Caught being outright wrong and just resorting to insults. I see your contribution to this discussion is in the past.
No, we are talking about command ships and you are throwing in a new player ship to make an unrealistic point.
I’ve said my part, your ideas suck.
-1
No I quoted the OP comment that I was discussing and even emboldened the key word for you. You’re just being selective now because you’re wrong.
Also they weren’t my ideas. You seem to be confused.
CODE is a negligible risk that only applies to lazy and/or stupid players, and the solution involves being smart enough to avoid conflict entirely (mostly by mining outside of the most populated space). That’s not at all the same risk as a war that requires you to fight and defend your mining efforts with a significant risk of loss if you fail.
Re “You just want to prey on new players!”
Let’s turn this question around. What are the opportunities for new players to experience PVP? Low and null are places the game actively discourages them from going, and not without some reason. since being successful in those areas requires a fair bit of player knowledge. New players need meaningful PVP opportunities with a low barrier to entry: stealing, shooting MTUs, things of that nature. A 6 million ISK can of ore might not mean much to a dedicated afk miner, but to a newbie who just successfully stole it, it means a lot. I know; I was that newbie once, stealing an ore can from a gaggle of afk multiboxing Hulks. I still remember that moment ten years later. That is the kind of experience we should be encouraging new players to have, not shunting them into highsec PVE corps to mindlessly grind ISK until they quit.
-
Bad idea. In order to produce conflict, the can flipper relies on someone shooting them after they’ve flipped a can. By switching from a suspect flag to a limited engagement flag, you actually reduce the chances of interaction.
-
Bad idea for the reasons others have stated (i.e. we don’t want to turn mining ships into heavily over-tanked haulers).
-
I am on the fence here. On the one hand, it’s trivially easy for a corp to keep most of its players safe in a non-structure-holding corp while keeping their structures in a dummy corp. On the other hand, it’s not exactly fair to allow non-structure-holding corps to engage in wardecs since they have less at risk in doing so. Both of these situations violate risk vs. reward in different ways. I’d be open to tweaking the metric to try to find a better balance, but any solution that I can think of is needlessly complicated, and simplicity has value.
-
Oh heck yes. Make this true of any “Launch For Self” structure. This would be a fantastic way to drive conflict. Love this idea.
Clarification re point 1:
This means that someone taking from a container owned by a player with a suspect flag would be flagged for a limited engagement with the suspect. The suspect flag itself wouldn’t change, just the ownership rights associated with it (which would still be less than a non-suspect pilot).
As to the mining ships, they should be interacting with haulers/cans regularly. If that means making other changes to prevent their being used as haulers, so be it; the priority here isn’t ore bays per se, but making afk mining as inefficient as possible.
Then get some catalysts you dope, and quit crying cause you are too lazy to do shite.
This I could possibly get behind. It seems reasonable at first glance to have committing theft against someone who’s already committed some kind of offense (i.e. suspect flagged) produce less of a negative result. There are some other possible impacts though so…lemme chew on it some.
Why? The barges are all specialized into one of three things: tank, yield, or ore hold. The barges in the first two categories can’t mine for very long on their own as it is, and the barges that can mine for an extended period due to their massive holds are paper-thin and don’t mine as much.
If you’re looking for content, two categories of barges are relatively easy to can-flip (to the extent that any can-flipping is at the moment) and two categories of barges are relatively easy to suicide-gank. All of them are susceptible to bumping (especially given how many miners just sit stationary while mining). I don’t feel like they require more frequent interaction.
Bot mining is still an issue, but increased interactions with haulers/cans won’t help reduce that.
Because activities that can be done afk or semi-afk are bad for the game. Players who are engaging with the client only every few minutes aren’t really ‘playing’ the game; they’re doing whatever they’re doing while EVE runs in the background. It’s a short step from that to just doing that other thing or finding a game with more interesting gameplay. The real solution is to rework mining into something that isn’t terrible, but CCP seems to have no interest in doing that, sadly.
HAHAHAHAHAH
I lolled at that so hard I almost spilled my coffee…
Multibox fleet of 10 or less is semi-AFK between mouse clicks for at least a minute or so…
Please dude, just STFU get REKT and HTFU you are pathetic.
A lot of things in EvE, especially related to industry, are governed not by how many actions per minute they take, but how long a given action takes to complete in real time. Kick off a production or research job, and you have to wait a specific amount of time for that job to finish, there’s no interaction involved. Given mining’s close proximity to industry, it makes sense that it is also a time-based activity as opposed to an actions per minute activity.
Also, mining does involve much more variable interaction than industry; finding the rocks to mine, managing laser cycles so you don’t waste mining time, dealing with other players in your proximity, etc. In a very real way, mining is kind of the middle ground between industry and PvP; you’re performing a time-based activity, but there are real-world variables to consider as well.
