In L4s?! LMAO
The only way for the risks to be lower would be if the missions auto-completed themselves when you clicked the GÇ£acceptGÇ¥ button.

The risk in L4s is zero. The only way to create some is to have no tank at all, but that's your decision GÇö not something the missions themselves are designed around.

That is correct. If anything Moon goo requires a certain amount of investment to cause a transfer of wealth from the consumer of the product made to the producer that produces it.

Basic economics LOGIC must a hard concept for some to grasp it seems baltec.

Also I've heard of people losing their light drones and have their battleship being killed by scram frigs.

This is packed full of lies !

MJD on a mission BS is doing it wrong in the first place. NPC frigs do indeed still scram.

I don't know what mission you are running, but I run the ones in EVE Online.

Have to agree with this, even if I don't necessarily agree with the overall premise that level 4 mission income should be nerfed. (Incursion income is another story.) A player that finds himself losing all his drones and then his ship in a level 4 should not have been in a level 4 to begin with, because that player was lacking in the knowledge of game mechanics to see him through.

Died in a mission? Doesn't mean the mission is all that hard, or that level 4s are hard, for players who are ready for them. It likely means you should drop back down to 3s while you research what went wrong.

IIRC a "good" moon these days makes on the order of 5M ISK/hr worth of moon goo. (You can work this out from the market price of the moon materials), which should be easily exceeded by a noob running level 2s.

Of course the moon keeps on making that wealth 24/7, which is a big advantage, and the wealth is easily concentratable which is the real point of them.

Given that a good level 4 mission runner in a nicely fitted faction BS should be able to make about 40M/hr, he'd have to mission about 3 hours a day to make as much as a "good" moon does these days. That sounds pretty achievable.

I'd say any of the large mission hubs in hi-sec probably produces as much or more wealth as the CFC moons. There are rarely less than 80 or 100 missioners at any time in the bigger hubs, and up to 200+ in weekend peak hours. If you want to call it an average of 125 missioners operating at any given time over the 24h period, then that's wealth generation equivalent to approximately 1000 R64 moons.

I feel pretty confident is saying that hi-sec missions in sum outproduce moon wealth generation by at least an order of magnitude. (If I had to guess, then I'd say by about 2000%).

If missionning income is so out of wack, why are people throwing billions of ISK to large alliance just for the right to live in a sull system? Are they all idiots not understanding where the money is?

If the income is so unbalanced, why are people going through all the trouble of moving **** to and from null to farm in thier system insetad of farming with no problem in high?

Like I said, toss them all out into low sec.

That's because it is your only motivation (simplified). It would be more accurate to say you believe making hisec suck to the point that unallied solo missioners would throw themselves onto your spears for your satisfaction is a good thing. Because you can't provide any substantial facts that what you say is true or that your solution would make a bit of difference in population distribution.

Could you provide evidence or data showing Eve's economy is not only in turmoil or imminent danger, but that it is being caused by mission running? Could you show the numbers indicating that "very very few" player losses is part of the "problem"? How much more losses should players be incurring to fix this "problem"?

Jenn aSide,

You're saying that there's "a problem because of 150,000 people injecting isk into a game's economy while suffering very VERY few loses to compensate". I am trying to see where the problem is. Do you have data to back this up?

If this is a problem that you personally have, well then, I can very much respect that. But please understand that that is what it is, a personal problem with mission running, and not a problem with the game's economy.

Eve's virtual economy does indeed thrive on consumption. And it thrives just as much on production. Simply because mission running is not on the side of "consumption" doesn't mean they are not contributing. Not everything must involve a kill to add content. That's part of it or a way, but not the whole equation.

What if we made the LP store cost much more ISK to buy items? It would effectively slow the injection of ISK in the game by deleting more of the bounty/reward from the mission. Could it possibly be enough to reduce the injection of ISK enough?

Well the goods they pump in are also a form of injection, but are a material injection. They still get balanced out in the same way, but they are less directly impacting on the economy than an ISK source. CCP used to release a Quarterly Economic Newsletter thing where they talked a lot about balancing sinks and faucets, they've also discussed it in the economy briefs are the fanfest. If you think about the way an economy works, it has to be balanced though. That's why countries can't just print money. Printed money devalues the currency and eventually you end up paying millions of your currency for bread, but making billions a day in salary.

