EVE General Discussion

…and without people logging in to protect the POS, it won't be producing anything either and everything done this week will be lost.

“Defined by action” huh? Yeah, sure. If we remove all things that are not exactly like moon mining from the list, there is nothing on the list that compares to moon mining. That's a nice tautology that says absolutely nothing.

Again, the point is that it's trivially easy to get the same kind of income from other activities, with the same kind of workload, as you'd get from moon mining. What those other activities are is pretty irrelevant since the base whine is that it's supposedly impossible… when in actual fact, it is not.

Sure. If the ice miners refuse to chip in and help the alliance to keep up with the Jonses, because they want to keep all that profit for themselves, then the alliance won't have the money to compete. That's no different from if the moon-mining alliance's members refuse to chip in the time to keep the POS going because they want to spend that time earning money for themselves. They, too, will not have the money to compete (since they won't have the moon any more).

Either way, it's individuals foregoing personal profit to earn the collective a bunch of money, and either way, the collective earns the same level of income for the same amount of effort. Thus, even the most horrible misuse of your time — ice mining — can easily compete with moon mining for creating alliance income.

This is sharp contrast to the claims that it is absolutely impossible to do anything of the kind and that owning a tech moon is a nigh-unbeatable advantage in the ISK war.

…and no-one is saying that. What we're saying is that the whole “we can't beat them, they have tech” argument is dumb because it ignores the very relevant fact that keeping that tech flowing requires a fair amount of effort, and that you can quite easily match both the effort and the income through other means.

…a fact that is completely irrelevant since the whole point is that same effort = same income for both activities. The guy taking all the ice out of the corp hangar and putting in the market doesn't have to be online for the ice mining op either.

Sure they are. It's all about the value for the effort and the scale of both. In ice mining, we have something that very closely matches moon mining.

No. We've been comparing group vs. group the whole time.

Ehm. We're talking about 2 hours a month for that ice mining. In the scenario you just painted, the moon mining income accounts for just over 1% — it's a rounding error. The difference it will make is nil.

Still, can use the same formula. Whether it be per month or per hour. Ice mining is as close to moon mining in a pos as using incursions as an example of income. Because that is 2 hours per month, for 250 pilots. I think that's a relative point. Because that is NOW saying you have to have 250 pilots to mine 2 hours per month to value 1 tech moon, when the formula given was the fact that goons had 500 moons? That's a HELLUVA lot of ice.

Oh, and the original post to start comparing ice miners came from-

Which is what started the whole debacle. (post #254). About 3 pages I think, after you discounted incursions as being a poor comparison because it scaled differently.

So, now... are we going to use 7m = 7m or are we going to retract scaling and find ways to compare something incomparable? Obviously we have already figured out an ice miner doesn't need a corp to back him/her, and we all know by discussion that a moon mining pos isn't going to be maintained by 1 person either.

So again, how do they compare without being so far off scale again?

The game has 500 tech moons; I have no idea how many of those the goons have.
It was brought up to show how even a small alliance can outproduce the entire tech moon population in the game, if they want to.

The reason we're using ice mining as a point of comparison is because of how close it is in terms of income per hour, income per effort, and man-hour investment requirement for a given pile of cash. All of that makes them comparable, and all of it shows that there are plenty of income sources that are competitive with moon mining.

Yes, with a bit of luck, you'll be able to cover several moons with the same defensive effort to save on the man-hour investment there, but at the same time, you can also choose not to use the worst imaginable income source (ice mining) as your way of competing with that. You can instead use (horrible) ore mining, and suddenly, your the same effort is worth two moons. You can use (good) ore mining, and now it's worth three or four.

…and yes, if you can get the members to go along, you could use missions or FW or even incursions, and make a the effort be worth 10–15 moons. The reason I discounted incursions is because it was a different question back then, and because incursions are the epitome of personal enrichments. What we're talking about now is what effort-for-isk and man-hour ratios are comparable to and competitive with what you get from a top-end moon. Ice fits the bill very nicely.

Seeing as how they're entirely comparable already, no retraction is needed. And 7M is indeed the same thing as 7M in terms of what it'll buy you and how much effort you have to put in to get it.

No. I'm saying that the amount of people required to defend a POS once a month would, if they had no POS to defend and instead spent that time mining ice, earn just as much money either way. Or, well. I'm saying that you really need to go after horrible ore to do that, but those who actually run those defence ops seem to suggest that ice mining will be sufficient.

At any rate, be it tech moon or ice mining, the man-hours required to keep the ISK rolling in is the same, as is the amount of ISK.

Sov isn't the same as moon mining, and grinding sov does not mean you get the tech moon required to save you from those 2 hours of mining.