From the standpoint of a player focused entirely on ship-based combat PvP, I can see where you’re coming from. But there’s much more to the game than that.
It’s true that a lot of the EVE economy is time-based (travel time, industry job time, mining cycle time), and what you say about timer vs. AMP activities is a valid way of looking at the issue. However, I think that the way some of these systems, particularly mining, work is more a result of necessity (both of 2002 technology and the need for a easily manageable economic mechanics) than of a desire to make them less interactive than other areas of the game. The notion of making a timer-based mechanic more interactive isn’t new; we saw similar changes with the hacking update. The addition of Upwell structures arguably does something similar for industry, albeit indirectly, by making production facilities vulnerable to attack. Ultimately, player interaction is at the heart of the game, and it isn’t possible to interact while afk.
The exact same opportunities as for veteran players. Being new doesn’t discount you from lowsec, nullsec, or wormholes. It doesn’t exclude you from participating in wars in high sec. New players can gank miners exactly as easily as vets can (if they used a referral they don’t even have to train for it.
So no, you’re not doing them a favour with can flipping. You’re not providing them with opportunities or content.
Why? This is purely punitive. Miners are entitled to quality of life, too. And before you trot out the tired old lines about AFK miners, you don’t have to punish all miners to dissuade the AFK ones.
Incorrect. People doing them AFK is bad for the game. This is a straw man. What you really want is greater opportunities to cause conflict with players who are specifically unequipped to fight back.
False equivalence. Hacking takes only minutes at most. Mining takes hours. It’s a very different gameplay experience and if you’re successful in your argument for making it more tedious and less valuable for all miners then the end result is just that fewer active miners stick with the game, the bots persist because they’re happy to make less isk for no effort just as they have in the past, you have fewer targets and your ships cost more.
Players in mining barges do not mine afk anyway, because even the Mackinaw doesn’t support that play style. So your whole argument is based on a false premise.
The issue isn’t whether new players can go to those areas, but how successful they’re likely to be. ‘Go lose 100 frigates in lowsec’ and ‘Welcome to null, here’s your two month training plan’ are not good ways to introduce new players to PVP. Ganking, despite being ISK and SP accessible has its own issues; a dedicated ganking character can’t be used for anything else, and requires the support of alts to function effectively. PVP is arguably the most interesting content in the game and we’re not providing an entry point that makes sense. Can flipping, while not perfect, once served as that entry point.
I argue that afk and semi-afk activities are less engaging and more likely to lead to players leaving the game, while more interactive gamplay is better for player retention. That’s not a straw man at all.
Whereas this is an ad hominem.
How so? They were once both timer-based activities. If anything, the longer timers on mining are a greater reason to rework it.
If miners are only staying active because they can conveniently mine afk or semi-afk, it means that mining is bad gameplay and should be made better.
Not at all:
I’m with you on making gameplay better for miners is a very good thing. But nixing ore holds trying to force flipping risk isn’t making gameplay better for miners (I am a non-afk miner. I never mine without the game having my attention). Mining needs some convenience. Making it tedious does not improve the game for me. It just makes the game boring.
You’ll push afk miners back into single laser industrials before you see people casually can mining. The bots will just do it with apocalypse fleets like they do already.
So no, I don’t believe you’re trying to better the game. Either your suggestions speak to ignorance or a complete lack of sympathy for legitimate miners or they speak to a desire for easy kills. Instead of telling legitimate miners what is good for them, you should listen to them.
Exactly. Semi-AFK activities promote low-investment play, and if you’re barely invested in a game it’s very easy to drop that to zero investment. The people who benefit most from semi-AFK farming are established veteran players who have non-AFK goals that are funded by their farming and want to minimize the difficulty of extracting the resources they need.
Sure it is. It requires you to be actively engaged in the game at all times because your ore is now vulnerable to theft by other players. And it potentially creates content when someone does attempt to steal ore. That’s much better gameplay than pressing F1 and walking away until it’s time to empty your ore hold.
It’s not an ideal solution, but it’s better than the non-interactivity we have now and more realistic than a complete rework. In the past, miners made mining convenient by being in a fleet with haulers and/or an Orca. What was wrong with that solution? It also incentivized group play, which is never a bad thing.
Good. Single laser industrials are less efficient. Risk vs. reward.
Only a mining rework can address botting. Otherwise, it’s a security issue.
Whether legitimate or not, the main request we’ve heard from miners over the years has not been to make mining gameplay more interesting, but to make it safer to afk. The unending chorus has been ‘PVP players are sociopaths, PVP belongs in low/null, highsec PVP is griefing’ and so on. So no, I don’t have much sympathy for miners. They think nothing of carving gameplay out of EVE just to make their own time here slightly more convenient.
1 Like
Well at least with a little honesty finally your motives are clear.
You could have been honest from the start and saved everybody this entire thread.
You should re-read your final sentences and look at your admitted reason for starting this thread. Hypocrisy will get you like that.