It's evident that people still have wildly inflated ideas about how much the best moons are worth.

A top tier hi-sec mission running system probably produces as much wealth as the whole CFC derives from its Tech resources. Let's actually do the maths, shall we?

1 tech moon = 5B/month. Pretty nice! But that's actually only 7M an hour!

1 mission runner = 30M/hr (including LP rewards). Some will get quite a bit more, some will get somewhat less, but I think 30M/hr for the best agents (and those will be by definition the busiest ones) is a reasonable average figure.

If we assume that a top tier mission system has an average of 100 people running missions at any one time, then that system will produce as much wealth as 400+ Tech moons. And 100 is a very low-ball average for those systems, by the way; it's more like the minimum.

In terms of pure wealth creation, any 0.0 coalition could trade all the tech moons it owns in return for a single cash cow hi-sec system like Osmon (which also has 3 Ice belts, and of course 150 manufacturing slots as well , to sweeten the deal) being transported into the middle of their space, and come out well ahead on the deal.

"Oh but Malc," I hear you say "If that was true, then those mission systems would be riddled with 0.0 players!"

They are.

Nope, and it's not a part of the industrial sector even if they did.
So, again, aaaaaall of those benefits highsec industry has is balanced out by nullsec havingGǪ what?

I am pretty sure if the powers that be only let me produce goods for them and kept any old scrubs out of the system that would have made competing products as quite an advantage.

Link me one post made in the last two years by a goon that says Dominion was a good idea.

I dare you.

I double dog dare you.

Sure. GÇ£If.GÇ¥ Fortunately for the game, that's not how it works, and if it did, it would be an effects of politics rather than industry.

So, again, aaaaaall of those benefits highsec industry has is balanced out by nullsec havingGǪ what?

GǪand you consistently and continually failed to GǣproveGǥ that 500 manhours spent collecting 5bn ISK was somehow not comparable to 500 manhours spent collecting 5bn ISK. Until you do, they're as comparable as two exactly similar things can be.

Protection is killing the gankers before your freighter is dust not after. Concord has never provided protection for the victim, they provide consequences for the criminal.

That is a huge difference.

Mr Epeen

so if i put 1 mining laser on veldspar, and 2 on arkonor. would i be afk levels of safe, or not?

Now, you are being stubborn.

Seriously? You do not know the difference between passive and active incomes?

It's not a matter of one or the other when you can do both.

I'm not the only one who finds the industrial imbalance argument laughable

So you're literally saying that the problem isn't that nullsec has only 3% of the production facilities, it's that we fight too much?

I just want to be clear on this one. Too many fights?

Sure. GÇ£If.GÇ¥ Fortunately for the game, that's not how it works, and if it did, it would be an effects of politics rather than industry.

So, again, aaaaaall of those benefits highsec industry has is balanced out by nullsec havingGǪ what?

No, I'm being precise. We're talking about the massive industrial imbalance between highsec and everywhere else. Some people are trying to claim that it doesn't exist but apparently can't demonstrate why.

So, again, aaaaaall of those benefits highsec industry has is balanced out by nullsec havingGǪ what?

And I even spelled it out for you.

No, I'm being precise. We're talking about the massive industrial imbalance between highsec and everywhere else. Some people are trying to claim that it doesn't exist but apparently can't demonstrate why.

So, again, aaaaaall of those benefits highsec industry has is balanced out by nullsec havingGǪ what?

Sure I do. The problem is that you don't recognise what's required to keep up a passive income, viz. many hours worth of manpower, often measured in man-hours. So in the end, you can compare the effort required to earn that GÇ£passiveGÇ¥ income quite easily to anything else that requires any kind of effort to earn an income. ISK per man-hour is ISK per man-hour is ISK per man-hour, and is trivially compared with itself since it's all just the same one thing.

Aaaaaall of those benefits highsec industry has is balanced out by nullsec havingGǪ what?

[

GǪwhich you can't. Or rather, you can do it just as much for both (i.e. not at all). In the end, having to spend 500 man-hours to earn 5bn is comparable to having to spend 500 man-hours to earn 5bn. There really are no two ways about it.

Now you're strawmanning to find a way to win. First its 500 versus 500, now you're saying it takes MORE to do one over the other.

I fully recognize the activity needed to provide safety for the maintaining of that passive income. I'm also saying you can do more than just sit there doing nothing while providing that "safety".

Yup it's all cause of moon goo.

It makes the combat heavy alliances very rich.

With all the money they can afford to buy w/e they want and have it shipped to null sec.

No industry required other than the production of supers.

Link me one post made in the last two years by a goon that says Dominion was a good idea.

I dare you.

I double dog dare you.

So let me get this straight.... People get into groups of 500 man fleets and just sit there and watch moon extractors all day.

producing locally doesn't change the price of a ship.

No, I'm not. So you seem to be confusing me with you about that strawman.

GǪand I'm saying that you can't. If you want to demonstrate how you go about ratting or mining or exploring or earning some other kind of GǣactiveGǥ income while you're in a fleet defending a POS, then by all means, go ahead. Until you do, I will keep ignoring your suggestion that people can be in two places at once (largely because the game doesn't actually allow that).

If you're ratting, you're not defending to moon, so there goes your moon income in a puff of smoke. In fact, if you're ratting, not only will the enemy fleet blow up the moon, but also your ratting ship, so now you've lost both your income streams. Goodie.

No, you've told me about things that have nothing to do with industry and which thus fail to balance out the industrial advantage highsec has over all other parts of space. You have not described any industrial activities or resources or mechanics that would offer a counter-weight to the activities, resources, and mechanics highsec offers.

So again, aaaaaall of those benefits highsec industry has is balanced out by nullsec havingGǪ what?

Yup it's all cause of moon goo.

It makes the combat heavy alliances very rich.

With all the money they can afford to buy w/e they want and have it shipped to null sec.

No industry required other than the production of supers.

No, but it changes the "effective price".

Most likely these mass amounts of ships they buy from highsec are gonna get brought up by JFs or freighters using JBs. The cost of maintaining hauler alts, cyno alts, fueling the POSes that run those JBs, having the jump fuel, etc etc all contributes to the effective cost of getting a ship from highsec.

This is why the blob is running rampant and why smaller alliances have a hard time getting any ground. If you aren't already insanely rich enough to shrug off all the logistic costs of getting large volumes of ships to the front line you'd have to build them yourself.

But in order to do that you have to spend half the time mining. You'll never catch up when the larger alliances have the potential output of all of highsec to fuel their ship needs.

So wait, your argument is that I cannot be in a system to defend a moon, and rat at the same time? And this is going with it takes 23/7 to defend that moon mining facility right?

That would lend to believe you are insinuating that the facility is under constant attack.

There is nothing to say that being on alert means I have to sit there with my thumb up my butt