And yeah, missions are required, as are most of the faucets in the game, but they have to be balanced. missions are too easy for what they provide, and much like null anomolies were, they'll need a balancing.

You'd make a good preacher. You love to hear yourself talk.

Ok. Everyone calm down.

I have thought of a way that we can prove that High-sec mission running has more income than people doing stuff in null-sec.

First we must have the data on the average isk per hour of all level 4 missions runners combined for a one month period. Then we must have the average amount of ships lost by the mission runners during this one month time while running missions (you can't count when they do PVP stuff for example). Then we come up with the ratio of how how much isk per hour made per ship lost.

Say the average high sec income is 50 million and on average you lose .5 ships per hour then you would get an answer of 100 million.

Then we compare this say people running sites in null sec and the take the month's average of their income per hour, then get the number of average ships lost in that one months time span. Preferably we get an average ships lost per hour. Keep in mind you do not count PVP activities other than getting your site running ship ganked. If you go on a roam or go to a fleet fight and lose your ship, that doesn't count. Then hopefully you get a ratio of average isk per hour and average ships lost.

Again the example would be 100 million with say 1 ship lost per hour then the answer would be 100 million and in my case the income from null and high would be relatively equal.

If say the average of high-sec was 50 million per hour and then .25 ship lost per hour that would get you an answer of of 200 million ratio and compared to the 100 million ratio of null sec, then you can say with scientific evidence that high is better than null.

BUT the key facts of this issue is that you must not only have the true average isk per hour of all level 4 missions runners and the average isk per hour of people doing null sec ratting and sites AND you must know how many ships they lost over a period of time doing said activities and not actively seeking pvp.

And in order to do this CCP must have a way to tell when you are PVPing and when you are actually earning money. There are ways I suppose. They could actually watch the players.

However, until they actually do this and publish the numbers anyone saying that that one or the other makes more for the risk reward is just citing non-scientific anecdotes and pulling numbers out of their butt because they have a gut feeling that the game is this way.

Did you read what I said? The calculations use averages of ship losses. Is that not the best way to calculate risk?

How else would you calculate risk? Do you play something your self and say "Well this seems more or less risky than another activity..." If ship losses per hour average can't calculate risk, then I don't know how else you can to make a scientific judgement.

The problem with personal observation (rational or not) is that it is anecdotal which is that it is not scientific and may not even give the true figures. What you see personally may not be the same case for everyone.

I am willing to conceed, but you must prove it with data. Otherwise you are someone who just assumes that what they see is correct for all scenarios. It like pulling numbers out of your butt or go with your gut feeling. It is not the correct way to be making major changes.

To understand what anecdotal evidence is read this and you'll see what is wrong with making statements without enough data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Butt-hurtedness

Like I said forum pissants such as yourself have no facts to present just hot air. Stop clogging the thread with this emotional faggotry you keep spewing. So either cough up some verifable facts or shut the "F" up.

You've linked documented proof of anything remotely resembling proof level 4 missions are threatening EVEs economy? And with that have you linked anything that proves EVE's economy is in trouble? Show me and if you have and its verifiable then I will make amends.

ME losing that navy BS was not good for ME. Thats will most likely be his argument.

In my case, it did make me learn something so it was still somewhat good.

Yeah, so where are the rewards? Given the same amount if time I can use three agents two systems and make the same amount in hi sec given equal amounts of time.

Without having to cyno around ships (because moving a ratting battleships solo is near suicide)
Without having to fight off tacklers
Without black ops drops
Without fighting off small gangs
Without dealing with sov
Without needing to go 25+ jumps to get to a market
Without staring at local


I don't know where people get the idea that "null is all empty and no one is ever there" apparently they don't know how to use dotlan or are out in Spire or somewhere equal cut off. In all of the regions I've operated in (which is most of the map) there is constant activity, a lot of which you have to deal with.

but, from all the whinging threads that get posted in GD

people go AFK in nul-sec all the time, for hours & hours at a time.

If hisec is so awesome then leave null and play there. Simple isn't it?

No one is forcing you out so no that logic doesn't fit. No one in hisec gives a iota about anyone in nullsec, how they play or what they do.

Why is every post you leave absolutely fact-less and irrelevant to the argument you try and make?

