CCP doesn’t seem to agree.
Solution is both.
Oh so you want to flood the market even more than you suggested before - flood the market by 16-32x more minerals, just so they leave your AFK Orca alone.
Yes it’s mined out 16-32x faster which means per unit of time a miner can produce 16-32x more minerals into the economy…
You again not seem to understand a very easy concept! 
When you find yourself in a closed system (what New Eden is) and someone puts x amount of something into it, that is all you can get.
You are sitting in a Jailhouse Cell and someone puts a Bottle of two Liters into that Cell. It doesn’t matter how fast you drink. When those two Liters are gone, they are gone.
Same when they put someone else with you in there. Doesn’t matter who is faster. There is only those two Liters avaiable for both of you.
But i start to like your way of “logic”. Wish i could find employees like that.
“Hey, i only have 100 Bucks to spend on you. But you have to work 10h for that, not only 2. Because that would be bad for Economy”!
Absolutely, just had those pictures of Freighters in my head. Flying around with Cargo extenders and 12B worth of goods.
And yes, atm it is decided by the Orca players (their mistake) if they are a profitable ganking target.
Those people now asking for making it even more effordless to gank as it already is, wanting it to become a general gameplay design that they are always effordles and profitable to gank by default.
Name one time that all the asteroids in EVE were completely mined.
I’ll wait.
In EVE Online we have these things called Jump Gates and Unstable Wormholes which allow you to change jail cells.
Though it was obvious, but yeah my bad. Should have been more precise in that case.
I was not talking about the Solar System, but the whole Cluster.
Name one time the entire cluster was mined out.
I’m still waiting.
“If you Immediately know the candle light is fire, then the meal was cooked along time ago!”
And since the answer is known, you also know (when you followed the conversation and were able to understand) that the amount of Ores within the Cluster can be easily controled and adjusted as CCP sees fit.
And as already brought up: have a look at Ice mining lately.
As a solo player, this is why I am so dead against any nerfs to the Orca. I have pretty much given up ice mining during scarcity, as I cannot compete against the multiboxed fleets of exhumers with one Orca boosting them. Such fleets have always existed, but they now strip the reduced number of HS ice fields proportionately much faster. As I have argued throughout this thread, I do not believe multiboxing numerous Orcas (unless it is to have one per belt in a system) makes any sense at all; if one was going to run even two mining characters simultaneously, why on earth would one NOT go for one exhumer and one Orca?
As I say, I just want the Orca, as a good, multirole, but not overpowered ship to be left alone as no one has managed to present a cogent argument for why they are a problem. Someone earlier described the Orca as a Jack of All Trades. They omitted the second half of that saying, “And master of none.”
Oh, and if we talking about the evils or otherwise of multiboxing, most gankers in HS are multiboxing. Apparently multiboxed ganking is OK, but multiboxed mining is wrong.
I do not like multiboxing, but it is really not relevant to this thread anyway.
Nonsense aside, it sounds like you don’t have an answer.
And now you are making up even more changes (“CCP adjust the amount of ores”) in order to protect your AFK Orca mining.
So let’s see so far: you want to change all the mining ships yield and then increase the yield again by 16-32x, and change the way mining is done, and then change the amount of ores available in the game all to protect your AFK Orca mining.
…because that wouldn’t be AFK mining. AFK mining isn’t about yield as much as it is “getting away” with doing something without actually attending to the client.
Like, really, the only reason people mine with an Orca is because it has a huge ore bay and low APM. There’s really no other reason. If you’re solo, you’d make more ISK/hr mining in a Hulk even with warping back and forth - hell probably even a Covetor.
On a little tangent to the Orca, if AFKable mining is the true issue, where does it stop?
An unboosted Mack can mine for 10-15 minutes AFK, based on asteroid sizes already noted.
An unboosted Skiff can mine for 10 minutes AFK, and that is yield fit. It could sit AFK longer if it was tank fit, and it could have insane tank in that fit.
Are these ships still acceptable in their current design?
