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?

It's because CCP Sreegs said something along the lines of AFK PvE is an exploit as well as that clause in the EULA I linked earlier.

It's because CCP Sreegs said something along the lines of AFK PvE is an exploit as well as that clause in the EULA I linked earlier.

So

1) Taking a **** or watching TV while mining is against the EULA?
2) Drones deployed for rat protection is a violation?
3) The clause quoted actually addresses these players who take a **** or watch TV, not BOTS.

Please clarify.

/me suggests these "exploits" are reported to the appropriate authorities as soon as possible.

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?

t required inputs to start plexing with drones, too. At what point plexing AFK becomes an exploit is somewhat unclear.

It required inputs to start plexing with drones, too. At what point plexing AFK becomes an exploit is somewhat unclear.

But inputs were most certainly required.

If you are aware of a way for miners to mine AFK with no third party programs 24 hours a day without being at their machines and managing cargo then I'm all ears.

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:

That they see it as legitimate gameplay is, I think, unfortunate. It creates a class of players subject to differing rules that can only be entirely justified by the minimal risk level in the first place.

You may note that earlier in the thread I stated that the quotes indicate they do not consider this to be the same thing.

But what I want to know is if the barge has drones out, how exactly does it differ?

That they see it as legitimate gameplay is, I think, unfortunate. It creates a class of players subject to differing rules that can only be entirely justified by the minimal risk level in the first place.

The quote was more for La Nariz than you.

As far as your question as to how drones out differs, fundamentally it doesn't. But again I have to ask, is your issue with AFK highsec ratting or AFK mining? If AFK mining than the issue is with mining's design as a whole. The only way to eliminate it is to rewrite the system. If AFK ratting then it's really up to CCP to decide if the reward from killing highsec belt spawns is worthy of consideration and attention.

fluff and stuf.....
We can agree that mining needs to be reworked, as is the goal of this thread's OP.

Allow smartbombs to be activated in the vicinity of anchored containers, both secure and unsecure

We can agree that mining needs to be reworked, as is the goal of this thread's OP.

My problem with the drones conundrum isn't miners in high-sec mining with their drones out. My problem is that there is only one reason used to justify it: lower risk. If you make all PVE universally requie players to be more-or-less ATK, it looks less like miners need hand-holding or coddling.

It also adds value to the profession.

Providing reasons for miners to stay attentive can be done in many ways, such as increased NPC difficulty, more balanced barges/exhumers (facilitating the legitimate threat of a solo gank in high-sec), and allowing smartbombs to be activated in the vicinity of anchorable containers would go a long way toward providing engaging gameplay than creating exceptions to "rules of principle" does.

That's my problem with the AFK mining. It's really one of principle. The profession would be more valuable if it wasn't an option.

A. So risk and reward should evenly scale?

B. So miners are bottom of the Industry Profession, therefore have the least reward?

C. Pirate styled players want more risk for Miners?

Something wrong with the forumla.

Now try something else. Blueprint research in Public high-sec stations. Public - but there are no names listed. So doing this is decently rewarded and has (wait for it) ZERO risk. (might get lucky - pilot might undock with a cash cow ready to be milked - but I dont know who target - because I can not see who's running the job in the first place). Tripling the value of BPO. I am all more risk - but how about those who actually get rewards bear risk?

Eve is healthiest when mining is a valuable and vibrant profession. Adventure comes with risk, but risk begets value.

Forcing miners to fight and "luring" them into ninja mining... lol

http://i.imgur.com/Zz9Eh.jpg


What has EVE come to ?





P.S: And why the **** is no one smartbombing that guy ?

Successful miners would enjoy very lucrative profits and it would add excitement to mining.

Or challenge. Or risk.

However you prefer.

The truth is I'm really only trying to force them to practice safe mining techniques, which include aligning to tactical warp outs (preferably optimized along the arc of the asteroid belt) and paying attention.

And yes, I think the lure of ninja mining could stand a reasonable buff.

What's wrong with wanting to buff the profession of mining?

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.

How about everyone in 0.0 gets free magnificent golden capital ships they can use to lay waste to everyone in hisec, with no fear of concord ever interfering.

These suggestions are never really about making the game better, as much as they're about the irrational hatred of hisec players 0.0 people have.

This should help clear it up.

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.

And? If you have a problem with that, report them all as botters.

If they're not botters, then thank them for increasing CCP's revenue so they can pay devs to bring you wonderful content.

more balanced barges/exhumers (facilitating the legitimate threat of a solo gank in high-sec)