Also lol at people like me. You mean people smarter and more able to communicate a point?

I don't care to hurt anyone's feelings. Really I don't. But it's always the most unprepared that cast the first stone then hides behind a veil of civility when they lose the argument.

If by losing the argument you mean having been forced to back away from your biased, factless, unproven outlook, then no you haven't lost the argument. Under that definition though it would be impossible for you to lose the argument as you are a particularly stubborn person.

If we go by the real world definition in which you have and will continue to have your points dissected, analyzed and then defeated then yes you have.

Also i'd ask you to seriously consider how you come off by calling your point of view "truth" to the rest of the community. Are you our EVE messiah?

OK Jenn, right now provide tangible evidence that EVEs economy is in bad shape and provide tangible evidence hisec missioning is the reason.

I'm not sure if a harry forever thread is a litmus test for the majority of high-sec.

I mean anecdotally, I don't care about null secs income, but I'm sure some do, but it doesn't mean everyone in hi-sec cares about null sec or even a majority cares.

I mean have you started a poll asking hi-sec people what they thought null sec?

How do you know what the majority of them thinks then?

You're just making assumptions as usually from your personal perspective and assuming they are the facts for everyone.

I'm not really whining and complaining about imbalances, I am simply asking for evidence with actual hard data.

Its what everyone should do... Even on facts like global warming, you should ask "Show me the evidence for your global warming!" and people then can show you a consensus of a great deal of scientists data and you can go "Ok that makes sense!"

Otherwise you just assume what everyone on the internet tells you is true and you're going to have a bad time if you do that.

We aren't asking you to tell us that you can provide data, we are asking you to back up your statements with actual evidence.

Thats not putting words into your mouth, that is asking you if you can prove what you say is true.

If you can't provide evidence with data from CCP, then well we have no logical reason to believe you.

OK Jenn, right now provide tangible evidence that EVEs economy is in bad shape and provide tangible evidence hisec missioning is the reason.

Do not reply with hot air and tripe. People reading the thread including the devs know the difference.

That's two distinctly outlined requests of evidence to support your claim.

OK Jenn, right now provide tangible evidence that EVEs economy is in bad shape and provide tangible evidence hisec missioning is the reason.

Do not reply with hot air and tripe. People reading the thread including the devs know the difference.

That's two distinctly outlined requests of evidence to support your claim.

No Tippia, it is not my responsibility to write out his thoughts. It's his responsibility to make clear to those reading it what precisely he feels.

I've read the entire thread and understand as best anyone could and that's where my responsibility ends.

I have to say that I find it absolutely precious that whenever I produce these back-of-the-envelope calculations of the sheer amount of wealth (ISK, LP, items, all totalled up) generated by hi-sec missions, it never ever fails to generate a huge shitstorm of denial, rage, obfuscation and desperate attempts to divert the discussion to something - anything else to obscure the simple fact that a single high population mission hub generates more wealth than all the high end moons combined.

Anyway, please do carry on. We can get this one to 50 pages easily. I know you guys can do it.

Can you please provide evidence an "imbalance" exists?

And while you're doing that define precisely what you mean by "imbalance".

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3566594#post3566594

See how easy it is to post a link to what I really say about the matter?

Asking for evidence to support your claim is childish?

Why is this a problem? You're comparing an income source that is meant to be tapped by alliances and large corporations (high end moons) to a source of income that is meant to be tapped by individuals (mission running). I don't feel this is a valid comparison.

If (and I don't know) your claim is that mission running is being exploited by large alliances to generate alliance wealth, then I would love to see (1) data that supports this claim and (2) what problems is this 'behavior' creating.

Well Tippia just now he took a position of "there is an imbalance". So can we address with evidence "this imbalance"? Or do you feel the discussion be better served by pointing out that in your view I misunderstood what he said?

I agree that on an individual basis a 'whole lot a' wealth is being created. But what I disagree with (and I could be wrong, no data has been provided yet) is that this generation of wealth is (or will be) causing problems. Are we talking about inflation? Accrual of wealth? Personally, I think it could be a problem if a significant amount of this individually generated wealth was being focused or funneled for alliance use, hence why I asked the question above, but again, there is no data showing this is the case either.

Ok. Then are you saying if Hi-sec mission running is not breaking the economy?