Or because they are serving in actual fleet roles as a combination booster and hauler, who happens to mine to give themselves income b/c people suck at tipping their boosters/haulers. The ones I fly with are very much ATK, coordinating mining fleet progression through multiple belts, monitoring local, answering questions from new fleet members, etc.
Low activity requirements in the mining actions does not automatically equal away from keyboard. Some Orcas are AFK miners. Not all Orcas are AFK miners. I wouldn’t even assume that most Orcas are AFK miners.
This is where it sounds like @Xuixien has an issue. If it can be AFKed, it should be removed/redesigned.
BTW is TiDi gone on this post now? EDIT: It is 
Because of laziness. Lazy mining is what makes people use Orcas, because Orcas are easily multiboxed without a lot of effort.
Haven’t been in high sec in ages, but what do I see in my first system that I happen to filament into?
That’s right. One guy multiboxing 4 Orcas.
You tell me, why would someone rather multibox 4 Orcas rather than 3 Barges and one Orca for higher yield? Because he doesn’t care about high yield, he just wants to multibox mine with minimal input.
You should pay attention to context. We’re not talking about that.
No one said that.
I have already changed my stance on whether AFK mining is doable, but using “lazy” as a reason to change a ship seems heavy handed. I don’t mind having a change which reduces its AFK ability. But there are a lot of lazy ways to play this game. Autopilot is a prime example. It is slower and more dangerous, but it is totally AFKable.
There are other ways to reduce AFK ability from the Orca that do not limit it to an AFK boosting ship. And until they change up the whole mining dynamic, that is what they will be if you remove their ability to mine completely.
With all due respect, that may be multiboxing, but it is one Orca in the belt. And the drones are all on one asteroid. So either he has only just started mining AFK and is going to be a very disappointed bunny when he comes back to find the drones idle and just one rock’s worth in his ore bay OR… drum roll… he is NOT AFK.
Which comes back to the basic point.
People claim that AFK Orcas are a problem, but offer very little evidence that is so.
All that your example appears to show is ACTIVE multiboxing of four Orcas.
So unless the argument is now transferring to “all multiboxing is bad” instead of “Orcas are bad”, then I am not sure how the argument advances?
Because AFK gameplay is a problem, and the people who make the game agree. That’s pretty much the debate settled. But you just go on and gloss over that like you’ve been doing for the past week.
No one said that.
I will tell you something that is bad.
Your capacity for reasoned argument.
Whether or not AFK gameplay is a problem, and CCP’s views on it, are irrelevant, because this thread is about the Orca.
You have utterly failed to demonstrate that there is a significant link between AFK and Orcas.
On the contrary, others have demonstrated that AFK is not a significant issue with Orcas, despite all your attempts to confuse and dissemble by trying to shift from “AFK” to “Well, I actually mean low actions per minute.”
A career in politics surely beckons.
“Inconvenient facts are irrelevant.”
mmkay.
CCP makes the game. CCP has decided, many years ago, that low-engagement/low-attention/AFK gameplay is bad. They have been making changes to reduce/remove/punish this style of gameplay (see: Carrier/drone ratting changes).
This has already been demonstrated by both myself and Scipio Artelius. You’re either lying and shifting goalposts or haven’t been keeping up with the thread.
No, this has not been “demonstrated”. This has been claimed - repeatedly, yes - but not “demonstrated”.
My position hasn’t changed. If anything, I’ve clarified and made it more precise. I’m not the one equivocating and trying to blur lines to confuse the issue. And CCP has been very clear on this topic as well (but again you’ll say it’s “irrelevant” as if you actually have the power to say that and change CCP’s plans - lol).
Right back at you.
So, when people with whom you do not agree demonstrate something, they are merely making unsubstantiated claims, but when you make an unsubstantiated assertion, you have demonstrated it?
Interesting… And you dare to call me a liar?
It is simply not worth engaging with you any more, so I will not.
By the way, do have a little dance around the bedroom if you like, telling yourself that you have won an internet debate! (You have not, but, hey, let us not spoil your little world with “inconvenient facts.”)
