Also, don't forget that POS do not run for free. It's quite expensive to fuel them relative to the income that they produce.

Nor does the fuel transport itself to the POS, neither does the produced goo move itself to Jita.

Also, don't forget that POS do not run for free. It's quite expensive to fuel them relative to the income that they produce.

Nor does the fuel transport itself to the POS, neither does the produced goo move itself to Jita.

My alts have some POSes. I don't find "quite expensive to fuel them relative to the income that they produce". Unless you do something like extracting / reacting bad T2 mats or screwing something up.

(...)


L4 before:

- Top tier income
- Low risk
- Only trading and little else could compete.
- Copious loot, reprocessed minerals (bad for economy), any basic "grind Caldari Navy => buy CNR" dude would get high reward for totally basic effort.

L4 after:
- middle of the pack
- a bit higher risk (drones may pop, exposing to scramblers)
- less expensive, less effort and lower tier minigames compete with L4
- very reduced loot, very reduced reprocessable loot, high income comes from selectively picking out of the way corps modules and being ready to grind new standings as the market changes.

My alts have some POSes. I don't find "quite expensive to fuel them relative to the income that they produce". Unless you do something like extracting / reacting bad T2 mats or screwing something up.
POSes are an advanced-ish gameplay reserved for those who can make them perform.

I too must fuel my lower valued moons with the same amount of fuel. And I too must transport my goods the same. On a second-for-second basis, my profits still exceed what I made running L4's.

What percentage of those profits come from materials directly extracted from the moons themselves?

My point is (and has been all along) that even with non-valuable moons I can make better profits than with L4 missions, discrediting the radical claim that L4's are better than (R64) moons on an individual basis.

In other words, if I can make more with non-raw-material-producing moons than L4's, no one with any sense or a good conscience could claim that R64-producing moons are less profitable than L4's.

These are the kinds of BS that are fed on these threads to keep them going.

You relentlessly keep doing the same thing. You avoid addressing my post, and instead misdirect it by talking about "moon goo" production alone

No, I just used its vagueness to turn it around, that's all.

But I implicitly said at the end of the statement that you couldn't use reason when dealing with these people and that you had to use something else.

Which if you turn around and say it applies to hi-sec care bears, then that means you admit you aren't use logic and reason yourself.

Lastly, is there really a group of hi-sec carebears with an agenda to nerf null sec?

GǪif I were a highsec carebear, which I'm not.

There's a pretty strong contingent of highsec carebears who want nullsec to be useless. Close enough?

GǪbecause that's what we're discussing: whether or not L4s offer income than moon goo.

"Yes, L4s are far better GÇö especially for the individual GÇö since a single person can trivially produce the same income as a single moon."

The statement pretty clearly stated that the opposition can't be reaonsed with and that you had to use something other than reason to get your point across. So if you turned it around and said it must be true about hi-sec, then you directly implied you can't reason with them so therefore you weren't using reason.

I know its annoying to go back and find some example (I woudln't), but care to give an example of somone who actually said "Null sec income is too high. CCP should nerf that."

You on the other hand seem to have a bug up your butt about high sec income.

No.

For the fourth (or fifth) time, this is what you said (your own words):

Notice how you said "moon", as in L4's are FAR BETTER than.

See where the goal post moving is?

Yeah, ok. I mixed up the referents there. Quite right: you can't use reason against them, so I don't. They could use facts and reason against me, but they don't either (since they apparently don't know how to).

Not explicitly, no, but they get all up in arms any time you suggest that nullsec should be given any kind of worth-while income sources. You can often spot some variant of GÇ£just go to highsec if it's so goodGÇ¥ being used alongside their protests. I suspect that in many cases, they just don't understand what they're saying (which makes it doubly fun when they immediately turn around and barf up some kind of hypocritical GÇ£stop trying to force me to [do whatever]GÇ¥).

Not really. I have a bug up my butt about skewed effort:reward balancing that renders large portions of the game and vast swaths of gameplay useless. Highsec just happens to be a hideously common source of such imbalances.

To admit that you don't use reason is the first step of self honesty.

I don't know. I've said plenty of times I'm fine with null sec getting buffs, but then people say "Oh no. You can't do that, you have to nerf high-sec instead." I really don't see that many people complaining about null sec, but rather they want high sec income left alone.

What I don't get is that there are many players who do go to Null sec for the higher income. That is the driving force behind the renter phenomenon.

Renting is a lot about throwing money at people to be able to avoid all the screwed-up areas of null living and only getting the good bits.

Why rent at all in null sec if the income isn't better than hi-sec?

Are you seriously saying that people are getting a worse income by risking more?

Are you saying the thousands of renters out there are mentally challenged with math?

130m/hr needs a very favourable LP - isk conversion which can only exist because not many people know what it is.

You are free to do what I and that other guy did and post continued revenue statistics spanning 2-4 months of L4 missioning.

Sure, if you get the 4k pu LP item the income is going to be great but then, it means you DID pour in time and effort to:

- select the correct market and items

- grind the correct faction standings

- pick the best ship


Doing sanctums less setup, you "only" got the low / null sec risk but then, if you could do it in an Aeon it means you were doing it in safe enough areas to risk such a ship.

So I guess you are going to put on your cognitive dissonance bubble and say with a straight face that the whole renter phenomenon is fueled by ignorance and the lack of ability to do math.

GǪor I can just use the explanation above.

Well I am just saying that if your reason and logic really entail that you believe such a thing that we can dismiss you and your entire line of thinking because somewhere it has gone corrupt and that everything that you have ever said can be put into question.

So in other words, you can't dismiss me or my entire line of thinking.

Come now, it was perfectly obvious from context (the context which you removed) that I was talking about moongoo producing POS, not reaction POS or invention POS or whatever.

This level of petty dishonesty is beneath you.

I am just saying if you can't accept the fact that renters rent because they make more money than they would in high sec, then well I guess you can't accept any other facts that may come into question.

But I guess you couldn't accept this fact either so there is little hope in that you see the error in your ways.

Remember what I said earlier though.