If that is true, then why make suggestions to change it other than personal opinion?

I'm fine if you say, "I think they should change things, but only because of personal opinion."

Otherwise you are saying "I think we we should change it because I have evidence."

Either you want to change it because its your personal opinion or you have evidence... And if you have evidence please support it.

Also, by claiming that hi-sec people complain about null sec by pointing out individual cases then yes, you are saying that all high-sec complains about null sec. If you were to say "I know a few people that complain about null sec." then that is a fine statment. When you say "High-sec people complain about null sec" you imply that it is everyone in high-sec.

So if you don't want to have words put back in your mouth, you must clarify your statements and put qualifiers to what you mean to say.

Tippia. I have seemed to have missed your links to statistical data comparing the income of high sec mission runners and null sec isk earning activies with the comparison of how much worth of ships was lost doing each. Would it be that hard to copy and paste the links again?

You're being taken on a spin. My advice is just to let him have the last word.

No. I have worked in IT for 10 years

Well it seems you are good at making generalizations and assumptions that make you look bad.

Not everyone in IT is a social pariah and over complicated.

I mean I could say "All police officers do their job for the power trip they get" but I know it wouldn't be true.

If you want to keep thinking that way, its only hurting yourself.

What happened to the saying "Never judge a book by its cover"?

Or "never assume, because it makes an ass of you and me"?

In order for an economy to grow it need growth in its money supply

In the old days it was gold and silver mines. (Which many people in the 1890's complained weren't increasing the money supply fast enough).

Modern days its the banks.

In order for a healthy and growing economy, EVE needs a growing money supply just like the real world.

You don't want it too great or the prices will go up and cause inflation.

But you get a collapsing economy if there is a shrinkage in money supply (much like real world 2008).

Currently mineral prices are at an all time low and plex prices are sub 600 million.

Its a sign that there is little to no inflation therefore inflation is not a problem currently.

When mineral prices are a year high and plex's are at 700 million then maybe then we can say there is a problem with inflation.

You made a generalization when you compared him to the IT guy you know.

gen-+er-+al-+i-+za-+tion

/-îjen+Ör+Öli-êz-üSH+Ön/

noun

noun: generalization;GÇâplural noun: generalizations;GÇânoun: generalisation;GÇâplural noun: generalisations

1. a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases.

"he was making sweeping generalizations"

t shows evidence of an imbalance between ISK production and contribution to demand.

"I have to meet an IT guy" implies all of them that you have met which sounds like you believe that all IT people will be this way that you meet. The statement also sounds like a dare of sorts. That you are daring the world to come up with an IT guy that is not this way because you seriously doubt it.

If you said, "You are just like the other IT guy I have met" instead then there wouldn't an implied view of generalization.

I think your problem is that you word your words in such a way that you aren't really aware of what you are implying or saying for that matter.

From the data on where the destruction happens and what type it is.

Do you have a source for this?

Yeah its demonstrable in game. Go kill a rat in hisec, note the payout, then go to null and kill the same class of rat. Its x3-x4 more per kill.

And it matters because your non evidence shows total payouts from bounties not from which security space each came.

Therefore, if one is to try to find any meaning from those stats you must consider the payout difference between each. At least you have to when your trying to imply one security space in particular is the cause for this being the largest wealth creation.

Well you aren't going to have a moral victory over the Rats if you still can't prove inflation is a problem and that high-sec is the cause of it.

Yeah those null sec folk hardly ever die, all they got to do is watch D-scan and have the occasional look at local then hide or dock up before they go back to farming their iskies.

This proves that high sec has no CSM representatives.

Are you stating for the record that null sec rats do not pay more than hisec rats?

Im fairly certain belt rats in hisec payout in the 250k range and nullsec 1 mil plus. Sure there are variations by true sec but since no one is differentiating by actual truesec and only high, low or null its a fairly accurate comparison.

Im using battleship hulls as the measure.

Unless battleship hulls become something different in nullsec im quite certain the comparison makes perfect sense.

They tried that when they moved level 5s to lowsec. Now almost no one runs level 5s.

The funny thing is if you have a well skilled tengu then you can make many times more isk doing other things then level 4s.

