Originally by: Arrs Grazznic

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Perhaps you arent aware, but missions don't run out. The agent can provide an unlimited number of them, 23 hours per day. The only limit is in fact the number of players the node can support.

---

Yes, I'm very aware that missions do not run out, but in response please point me to an alliance that strips all the belts in all their systems on a daily basis. It doesn't happen. Neither does 175 characters running (best paying) L4 missions 23/7. Yes, the potential to earn vast sums is present in both scenarios, but, again, these figures are theoretical.

I still can't see what point you are trying to make.

Originally by: Malcanis

---

As for the remark about eXceed, I can't answer you. I've only been in that alliance for 2 days so I'm not really in a position to tell you whether we're about to failcascade or not.

Still, if we do, it'll give me the chance to grind up the ISK for the Thanatos and Moros I'll want for the capital alts I'm training. Should take about 2-3 weeks going on past experience, depending on how fancy a fit I want.

---

Um, humour bypass detected? It was meant to be a joke to break the rabid comments in the thread, but I guess you're taking all this a bit too seriously.

Cheers,
Arrs

---

Originally by: mishkof

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Listen I understand your point. I may even agree with it to a certain extent. Doing missions is easy, risk free, I just dont put the same emphasis on the amount of money being made. I however think that anyone saying that making over 25 mil an hour doing missions is "easy" is full of crap.

---

It's at least as "easy" as making 60M/hr ratting...

No seriously, probably easier. It requires almost no attention. My skills aren't exceptional either; Caldari BS 4, Cruise 4. The CNR is nice, but they're laughably easy to acquire. You can get one in a couple of weeks after you start missioning with a standard raven, and get the CN launchers/BCS a couple of weeks after that. The DPS is the limiting factor - all the fancy tank mods do is decrease the amount of attention required to avoid losing your ship if you mess up the spawn patterns.

Accept mission, swap out 1-2 hardeners and ammo, undock, complete mission in 5-30 minutes, redock, get paid, accept mission, swap out hardeners/ammo, undock.... 2-4 missions an hour at 5-20M/mission (while foruming/web surfing / watching DvDs / chatting) = 25M/hr. Where's the difficulty?

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Originally by: Sylper Illysten

---

Edited by: Sylper Illysten on 08/08/2008 00:10:05

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Tell me why G-0Q86, a system which has IIRC seven +20 level 4 combat agents, 3 or 4 +20 level 3s and a level 1 (can't recall quality) doesn't have 175 people in it? It should be a vastly more lucrative system than Motsu or Dodoxie, but has less than a 10th the population. In fact it's frequently deserted when I pass through.

---

The asnwer is simple, most mission runners aren't interested in PvP while they mission. Seeing as one mission in a lowsec system won't cover your loses in the event your mission is probed out (a trivial task) and invaded (few are the mission ships that can effectively pvp against one apponent, let alone multiple). No one missions in low-sec/0.0 becuase the risks far out weigh any possible reward.

---

Translate risks to 'eventual certainity of losing your ship, or losing TIME and therefore ISK/hr to cloak/dock/etc' and the correct answer becomes 'no one missions in low-sec/0.0 because the net profits per hour are lower.'

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

But is it easy to keep doing it for as long as you want?

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/08/2008 23:08:36

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

You base your whole post on math, but then when it is pointed that your math is wrong, it is "insignificant".

---

Do you realize that the amount is still, after the 4.xxx% correction you made, stupidly high compared to the ISK printing ability of any 0.0 resource?

Or are you playing the "Oh, hai, your math is wrong, I don't make 100% more ISK then you but only 96%, so you have no pont to stand on." card? It's not very much of a counter-argument, you know.

Naturally, when challenged to find a 0.0 system which can support anywhere remotely close to the ISK printing possibilities of a single L4 high-sec agent, the best way to reply is to nitpick on minor points. Because you damn well know it's totally broken.

---

There are several point, but the most importants:

Malcais count is based on 110 persons farming 1 resource.

Put 110 persons strip mining in adjacent systems (yes, the belts in 1 system will not support them) and even with the time needed to haul the minerals to the station or pos for refining, you will get the same return for hour or even more. Even more as the miners will be killing fat rats while mining.

The point is that you will not get 110 players farming like that in 0.0 as they are there mostly for the PvP.

Then there is the not little point that the 110 average players in one of the busiest high sec systems aren't working for the same alliance. The resources aren't shared, the resources don't pile up to build titans and the resources are based on the important fact that there will be those numbers of people in that kind of system.

