I am sure you economic majors will all agree that lvl 4 missions are better income than moon goo....right .

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%).

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%).

Why don't we just find a way to nerf blitzing since it's obvioulsy the broken way to run mission? Would it put missionning at an OK level of income?

From an economical health perspective, blitzing is actually better since it faucets less ISK and sinks moreGǪ

No mission payout beside bounties and LP then?

But the the blitzer is still pretty high income by what seem to be the desired standard in this thread.

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%).

Yes, you provide a perfect example. Wouldn't it be much better if you didn't?

Why did you want to discuss the definition instead of answering questions about the core issue?
Do you even know what the core issue is any more?
Do you have anything to back up your spurious and baseless claims?

How many moons are in null? And you still think lvl 4 missions are better? The only problem I have with any of this so called logic is should that be the case......then why are people even in null and why is everyone not all crammed into hi-sec running lvl 4 missions??

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.

How many moons are in null? And you still think lvl 4 missions are better?

The only problem I have with any of this so called logic is should that be the case......then why are people even in null and why is everyone not all crammed into hi-sec running lvl 4 missions??

And here we have the troll attempting to turn the tables.

Well thank you Mal. Yes lets be persnickety.

[GǪ]

I wasnGÇÖt the one arguing over definitions

... The only problem I have with any of this so called logic is should that be the case......then why are people even in null and why is everyone not all crammed into hi-sec running lvl 4 missions??

then why are people even in null and why is everyone not all crammed into hi-sec running lvl 4 missions??

Why don't we just find a way to nerf blitzing since it's obvioulsy the broken way to run mission? Would it put missionning at an OK level of income?

How many moons are in null? And you still think lvl 4 missions are better? The only problem I have with any of this so called logic is should that be the case......then why are people even in null and why is everyone not all crammed into hi-sec running lvl 4 missions??

Is it just me, or did the guy who is always accusing people of derailing threads with "trolling" just derail a thread....with trolling about a the definition of words??

828. How many L4 agents are there in high? How many people are there using them?
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. In fact, on an individual level, AFK mining is a better source of income than an R64 moon is.


Everyone is crammed into highsec running L4 missions. The problem you're having is that you keep confusing individual and alliance-level income, and that you seem to think that multiple income streams are mutually exclusive.

How about instead of trying to turn the tables, you actually discuss the topic at hand? How about you start answering the questions?

Yes you were.
Now, how about you instead take the time to explain how moon goo income damages the game?
How about you argue how it manages to do so, but, say, missions or mining (ore or ice, doesn't matter) GÇö both of which inject far more wealth into the game GÇö are not?


For the record, using current Jita prices for R64 materials:
-+ Dysprosium GåÆ 3.2 M ISK/h
-+ Neodymium GåÆ 2.6 M ISK/h
-+ Promethium GåÆ 2.3 M ISK/h
-+ Thulium GåÆ 1.8 M ISK/h

If those (known) R64 were equally distributed and all mined, the total value of the goo would amount to ~49bn ISK/day. Compare this to the 150bn ISK/day in agent rewards alone (i.e. not counting bounties and the value of LP, loot and salvage) that missions created a year and a half ago, back when the number of players was much lower than they are todayGǪ

When I get more time I will be glad to show how this creating a issue for the game.

And yes the income for lvl 4 are on a solo lvl where moon is corp. or alliance lvl. These two things should be scaled differently and if anything moon goo needs nerfed.

And yes you are the one always arguing samantics.

How many moons are in null? And you still think lvl 4 missions are better? The only problem I have with any of this so called logic is should that be the case......then why are people even in null and why is everyone not all crammed into hi-sec running lvl 4 missions??

How many moons are in null? And you still think lvl 4 missions are better? The only problem I have with any of this so called logic is should that be the case......then why are people even in null and why is everyone not all crammed into hi-sec running lvl 4 missions??

Can't wait. Make sure you understand the difference between ISK and materials faucets by thenGǪ

Because apart from suicide ganking people in highsec, it's a really boring place to be. Moons are used as an alliance level income supplement, whereas missions are income for the individual member. Now using your logic above, why are there even people in highsec & why is everyone not all crammed in to nullsec running Fhubs in AFK Ishtars?

If mission-running is nerfed, this should be it. Throw in plex blitzing while you're at it. (yes, that'll be an unpopular suggestion!)

... came expecting a less than successful "nerf high sec" thread... left completely satisfied that the former "Tech Lords" are indeed singing The Blues over their newly impoverished status in the universe.

Because the endless supply of isk generated from the moons 23/7 has allowed the alliances to keep an even tighter grip on their golden goose. The war in sov is a war of attrition. That has made it near impossible to win that war of attrition with all the income from the moons.

DonGÇÖt care about the difference in your definitions of faucets or anything else for that matter.

I am at work atm and have to work some OT. [GǪ] so please bare with me as it could take a while to explain why moon goo should be nerfed before lvl 4 missions.

Because the endless supply of isk generated from the moons 23/7

That has made it near impossible to win that war of attrition with all the income from the moons.