Never going to happen with how this game is setup. Even sleepers and incursions which are a challenge are done only for the isk grind. You don't PVE for the challenge for long or you'll get bored. Even pvp gets monotonous after a while if you don't switch it up.

However I know from reading these forums there is sizeable segment of null sec care bears out there that want to punish people for living in high sec, these same null bears are usually under pressure from their corp/alliance leadership for kills and would love to see lots of soft targets suddenly emerge from null into their space. Thing is though once people get used to life in null, they stop being soft targets, which causes more problems for them in more ways than one. I'm not saying that your in this camp, but I suspect a few of your supporters are.

You need to read my other posts before jumping to conclusions, if you had you would be aware that I live in null. As for being blue I bet you like that as non blue makes you dock up.

Google does not produce this blog of yours.


The complaining on the forums were immense about how unfair it was for so much isk to be made in highsec via level 5s. I don't ever recall there being a blog post about it being a bug for all that time it existed. If true then that would of been a long time to fix a pretty huge bug.


Regardless the point still remains. Moving reward to lowsec failed to more people there.

Highsec has concord which 100% kills gankers
Therefore ganking is riskless
Therefore highsec is dangerous

Highsec has concord which 100% kills gankers
Therefore bumping on an npc corp alt is riskless
Therefore highsec is dangerous

Dumb ****

Also we should get pirate LP for shooting them, and an additional ISK bonus for clearing them. And another bonus if we can do them really quickly.

Don't worry, his is just a L2P issue. EvE has many facets, security and retribution being *different* is a concept many fail to grasp, even some vets on this thread.

The origin of the topic came up because EC2 "Let me tell you about 0.0 despite never having been there" Hawkeye asserted that moongoo was more economically significant than missioning. I provided him with better information. (Note how I mistakenly thought at that time that R64s are about twice as good as they actually are, and I have since corrected that error in my post to you).

He was utterly wrong and he and his ilk have spent the lest 20 pages of this thread talking circles around the indisputable fact that he was utterly wrong.

Missions pay out more. But to have equal comparison you'd need a null sec mission rat versus a high sec mission rat.

Also, Hisec anomaly rats pay out the same as nullsec anomaly rats?

It's not hard to understand. If the same exact rat in a nullsec anomaly and hi sec anomaly pay the same exact thing then the nullsec rat in the anomaly needs to be increased to fall in line with every other rat in game.

Im pretty sure I made clear I was using battleship hulls as a measure. When you go to a hisec belt and kill a battleship youll likely get a bounty of 250k. When you do this in nullsec and even some low sec youll clear about 1000k. I never brought anomalies into the discussion as I knew that there would be some variances. Just as I mentioned true sec variances. I also avoided going into missions because some missions give bounties others don't but you still kill battleship hulls.

1. burn jita
2. hulkagedden
3. ice intradiction.

Did Concord prevent any of these, no.

your witness.

As proven, in player driven content, it up to the player base to make it unsafe. working as intended.

This is vastly and imo biasedly misapplied.

In null sec most get out to pew pew and a portion does PvE, some do industry.

In hi sec many trade, do low grade industry, transport stuff to-from hubs with regular ships (no JFs) and so on.

To have a faithful representation you should only compare the PvP active subset of population in both realms.

As of now a tiny minority of high seccers are PvP active, I am actually surprised hi sec has 1/7 of the kills and not 1/30.

What high sec does, in a fairly balanced way, is to actually allow people to be non PVP active if they apply some sound practices (mainly: don't make yourself a target).

Because only you make yourself a target, high sec is as dangerous as null sec. Go around in a blinged 30B marauder or a 10B load freigther and see how long you last in this ~safe~ high sec.

Titans have uses outside of PvE, if you can conceive of such a thing.

Seriously, do you never tire of publically humiliating yourself by speaking loudly about matters about which you know little or nothing, and then being immediately shown to be incontrovertibly wrong? Is it a sex fetish thing or what?

You can make hi sec pay dirt and the players will just put up with it.

You can give hi sec as much risk as low sec and the players will just find a new game.

The only way you are going to see a flux of people relocate to null is if null becomes just an extension of hi. I think that many people who play in hi are people who either don't have much time to play or simply don't care for pvp (in many cases both). Miners that just want to log in and warp strait from station to belt, mine and then return. Mission runners who want to just accept the mission, warp straight there, complete it, and then warp straight back.