0.0 resources need to be scaled up in numbers so you can have 110 players in a system farming some resource? Maybe, but then the "frontier" area lose his meaning. it would be Manhattan, not the gold rush in Alaska.

Oh, BTW, as already pointed out, for NPC 0.0 the isk printing ability is even more. Yes, Malc has said that is not pertinent to the discussion. As that kind of data would weaken his arguments is is very careful saying they aren't important.

Last but not least, those resources are available to you and Malc too. No way to negate them to you. So if they are so good and interesting, why aren't you farming them with your whole alliance?

It is not what you like to do? But it will net you a Titan every day, no alliance can produce that.

You can't block other people from doing that so it is not fun?

Or you want all EVE to be limited to 5 players for system each day as that will make the earning potential of ratting much more than what a high sec agent will give out?

Malc whole argument is flawed from the start.

The comparison is between:

Unlimited resource created for a large number of players indifferent organizations VS limited resourced created to be the sole property of a single organization with a limited number of players

So what is the meaning of comparing the two?

---

Tell me why G-0Q86, a system which has IIRC seven +20 level 4 combat agents, 3 or 4 +20 level 3s and a level 1 (can't recall quality) doesn't have 175 people in it? It should be a vastly more lucrative system than Motsu or Dodoxie, but has less than a 10th the population. In fact it's frequently deserted when I pass through.

---

Originally by: Gamesguy

---

the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.

---

Originally by: mishkof

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

But is it easy to keep doing it for as long as you want?

---

Well down time gets in the way of course, but sure.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Originally by: mishkof

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

But is it easy to keep doing it for as long as you want?

---

Well down time gets in the way of course, but sure.

---

Then you're a very lucky player indeed. Most players ratting in 0.0 make much less than you.

---

Originally by: Cpt Branko

---

Translate risks to 'eventual certainity of losing your ship, or losing TIME and therefore ISK/hr to cloak/dock/etc' and the correct answer becomes 'no one missions in low-sec/0.0 because the net profits per hour are lower.'

---

Originally by: Gamesguy

---

the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Originally by: Ruze

---

Lumping us all into one category with the worst players in EvE as a means of trivilising or disarming the argument won't work. The profit for the average person in high-sec, versus the average person in low-sec, is just too high, especially considering when you add losses and risk into that equation.

---

But it is exactly what you and Malc do.

All high sec players are in faction fitted CNR
All high sec players run mission as the only thing they do
All high sec players run mission 12 hours a day, farming the best missions and never doing the others

So why people that disagree with you cand make the same kind of generalizations?

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Originally by: Ruze

---

Meanwhile, as the op has PROVEN, hisec mission running is a instantly renewable, reliable, and open resource to nearly all players, and includes little room for losing a ship and high profit-per-hour.

---

The OP has demonstrated that 175 players, doing the same thing, 23 hours day, earn a lot of isk. Full stop. Nothing more.

---

You've demonstrated that you simply aren't interested in an actual debate, you're just trolling.

For the last time, this is what I actually said:

"Let's say that an agent can serve 175 players at any one time. "

Can you, Mr Pedantic Accountant see the logical difference between that and what you claimed I said?

Can you point to the part where I said "175 players, doing the same thing, 23 hours day". No, you can't, because I didn't say it. It's something you made up, a false characterisation of my argument. What is informally known as a "strawman" argument - a technique much favoured by Creationists.

For someone who claims to be so concerned with accuracy, you're rather deficient in providing it yourself.

---

Originally by: Gamesguy

---

the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.

---

Originally by: Hieronimus Rex

---

I don't get it. What's the point of this thread? For the OP to demonstrate his ability to multiply numbers?

---

Originally by: Ruze

---

I don't think either of us were saying 'all's and 'everyones'. He gave you some basic figures that he believes are averages. Some have chimed in and claimed lower amounts, some have chimed in and claimed higher.

Nothing in his original post mentioned amazing skills, or amazing ships. Nothing in ANY of my arguments have said that all carebears are alike. We are as different as the PvP crowd.

But the op tried to present the closest he could to a proof, which was, the monetary average that can be achieved by many different people using a secure and infinitely renewable resource (a.k.a. Agents). Now, as a counter point, there have been many who have tried to a) argue semantics and specifics as a mean to invalidate; or b) argue 0.0 ratting and moon mining as a means to debunk.

