This doesn’t change anything. A mining barge can tank high sec belt rats all day. Hell if you’re being just a little bit canny you’re only going to field a single combat drone.
This doesn’t fix bots it just punishes miners.
This isn’t a real thing.
All I see is a conspiracy nut who dropped out of basic education
That talks only about you.
“What is asserted without a proof is dismissed without a proof” is also basic education.
Your post was full of BS and there was nothing worth arguing over in it.
Brun took the time to explain you why you are wrong but it’s just a waste of time. STFU was the only correct answer to your utter nonsense.
There is one even worse in Teonusude. 20+ alts in orca eating ice all day. Macro mining for the win I guess!
I noticed him already.
Dunno what makes you think he is using a bannable method.
All my mining buckets bring bots to the yard.
And they’re like “Ice is not yours”
Damn right it’s not yours.
I can teach you but you gotta bot.
I know you want it
The thing that makes ice
What the bots go crazy for
They got no minds
Cuz they’re bots.
1 Like
Just some general ignorance, Anderson - what is ‘eg mining’?
I mine for hours as I find it relaxing. My wife and I can lie in bed together, discuss politics in the USA, enjoy the Angels buzzing around etc and get some quality time together. I also can find pressure free moments while mining to make coffee, food etc which she enjoys.
My GAMEPLAY is to mine an asteroid until it pops, line up another and carry on. Not much clicking nor deviation here as I don’t shoot rats (those that cannot hurt me) for fun or for profit. I even had a pet Angel who just followed me around for hours - no aggression at all - I miss him/her.
What I also really wanted to know is what ‘STFU’ means. My son says it is very rude but you don’t look like a rude boy.
Let me know how it all turns out.
Voets
e.g. - Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
“for the example”
It means Shut The ■■■■ Up.
Typically used to say someone that the way he is trying to use the discussion media is incorrect, and his usage is polluting the discussion.
Well it’s true that I would call that “boring” instead of relaxing, and that your opinion is just as worth as mine - actually more since you are actually doing that activity, while I do not.
It’s also true that I am not to tell you how to play. The important part is that you enjoy.
Still, the example I gave would have very little impact if you are alone. The goal is to reduce the scalability of mining wrt the number of accounts : ATM the yield is linear with the amount of accounts you have, up to a high number of accounts, for a given time. With the proposal I gave, the yield is multiplied by the amount of accounts you have, but then divided by 1+0.005* number of accounts(effects last half the time), so with one account you’d go from *1 to … well almost *1, while with 10 accounts you’d go to ×9.5 (-5%) and with 20 accounts you’d go to ×18.2 (-9%) ; 30 accounts would bring the yield of 26 accounts, which is a reduction by -13%. In the case you are playing in a very inactive way. If you are active, you can mitigate the reduction by placing your ships out of range of the effects.
My Goodness! If I said that to my wife because I disagree with what she is saying! That would be the end of any discussion. I suppose you can do that sort of thing if you are hidden behind anonymity ?
Well that would be an incorrect way to use it. Good thing I don’t use it like that.
Unrelated.
Bots are actually less at risk if drone auto-aggro is disabled than AFK missioners, because the bot can be programmed to have auto-targetback enabled and trigger the ‘engage’ command on any target active that does not = an asteroid. So zero impact to bots using combat drones for rat defense.
Why would this be treated any different to a corp mining fleet, Anderson? Is such a system in place for limiting fleets?
what ?
That.
I’m curious. You want to penalise a player with multiple accounts by affecting his ability to mine. For what reason? Is it illegal to have many accounts? The nub of my previous question was: if this should be penalised then so too should a mining fleet. Not so?
Voets
Because mining is the only activity that scales so well with your number of account. That is, because mining requires so little actions.
You are claiming that a fleet would not be affected by that. I see no reason to believe so.
So, you see a fleet as a collection of accounts rather than an organised body of players?
if a player having multi Omega accounts there is nothing you can do about it . It is LEGAL.
reducing the mining yield means players will not multi Omega and this will not happen
Nope.
In that case , it means that players will have LESS yield IFF they decide to be inactive, or can’t afford to have an active gameplay.
That is, to reward active gameplay, versus passive mining.
Your question makes no sense.
A fleet is obviously both, claiming than one prevents the other is a nonsense. I don’t even know why you are talking about a fleet in the first place.
I think on the contrary, his entire point is to differenciate situations that require each accounts to have a certain amount of focus dedicated to them, which is then an organised body of players, and situations that don’t require any kind of serious focus, which makes it possible to just be nothing else than a collection of accounts.
Yes, a mining fleet is just a collection of accounts in the vast majority of case. Unless you consider that “keep your ship inside the boost range” is enough to call this “organised”.
Wrong
why apply penalty for a player who pay more and run multi omegas. in fact, they must get bonus on top of that .
being in active is again wrong why? they supply the market
if the market is full there will be a competition in price and this is good for buyers 