These people don't want to have to be constantly looking over their shoulders. They don't want to be constantly monitoring local. They don't want have to deal with 6 'warp from dock' book marks. Another 6 'view warp gate from safe distance' book marks. They don't want to have to take indirect routes to get from the dock to the gate either just to avoid being pulled out of warp.

Ganking? Sure, it's going to happen. It happens in both null and hi.

You really want to see null become more active? For there to be an infrastructure that rivals hi sec? To have availability of parts/ships at prices comparable to hi? There is one thing people would have to be willing to do and one things CCP would have to do.

The one thing players can do is to not gank people who are obviously pure industrialists.

The one thing CCP can do is allow those who have sov over a system to be able to enforce a minimum 'safety level' on the ships that enter.

If the industrialists can do their thing with the same level of safety in null as they can in hi, I think they would be more than happy to move there and sell their product to the local population. Get enough there and then you get competitive pricing.

As for mission runners, I think they too would eventually move out there once they skill up enough to be able to handle the rats out there.

Wow.

Again, you leap ever higher into the cloud of intellectual dishonesty.

Claims to have made people mad, despite a weight of evidence to the contrary.

Claims victory by default as a result of his original false premise.

Claims to have not been "taking the fight seriously".

Doesn't realize he has been trolled about the very thing he is claiming victory over.

Even I must bow before the trolling skills of the Goons.

Would you like to know why the right answer isn't "buff nullsec"?

Inflation.

Inflation is very, very bad for the game in general, and for new players in particular. (and the learning curve of this game is legendary as it is)

Here is why the other two are valid.

Highsec income is too high in relation not just to nullsec, but to lowsec and W-space as well. Highsec is the outlier here, not nullsec, so it should be balanced around the others.

Further, the root cause of highsec income being too high is not their gross income. It's their net income. Not in the sheer amount of money they can make, but in how little risk is involved, and how little overhead they have as well. Income can be measured as gross income minus costs (both initial and from risk/losses). So their lack of costs also contributes to inflation as well.

So, since highsec is:

A. too lucrative

B. too safe

Rather than savagely nerf both, many people, myself included, argue for smaller adjustments in both areas. I argue for giving wardecs more teeth. They are designed to be the risk in highsec. But since you can dodge them, you can eliminate the primary risk that was intended for that part of space. My own proposal some time ago was to generate several killrights on someone leaving a corp during a wardec.

Put the risk that was always supposed to be there back, and then we can see if the out of control highsec income falls back into place.

If not, then we can start talking about nerfing actual income.

Is that really all that unreasonable?

Any chance that for once you can provide a link that supports your post. I would on the normal face of things accept the above on face value, but you've done much to harm the credibility of your arguments throughout this thread hence my desire for real, peer reviewable facts that support your supposition.

It was perfectly reasonable in 2009 and 2010 when me and others were asking for L4 nerfs directly in the mission sub-forum.

Since we brought in the only real and tangible numbers, CCP listened and they indeed quickly nerfed L4 missions (all secs, but more hi sec) which lost 15%-20% of their reward per nerf. Back at the time there were (if I recall correctly) 2-3 nerfs and then a later one.

Then came incursions and once again I and others noticed they were quickly destroying EvE's economy and another nerf campaign started. And succeeded.

Then came FW and their magic ISK fountains. I did not personally campaign (I was unsubbed if I recall correctly) but it was due.

Back to today: missions still *slightly* bring in too much ISK but for specific cases of outlier players who:

- keep researching the best LP/ISK valued mods
- keep grinding different standings up since those best mods change over time and are given by different corporations
- use high SP characters and good ships enough to survive full room aggro
- blitz.

Besides this is a kind of effort that needs a better reward than just spamming Caldary Navy missions in the same basic hub, making lots of ISK through blitzing is not an economy breaker, as LP items are an ISK sink and blitzing missions yields to no NPC deaths => no bounty => no faucets besides the smallish mission completion prize (easily undone by LP items ISK prizes).


It's also quite suspicious to see nerf calling on a specific niche of content that... is not in sov null sec.

I mean, those calling for the nerf *at the moment* are not former heavy missioners like myself who had foresight to defend EvE's economy, but entities that have no missions in their territory.

