That penalizes some more than others and only creates more alts with handoffs to still accomplish the same things they do today when unfriendly empire borders need be crossed.

Amarr mission runner who never goes to Gallente space doesn't really care if they are placed in an FW corp as all they do is sit in Amarr HS anyways and still has access to Jita as the 2 factions are allies. This is especially true if it's a character that is KOS in opposing faction space anyways. As far as freighter pilots, it may be a bit more of a hassle. 3 pilots could easily do it though. 1 for each pair of empires with 1 handoff character in a 1 man corp. Not the simplest of solutions, but easily doable.

The reasons you give for players to want to leave NPC corps already exist. That being the case if these are to be the fundamental motivators, why is any change needed and how would it be expected to be effective?

Because canned NPC-generated risk is more a puzzle than an actual source of risk. The NPCs never adapt to player innovations, so the risk that they pose is only significant for the first week or so, until proper tactics propagate.

Player-Generated risk, on the other hand, has an arms race of competing innovations. The defender figures out the counter to the attacker's initial tactics, the attacker then counters that, and so on.

They say they want increased NPC-Generated risk because they want to be able to say they want "increased risk" without any chance that their proposals result in them facing any actual increased risk.

More along the lines of not being upset the guy next to you makes more than you do as you realize his job is harder/more complicated.

Supply won't increase indefinitely, it will continue to increase untill either everyone who is willing to partake is partaking or the reward becomes so low in comparison to time spent that people stop mining and the supply caps out either way. If not then it just means perfect safety is the ultimate move to generate subs as more and more miners will flood in to keep increasing supply long term.

Not sure what you are getting at with margins, but considering that many of the more valued drops from a gank aren't composed purely of regular minerals their value shouldn't depreciate as the same rate as the T1 minerals of which the gank vessels are made.

Unless you are suggesting people drop from manufacturing those ships due to reduced margins and the prices remain out of that range? I'd imagine many a human miner running the numbers would do the same holding us in the aforementioned equilibrium.

And the only was we have an infinite decrease in value over time in eve is the influx of new concurrent miners, which becomes less likely as individual rewards decrease, or we start seeing further output buffs from the tools available to us as the output per person has a theoretical cap which cannot be exceeded.

This is more about the minimum threshold of safety provided by being able to withstand any profitable level of gank in highsec, so I'm not sure how nullsec miners, already safer with their adaptations, applies to what I was saying.

In my limited experiences there were already using prebuff ships with support to draw out their potential in ways not too dissimilar to now. They probably felt this the least of all unless you think an EHP buff was of great concern to them.

If the declines coincided with the barge buff I'd be inclined to agree but most of it has continued from pre escalation mineral speculation bubble decline with no real increase in rate of drop coinciding with the barge buff.

For a start, they ARE playing Eve if they are "highseccers".

And by "not playing", you mean they're not playing the way YOU want them too?


That's a problem for you. Why?

Because there are various levels of time/effort investment in this game? Mining seems to be intended, in highsec at least, to be at the bottom of that ladder for in space activities. Also given the number of times when I did mine I came back to a totally unproductive ship sitting in space because the rock was depleted it would suggest that for a genuinely AFK player the game doesn't play itself.

Because there are various levels of time/effort investment in this game? Mining seems to be intended, in highsec at least, to be at the bottom of that ladder for in space activities. Also given the number of times when I did mine I came back to a totally unproductive ship sitting in space because the rock was depleted it would suggest that for a genuinely AFK player the game doesn't play itself.

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

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?

~moronic pubbie post~

Bolding another important part. This is important in that in this case AFK play actualy provides a reduced rate of acquisition in comparison to "normal" play or botting.

I would like you to explain me how you do the difference in between both and also tell me since when you became GM or you opinion on how the game should be played became law.

You have to compete with others and you know it, you don't like to compete via effort (aka loose ships to gank miners) it's your choice but if you want you can.
This is simply about competition, doesn't matter how you think others should play the game, doesn't matter how much they mine or for how much they sell their ice/ore, all it matters is that you have tools to counter this but you don't use them because takes cost.

Mining has never been so well balanced than now.