I'm not generalizing, beyond saying that from my OWN experiences, the Ops not giving poor figures. They seem spot on, to me. There are plenty of players who do lower level mission in hisec.

But the statement I responded to DID generalize. Again, it was a very poor attempt at derailing an argument, the kind of thing you see happen in legal arguments and government fiasco's all the time. The kind of arguing stance that is popular here.

"Your all bastard child thieves, your just trying to get us all into losec to take our Cheetos, and this is another attempt to do so!"

That obviously isn't even a very good paraphrasing, but what it comes down to is that hisec rewards greatly outweigh the time and risk involved. Even to some, the effort. Compared to losec and 0.0 rewards.

Someone asks a rather rhetorical question: if hisec is so profitable, why don't big 0.0 corporations use it to conquer?

But they do

---

Originally by: Concorduck

---

are you taking the risk of aggressing a 0.0 mission runner while there are 174 other BS ready to get fleet and warp on him? if so, good luck

---

Quote:

---

"Rabble Rabble Rabble!"
"Just sitting out here saying "Rabble Rabble" isn't going to fix anything!"
"But we don't know what else to do!"
"Rabble Rabble Rabble!"

---

Originally by: mishkof

---

I think it is a case of I am saying that comparatively speaking hi-sec and 0.0 are balanced. Lo-sec needs a buff to a certain extent.

I interpret what you are saying as hi-sec just makes to much in general.

The difference is 0.0 needs a cohesive unit to fulling partake in its resources. Most people in empire are not capable of that play for what ever reason, thus they are stuck in empire indefinately.

The reason hi-sec is so easily conquered by 0.0 dwellers is because much like our(to some extent) society the majority of eve players are nothing but worker bee consumers. The best players dominate the game to its full extent...does that surprise you?

---

Originally by: Chaos Incarnate

---

Originally by: Concorduck

---

are you taking the risk of aggressing a 0.0 mission runner while there are 174 other BS ready to get fleet and warp on him? if so, good luck

---

lol

175 ratting ships != half-decent defense. Its like killing a fly with a sledgehammer

Here's what'll happen:
Roaming gang will lock down so-and-so at station, or at a gate, or in a belt, or mission.
100 players won't care, of those left
50 players won't know (no TS/Vent), of those left
20 idiots will warp at zero to the person in their ratting BS's, 3-4 will die
5 of them might actually be on the ball, swapped to pvp ships, and finally undocked and in warp by the time enemy roam GTFOs from system

In short, you'll all learn to cloak up, dock up, or logoffski, or you'll lose lots of ratting ships

---

Originally by: Gamesguy

---

the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.

---

Originally by: Hieronimus Rex

---

I don't get it. What's the point of this thread? For the OP to demonstrate his ability to multiply numbers?

---

Quote:

---

"Rabble Rabble Rabble!"
"Just sitting out here saying "Rabble Rabble" isn't going to fix anything!"
"But we don't know what else to do!"
"Rabble Rabble Rabble!"

---

Originally by: Ruze

---

I'm more along to agree that there is a closer balance between hisec and 0.0 as, say, losec. There used to be a time when missioners operated out of losec alot, back when I started playing 'for real.' There were so many of them, and there were comparative 'police' corporations, that piracy was relegated to a few highway systems. There was still a danger, but there was a balance to the danger in the form of profit. Missioning in hisec was boring, for one, felt more like you were still at work, and generally gave crap isk.

Salvaging imbalanced that, I believe. And I think salvaging imbalanced all of hisec as well. Somewhere along the line, the amount of modules dropped was even increased, or so I've heard. So losec somehow died out (I was out of game for a year and a half), hisec got major boosts, and 0.0 is the same old same old.

I think the older balance was preferable. Nulsec was profitable, because it was destined for big risks and bigger losses. It was never meant to balance, profit-wise, with hisec. They weren't supposed to equal. And now the one outweighs the other, in my opinion, simply because of the security it offers.

That's just crazy to me. In my remembrance and my own understanding, losec should be the profitable part of Empire, and 0.0 outweighs both. I firmly believed that this isn't CCPs line of thinking anymore. I've said so in numerous posts. But it doesn't change the fact that I liked the old system better.

---

Originally by: Ruze

---

Originally by: mishkof

---

I think it is a case of I am saying that comparatively speaking hi-sec and 0.0 are balanced. Lo-sec needs a buff to a certain extent.