This is why CCP nerfed *their* own unique PvE content, as it's as bad for the economy as missions are (less people doing it, more revenue doing it though) as it's another ISK faucet.


To compound this all, as also recently discussed on Market Discussions, EvE uses the so called "wallets segregation" tecnique to make endless ISK production less of a treat.

The net result is that in these days we assist to a number of important markets going down (minerals), and PLEX staying steady. PLEX is a very good indicator of EvE's economy. PLEX is also a great tool for the Good Doctor to strenghten EvE's economy, as he has just to burn some confiscated PLEXes to undo inflative trends.


So in the end, it WAS necessary to nerf L4 missions, several times in a row, but now it's not. Not at the moment. An hot period like Christmas should be a better indicator, then the results being reported at next Fanfest would speak by themselves.

Those are the only results the count, those in the hand of the Good Doctor.

All the rest is biased talk that has no place in a serious economy rebalance.

(Edit: it's now 2+ years I don't do any mission any more. It's boring and low revenue content much useful to start up as a player but then proper ISK venues easily take over so I dropped them.
I am surprised seeing all those 2005-6 players who seem to still be stuck doing L4 missions like they are a mannah, it's not credible at all).

Also so far not one person has noted the fact that null residents who take part in PVP frequently salvage their enemies defeated ships and wrecks and make a good income from dropped loot which is better quality than anything dropped by an NPC.

Oh dear. Here are a group of missions I ran in a *dominix - yes the t1 space potato that has to stand still and wait for its drones to finish, and since my agent almost always puts the same mission in the same place, I worked into each missions isk/hr effective, the warps, jumps and dock delay. So times and rates are dock to dock, rounded UP to the next minute.

These are at 1000 isk/lp.

Serp assault (blitz). Elapsed - 9m. rate. 79.2m/hr
Ammar smash supplier (blitz). Elapsed. 7m. rate 99.5m/hr
Angel pirate invasion (full clear). Elapsed. 17m. 57.3m/hr
Serp Extrav (clear). Elapsed - 26m. rate. 52.9m/hr
merc Stop thief (store mission items at home base in advance). Elapsed - 5. rate. 56.9m/hr
mixed dread pirate (loot implant). Elapsed - 25 rate. 93m/hr
serp/gur worlds collide (use card). Elapsed - 19. rate 61m/hr
attack of drones (clear). Elapsed - 14. rate 62m/hr
merc damsel (clear and return with noctis). elapsed 28. rate. 68m/hr
ammar surprise surprise (return with noctis). elapsed 22. rate 59m/hr.
serpentis blockade (clear) Elapsed -23. rate 78m/hr.
+
mats for war (fly to station buy kernite give agent - counting kernite as a cost). Elapsed 4. rate 300m/hr

The same agent gives me 9 other missions that are in the 40m/isk - 50m/isk/hr range - namely, merc-righthand - angel unauth, blood cargo del, drones-infil, mordus headhunters (which I should use the ndomi for), angel extrav (domi not brilliant at it), serp score, mercdrone silence inf, angel smuggler intercept.

*its also a dominix, they "were" cheap, I can leave a spare with bouncers and angel tank ready to go, which avoids major futzing time between missions, ie throw cap boosters in, refill ammo yak to agent and go, 30 seconds.

The rest I can reject.

Some people claim 3000 for conversion, and I have no reason to doubt them. Someone getting 3000 for a conversion will crack 100mil/hr isk in a dominix, but its plainly clear I can beat 50m/hr with a poor conversion.

Why, mad because CCP ran numbers for real (not those blathered on this thread) and found out null was to nerf as well?

Also, I apologize for not sitting all day spamming F5 to pick your last post(s), I have a life. I don't even recall what you have posted as last, and I am sure I'll live through that.

Because people can't grasp the actual problems presented (multiple times on multiple occasions) so they have to replace it with a much more simplistic version that they can get their heads around.

Why, you found someone who's somewhat harder to silence than other guys?

About the "honesty" please feel free to convince people you are more honest than me and take my job as 3rd party and collateral holder.

So you are saying CCP doesn't understand the danger? Their dev blog seemed to indicate there were no problems with the money supply versus the price index. So far over a year later the prices seem to be even lower.