The game shouldn't care about invested time, only real time. This is especially true in the case of mining where most time from an attentive miner is wasted.

And when it's not it is because of fitting choices:
At Keyboard - I mine at the keyboard so I need less tank/more yield and must warp out when gankers appear
Away From keyboard - I need more tank incase of a gank since I'm not paying attention

or ensures both miners stop producing temporarily:
At Keyboard - I have to warp out due to a ganker
Away From keyboard - I lost a ship due to not being tanked and being AFK

For the AFK miner there is no benefit in real time and the ratio actual of work to reward is the same or less.

As you and many others pointed out that risk could be reduced through fitting or as ganking proved could still be taken without concern but with greater possibility of consequence.

I agreed on that earlier in the thread, but my latest series of posts were more directed at La Nariz and Andski's claims that AFK mining was unwelcome in any form and an EULA violation equivalent to the AFK PvE exploit declared not to long ago when CCP has, or appears to have, a clear distinction between the two.

Edit: And more importantly the fact that subsequent interaction is needed to continue gaining reward is needed while AFK mining but not needed in the AFK PvE exploit.

And by changing fittings, yield will be trimmed down, accomplishing the stated goals of this thread's OP.

I wasn't aware that exhumers had a large number of lows which made fitting a DCU not matter to wield much. Oh wait, they don't and never really have. Not to mention that was referring to prebuff when you needed a MAPC to fit a MSE. Between the DCU and MAPC those were both the lows on a hulk, meaning you had NO yield mods.

Edit: Further thinking about it with the advent of mining rigs those now compete with potential additional tank as well.

Addressing this directly, there are many professions which cannot draw any task related benefit from interaction:
Moon mining
PI
Mining
Manufacturing
Research
~Skill training~

Being required to defend the moon doesn't make the accruing on moon minerals active. And there is nothing active you can do to speed the process. You are AFK moon mining not because you don't have to defend it, but because defending it when needed provides no boost to output compared to when defense isn't needed.

Skill training I will stop counting as a profession once the character bazaar goes away.

No one said there wasn't any risk, but unless those POS require at ALL times A) Continuous attention for maintenance and opperation or b) Continuous defense from an actual ongoing attack then you are making demands of the miner that you don't have to make on the moons and the moons don't get removed from the list of AFK professions.

Once an hour doesn't cut it. Defense every other day doesn't cut it. We're not talking risk but activity here. So if accruing minerals while not actively doing something as player towards that end is an EULA violation then every few minutes those moons aren't touched that same violation occurs.

And to the point of defense, there is still a way, other than ganking to affect miners that is far easier, faster and requires far fewer people to be done efficiently than tanking down an undefended POS. Bumping. An AFK miner has less defense against this than an otherwise undefended POS with a single gun has against a 1000 man fleet.

I could be wrong however I understood that only to be an issue when claims of its use as a greifing tool were invoked. To be specific bumping is not illegal but greifing, even when bumping is the mechanism used, is against the EULA.

I stand corrected. But needing to combine annoyance with extortion seems hardly like any real negative for the bumper. Infact, stabber are pretty cheap...

Bots won't be negatively affected too much depending on how they respond, but I don't think player enforcement is the best answer for them. AFK miners won't pay, but if you do your part they won't mine either. Your revenue becomes the at the keyboard miners no doubt, but the AFK miners provide proof of intent and incentive to be at the keyboard for anyone who doesn't choose to move.

No one said there wasn't any risk, but unless those POS require at ALL times A) Continuous attention for maintenance and opperation or b) Continuous defense from an actual ongoing attack then you are making demands of the miner that you don't have to make on the moons and the moons don't get removed from the list of AFK professions.

Once an hour doesn't cut it. Defense every other day doesn't cut it. We're not talking risk but activity here. So if accruing minerals while not actively doing something as player towards that end is an EULA violation then every few minutes those moons aren't touched that same violation occurs.

And to the point of defense, there is still a way, other than ganking to affect miners that is far easier, faster and requires far fewer people to be done efficiently than tanking down an undefended POS. Bumping. An AFK miner has less defense against this than an otherwise undefended POS with a single gun has against a 1000 man fleet.