I interpret what you are saying as hi-sec just makes to much in general.

The difference is 0.0 needs a cohesive unit to fulling partake in its resources. Most people in empire are not capable of that play for what ever reason, thus they are stuck in empire indefinately.

The reason hi-sec is so easily conquered by 0.0 dwellers is because much like our(to some extent) society the majority of eve players are nothing but worker bee consumers. The best players dominate the game to its full extent...does that surprise you?

---

I'm more along to agree that there is a closer balance between hisec and 0.0 as, say, losec. There used to be a time when missioners operated out of losec alot, back when I started playing 'for real.' There were so many of them, and there were comparative 'police' corporations, that piracy was relegated to a few highway systems. There was still a danger, but there was a balance to the danger in the form of profit. Missioning in hisec was boring, for one, felt more like you were still at work, and generally gave crap isk.

Salvaging imbalanced that, I believe. And I think salvaging imbalanced all of hisec as well. Somewhere along the line, the amount of modules dropped was even increased, or so I've heard. So losec somehow died out (I was out of game for a year and a half), hisec got major boosts, and 0.0 is the same old same old.

I think the older balance was preferable. Nulsec was profitable, because it was destined for big risks and bigger losses. It was never meant to balance, profit-wise, with hisec. They weren't supposed to equal. And now the one outweighs the other, in my opinion, simply because of the security it offers.

That's just crazy to me. In my remembrance and my own understanding, losec should be the profitable part of Empire, and 0.0 outweighs both. I firmly believed that this isn't CCPs line of thinking anymore. I've said so in numerous posts. But it doesn't change the fact that I liked the old system better.

---

Originally by: Gamesguy

---

the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Not exact, what killed low sec mission running were 3 factors:

1) dropping values in high end minerals removing the mining corps;

2) a short but intense period of extremely easy probing of mission that made missioning in low sec very dangerous and the still relative ease of scanning a missioning ship

3) the increase in server population.

Pirate corps have become bigger, big player corps capable of holding some system have moved to 0.0 as the profits are better, small corps and solo players have moved in high sec.

Malc and you have a point when you say that each low sec can support a limited number of people. What you seem to missi is that the average server population is between 20 and 35K players. That is between 5 and 7 player for each system.

If there weren't locations where a large number of players can gather to make isk EVE would collapse. The old way was based on the old number of players too.


Oh, BTW. loot quantity wasn't improved, but reduced (compare the old drops from drone missions for example).

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Not exact, what killed low sec mission running were 3 factors:

1) dropping values in high end minerals removing the mining corps;

2) a short but intense period of extremely easy probing of mission that made missioning in low sec very dangerous and the still relative ease of scanning a missioning ship

3) the increase in server population.

Pirate corps have become bigger, big player corps capable of holding some system have moved to 0.0 as the profits are better, small corps and solo players have moved in high sec.

Malc and you have a point when you say that each low sec can support a limited number of people. What you seem to missi is that the average server population is between 20 and 35K players. That is between 5 and 7 player for each system.

If there weren't locations where a large number of players can gather to make isk EVE would collapse. The old way was based on the old number of players too.

Oh, BTW. loot quantity wasn't improved, but reduced (compare the old drops from drone missions for example).

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

<snip>

But we are speaking of a alliance. They will have 25 players on rotation bubbling the gates. And then when someone come there will be 25 ready players and 150 half assed PvE set up firing on the intruders.

---

Quote:

---

"Rabble Rabble Rabble!"
"Just sitting out here saying "Rabble Rabble" isn't going to fix anything!"
"But we don't know what else to do!"
"Rabble Rabble Rabble!"

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Malcanis: I agree 100% with your numbers. Too bad you have to deal with these idiot carebears and their garbage arguments. Frankly I never realised the real scope of just how much ISK L4 missions can generate in high sec. It's disgusting.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Anyone care to name a player-sov 0.0 resource that comes remotely close to matching that value? I'd guess that it would take close to a region's worth of ratting to match that value. before, of course, we take the cost and time of acquiring and securing that region into account.

---

Originally by: mishkof

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Malcanis: I agree 100% with your numbers. Too bad you have to deal with these idiot carebears and their garbage arguments. Frankly I never realised the real scope of just how much ISK L4 missions can generate in high sec. It's disgusting.

---

Another lo-sec camper adding his enormous amount of knowledge to the argument.

---