anyone else).
Which is wholly irrelevant when considering consent. Consent has never meant any state other than totally invulnerable save somehow the perversion of the word as applied here.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2016-08-31 05:53:01 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Soel Reit wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
May Arethusa wrote:

They're buying and sell products, that's interaction. Now we're all real, real sorry that guy you met on your first day didn't speak to you, but there are better ways to farm hugs than whelping catalysts into fictional space police all day.

That's not interaction, it's a transaction.

glad we got that covered.


to do a transaction you have to interact Cool
got you covered!

interaction requires presence.

there is no interaction between players when you randomly buy or sell.
it's a transactions of goods and isk which runs automatically.

For it to be interaction through transactions ...
... you'd have to be long time trader and not a miner.

Heh... What are we doing here? Interacting or transacting by posts?

You wrote your post some time ago when i (possibly) was asleep. And now i read it and respond.

For me it looks like interaction but we got no presence here

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Mephiztopheleze
Laphroaig Inc.
#96 - 2016-08-31 07:05:34 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Mephiztopheleze wrote:
This "conscious consent" you speak of had already been given: we were both undocked. That's all the consent I, or anyone else, needs to give.
No, that's not how consent works. Consent is more akin to permission than possibility. Unless you asked if you could hot drop him after getting away from the gate you have no idea if he consented. And you know he didn't if he protested.


Yes, it is how consent for PvP works in EVE. Once you undock, you have given your explicit consent to get shot at. There is simply no other way to describe it.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Mephiztopheleze wrote:
There is no place in EVE, outside of a Citadel, Station or POS Forcefield where I am in any way prevented from shooting at you (or anyone else).
Which is wholly irrelevant when considering consent. Consent has never meant any state other than totally invulnerable save somehow the perversion of the word as applied here.


It is 100% relevant when discussing the concept of 'consent' in the virtual world of New Eden.

Stop playing Space Johnnie Cochrane. You make no sense, therefore you MUST ACQUIT!

Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze

This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura

Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2016-08-31 07:06:11 UTC
March rabbit wrote:

Heh... What are we doing here? Interacting or transacting by posts?

You wrote your post some time ago when i (possibly) was asleep. And now i read it and respond.

For me it looks like interaction but we got no presence here


let him be... you know... he loves this kind of details Cool
following his thoughts all we are doing is transaction, even talking in local becouse... you know... no presence...
you interact with the pc and it interact with the other user, no contact between the people at the two ends.

LUL
Sol for the president boiz Cool
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#98 - 2016-08-31 08:21:05 UTC
I'm really looking forward to this changes. So far they look extremely good. It seams that Highsec will not be effected greatly however. For our business there are a few notable changes which will make it possible to interact more with our customers.

- Mining boosters will obviously now be in the belt and therefor require a permit and prove their presence at the keyboard or be subject to bump/gank.
- I can't wait for the stats of the new mining command ship.
- Depending on how they will implement the boost system to interact with crimewatch there may be even more possibilities for fun.

I think this will all promote more interaction and conflict and I am looking forward to the changes. My only fear is that CCP will crack under the waves of tears from all the carebears and once again implement a special snowflake rule for mining boosts. Let's hope they don't and go with the current plans.
Dibz
Doomheim
#99 - 2016-08-31 08:50:57 UTC
Muh permits, muh saviour blah blah

/yawn
u3pog
Ministerstvo na otbranata
#100 - 2016-08-31 09:01:45 UTC  |  Edited by: u3pog
After mining with 16 accounts for nearly a month I am pretty sure no one can control 50 accounts at once - have you seen the balls of skiffs with similar names? I am beginning to think these are controlled by bots just like the OP thinks. Not to mention I used hulks for maximum yield and had to watch my fleet for threats all the time. 16 accounts was a nightmare, can't imagine more...Plus I was active in local and occasionally providing boosts, my orca was always on site (sorry CODE, not mining anymore Big smile )

I think the mining process need to be altered, so that it requires more interraction, is more interesting and in return be more lucrative. I am sure CCP will find a way...eventually.