Sov has its own rewards and its own set of problems, and it's a completely separate issue. What this whole comparison is about is to debunk the myth that owning a tech moon provides you with an income source that no-one else can compete with.

Moderation discussion removed.

Please try to remember that all moderation issues should be either reported or petitioned. Discussing moderation in the forums can be bad for your character's health.

From the forum Rules:
"11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a petition under the Community & Forums Category."

I dunno, I still find it hard to believe that it wouldn't be worth having the moons for the income.

If it took my 1,000 member corp to mine for 2 hours a month each, to make the same amount of isk of 5 moons (4 or whatever) at the cost of MAYBE needing to defend it... that's still twice as much income as if we did not have any tech moons. AND not only that, but that's alliance income i do NOT have to share with my alliance. Ice mining, would be personal income, and pos would be alliance income. The access of those areas and safe spots to also rat in, have fun social meta game crap like thunderdomes, or be able to afford ship replacement, comes from that.

Not to mention taxation, as well as market and access to whatever else (kind of leading into sov, sorry).

So sure, by itself tech moon income might not be the greatest, but again, when you are talking tech and moon mining, you aren't only talking about it being the only income. Just 1 source of PASSIVE income. Which is a big big difference from just mining, or ratting, or doing incursions, or any other ACTIVE source of income, which can in fact stack.

Again, the comparison is just not there.

If you were my corp leader, you wouldn't hand me a paycheck for defending your moongoo mining pos. You'd have other perks set aside for my service. We are all in the same corp (hypothetically afterall). But that doesn't mean I have automatic access to that alliance wallet, or that everyone gets an equal share.

Or are you saying it does? You're combining a personal income and a group income saying they are both. It looks like you are not keeping the 2 seperate, which obviously they are designed to do.

Or I can only see this as you wanting to see moongoo go into highsec as any other PI type of passive income.

Because you can mine ice anywhere and everywhere and it is comparable as you say =P (I don't believe in it but meh).

For instance Tippia.... since I'm using work as an example....

If I'm salaried as an employee, I get paid the same amount of money if I work 30 hours or 40 or 90 (moon mining pos) and so do not have to put in a set amount of man hours to equate that same amount of money. Some weeks I might have to put in more hours (pos got reinforced/attacked/defended) and sometimes I might get to work less hours (all safe and clear).

If I work hourly, I get a specific rate per hour I work (ice mining) and if my car breaks down (ganked) or for some other reason I cannot log in (connectivity?) I cannot work (mine ice) therefore I make 0 income for that amount of time. I would have to work a specific amount of time to equate to that salaried employee.

Granted there ARE other elements involved, but for the sake of income there is not. We are talking value of # of hours to make the same amoutn of money, not HOW to get them.

In both instances, no pos/miner = no isk. But that isn't in question.

We don't NEED 250 miners. We don't NEED 1 pos or 1 moon. We don't need constant vigil to do so. Again, outside influences CAN determine the outcome, but are not relevant to what the activity brings, or how it brings it.

It might take more miners if you are in a popular belt routinely patrolled by New Order, you might have that POS near a borderland or hotspot.

But those are not constants. So they, as you put it, don't matter.

Aha, you are looking at it personally. It doesn't matter what MY level of involvement is, we aren't talking about specifics.

I don't need to be committed to understand or have a basic level of comprehension.

Please don't make it personal, I am not required to replace my corpie's ships, since I am not FC, nor is it my idea when we go on a roam, however I freely hand out isk (I have enough RL money to purchase plex when I see the need so do not hold value to isk anyways) to help those corpies out if they are short on isk or feel the risk to their wallet is greater than the fun they might be missing out on.

I understand what passive means, and I am not confusing what it means. But I do know that while something is passive, and even works during downtime, it does in fact allow me the freedom to explore active sources of income as well.

In short, if I'm in charge of a moon mining pos, I can still mine ice and make more money than the person who is only mining ice. Period.

Since I can do both, theoretically, the value of 1 is not the same for both sides. So it isnt 1+1=1+1 because only 1 side has the passive income. Again, it's 1+1>1. Value of 1 being "income stream", substitute icemining for moonmining as you see fit. Or maybe it needs to be X+Y>X. But since you can mine ice and moon mine at the same time with that 1 account, it will always amass more income than just ice mining.

Those people defending the POS can't do anything else during the defense fleet.

2 hours a month with virtually no risk and low capital investment is competitive with 1 hour a month with a high risk of loss and an enormous capital investment.

Nobody is saying they're equal. Just that you can use Ice mining income to compete with the income from Tech moons. Which means that it is not true that "nobody can compete with Tech moon income."