Nor do I, so long as we're not calling AFK mining an EULA violation, which is what started the line of conversation that resulted in that post.

I know you are trying to paint this grim picture of null sec income being so bad that everyone there is dirt poor and everyone in high sec is showered with ISK by simply logging in. It may work for those who don't know better, but I have no issue chiming in and pointing out where you or anyone else is stretching the truth or flat out lying.


I don't mind suggestions to the game that encourages players in high sec to willingly want to put their ship in harms way for some PvP action. Just be honest about the facts in this game when you are trying to support an idea.

Can't answer for her, but personally my lack of experience in how to get there alive and keep alive along with the fact that I don't have a trusted group to do it with make it prohibitive. That said there were goons who, prior to the escalation patch made out quite well annihilating NCO's in legion fleets in low/null incursions. I'm sure not having the ~30% (if i recall correctly) reduction that highsec gets helped quite well to. I must admit to not knowing if this is feasible now though.

Regardless of the specifics of the tools used there is no doubt that pre-escalation, there were nullsec entities, including goons probably, doing low/null incursions. I'm not claiming that everyone packed up and went halfway across the map to do them, which means those they had access to were possibly limited at any point in time, but evidence suggests they were done.

What evidence do you have to suggest that they have issue with AFK mining?

Earlier in the thread:

"...as I understood the setup in question it was an exploit because it created a situation where no user inputs were needed while bounties continued to accumulate.

I'm not aware of a way to achieve the same while mining without using clearly EULA violating methods."

I'd question your concept of what a barge/exhumer could tank. Pre-buff I would regularly ignore belt rats in a cargo fitted retriever as I was afraid of the aggressive setting getting me concorded (due to a poor understanding of aggression mechanics). There was tank in the mids but the rigs and lows were for cargo. I later did the save with a covetor.

Mind you I mostly mined in Grav sites so tank wasn't terribly high but 4 HS belt rats wasn't enough to get the shield alert yo go off when set to 75% HP with 1 IF fitted.

Ok, this argument attacks why AFK mining is negative economically, but it doesn't address why it should be treated as an EULA violation like some seem to think it should be by equating it to the AFK PvE exploit.

The fact that you can deploy drones to facilitate being AFK was YOUR point, not mine. All I did was point out that it isn't needed to AFK mine so it can't be the reason for it being en exploit. So again, while economically disadvantageous (to a limited degree) what makes AFK mining worthy of being considered an exploit?

Also keep in mind that the mantra of risk V reward means that there must be various levels of risk, including low risk, to make varying levels of reward relevant. So mining being low reward isn't inherently bad in the RvR argument.

Edit: "So what if it requires inputs?" This is something that I wholly do not understand. This is, from my understanding, a large contributing factor as to why the exploit was declared. Is it understood to be otherwise?

Mining has built in limits as to what you can accomplish given that initial effort: Asteroid capacity and hold capacity.
The domi situation did not.

Additionally CCP Sreegs did not appear to see them as the same when asked:

Tell me more about how forcing people to do things they don't want to do in a sandbox will improve EVE Online and increase subscriptions.

I'm suggesting that while the ratios may be arbitrary, if we ever came up with a quantitative measure of risk and true picture of reward and developed a matrix for each sec then analyzed individuals living in those securities looking at loses and isk/resources accumulated we'd find people all over the place in relation.

Each aspect of danger can be mitigated, though not all at the same time or by a single person in some cases, but it can be done.

No Concord: Don't be in a place with someone who wants to kill you, being the superior force
Gatecamps: Fast/agile ships that can near instawarp, covert cloak ships, MWD warp trick, scouts, being the superior force
Bubbles: Interdiction nullifying T3, scouts, being the superior force
Incusrion gate rats: Bridging/jumping, Fast/agile ships that can near instawarp, being the superior force
Cynos: Response readiness, being the superior force, being able to get away

And while you speak of these factors being subjective, the factors that you do consider subjective, player factors, include all of the above save incursion rats. Players set bubble camps, players camp gates, players try to kill other players thus making a lack of concord relevant. Player hostilities originate all but one of the dangers present thus making them all subjective factors.