Instead of making the dinosaur reference (which is silly because the dinosaurs didn't have a space program or a civilization) it would be more like saying your house will burn down if you light too many candles, yet there are no evidence of candles to be found in the house.

You can wave your arms and say it could happen, but if CCP says its not happening and it continues to not happen and the evidence that its not happening continues to increase.

What you are selling is bear repellent for a bear that does not exist.

Judging by the massive amount of people that play this game just for high sec content, seeking some economic justice by nerfing their pastime seems like the community just shooting themselves in the foot. "hey, here's an idea, lets attack the income of the game we love"

Now, if we excuse for a moment those that farm pve content using several accounts (not a negligible number, but certainly a small minority) I would have to say that those who reside in lower sec/null sec space are usually significantly more organized, knowledgeable and exploitative (no, not that kind of exploit) than those residing in high sec. That is to say usually groups in low/null are working smarter while those in high sec are working harder .. if you can follow my point without trying to read too much into that.

If you want to take simple isk activity and compare it with other simple isk activity then you have to ignore the fact that the context for these activities (the sec space) is basically two different games altogether. The opportunities, goals, typical 'end game' mindsets... they are pretty much completely separate games that rarely interact in any meaningful way.

People in lower sec space cry because they think it's so unfair that high sec dwellers run missions that make any measurable amount of isk. Is it anything more than srs bsns space jealousy...? I'm having trouble seeing what specifically is the problem.

The worlds are so far separated that unless someone can show me where the ability for high sec people to make money somehow negatively impacts those in low/null (beyond some assumption that their mere existence somehow generates an inflation on the game as a whole that) I just can't see how this topic goes anywhere other than "hey that guy makes more isk than i think he should.. I should be richer because my game is the real game and I deserve to be rewarded for playing the way I think this game should be played"

Nothing would come out of trying to balance the apples and oranges here other than upsetting a group of people that constitute a huge part of our subscription base. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

As to people in null and low that seem to think they don't have the opportunity or ability to make enough isk for the risk level you're operating at? You're doing it wrong.

And as to the actual topic at hand, do the missions make too much compared to the lower tiers? Maybe. But isn't that the point? No one sets out to make a career out of doing level 2 missions.... the goal is always working up to doing level 4's and it has been since the day they came out (Before that, everyone did level 3's, it was the same thing)

When you say things like that without explaining yourself properly, it makes me grin because it seems you've run out of things to say and resort to snide comments.

Because they havent run the numbers and think just like you. Its the same reason why so many think carrier ratting is better than using a CNR and why every months at least one frigate is blown up carrying plex to jita.

I'm off to bed and wont be posting until Tomorrow evening. I only mention this as Baltec might get upset if he thinks I'm not sitting at the computer all night pressing F5 to try and catch his latest post.

Yes I should have been more clear and said high sec only nerfs.

Considering the majority of missions are run in hi sec, any flat nerf impacts high sec a lot more than the other secs.

Lying is intentional, stating something factually incorrect isn't. That's called being mistaken. Learn the difference. But by all means continue to attack the character and not the idea.

It let's me know how mad you are and that's very amusing to me. Amuse me.

Lying is pretending to understand the economy and making up terms such as activity ecology and third tangent and pointing to a stat sheet that says this amount of income from all bounties of EVE shows proof that too much bounties are earned in hisec.

I said slanting? Im sure I said stating. I edit posts all the time. Grammatical errors, adding of ideas, further elaborating. Tell me jenn, why do you and Tippia expend so much energy trying to convince the community i'm a liar?

Do you feel they incapable of detecting deception?

Or is it that you feel i'm able to convey an idea that conflicts with your genda better than most?

[quote=Frostys Virpio]

No, it's because they nerfed the supercaps that were used to farm PvE in there.
.

Some new lessons in hypocrisy.

The click my name go to hide posts and save us both the time.

lol pvp types.

I love being put into a box.

Ill put you into one.
You're a jesus freak who wants to convince the world you are inacable of lying and that your very sophomoric understanding of people or the game should be heralded as our saving grace.

I'll admit, every time i'm in null sec i just think "i can make equal isk for less hassle, or just flat out more isk in high sec"
it really is quite frustrating because i want to be in null sec to do interesting things, but to fund that i find that the best place to be is... not in null sec.

sure i could just train another character to be my high sec cash cow but, really why should i?