These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

And you thought HI was too safe???? Welcome to Thunderdome™

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#401 - 2013-03-26 12:30:20 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
"They're not the same!"
"Well no, but you can demonstrate how moon mining requires more effort and collaboration on the part of more players in order to achieve the same net income as a much smaller collaboration with much less effort when ice mining."
"BUT THEY'RE NOT THE SAME YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE TWO"


It's a typical high sec, null sec discussion, with the high sec side saying some stuff unsupported by any kind of reason and the null sec side presenting actual verifiable/testable facts...and getting ignored.....

In other words, Tuesday in General Discussion.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#402 - 2013-03-26 12:38:50 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Well I gues we'll be seeing on June 4th if Odyssey addresses the near monopoly TECH bottleneck or they cave in to the big blue doughnut & address it Soon™


Yes, doing the opposite of what the "big blue doughnut" has been asking CCP to do since before the R64 Nerf/Tech Buff went live on TQ is "caving into them."

NefariousLogic™

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#403 - 2013-03-26 14:29:01 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:
"ISK wins wars" ISK for ship replacement programs wins wars
FIXED


Umm... Hire a merc crew - no ship replacement needed for them, just more isk. It's been done and more than 1 war in null has changed direction due to paid-help supporting less eager/willing native support.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#404 - 2013-03-26 16:52:25 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Quote:
I don't see many alliances complaining about being forced to mine, which would have been the case I think had you been right in level of "competitiveness".


What do you think "rent" is?




I dunno, the money you pay that you get from anomalies?


You're pretty dense, huh?

I never said that Ice mining was the only way to compete with Tech income. There are tons of others that do so with a lot less time invested. Ice mining is just handy because it's infinitely extensible and has an income per hour that's roughly the same as a Tech moon.

Rent is a way to harness a bunch of people (aka Renters) to produce income for the alliance. Tech is a way to harness a bunch of people (aka Offensive/Defensive fleets) to produce income for the alliance.

Nobody in the landlord alliance cares how you make the ISK to pay your rent.



Considering you were the one who went straight to "cannot compete with 500 mackinaws" in a quick kneejerk response.. it isn't ME who was being dense.

I've been in a talk with Tippia for like 7 pages sparring over different points without having to resort to name calling.

Guess it's you with the issues, not me.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#405 - 2013-03-26 17:14:25 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
"They're not the same!"
"Well no, but you can demonstrate how moon mining requires more effort and collaboration on the part of more players in order to achieve the same net income as a much smaller collaboration with much less effort when ice mining."
"BUT THEY'RE NOT THE SAME YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE TWO"


It's a typical high sec, null sec discussion, with the high sec side saying some stuff unsupported by any kind of reason and the null sec side presenting actual verifiable/testable facts...and getting ignored.....

In other words, Tuesday in General Discussion.



How on earth does passive versus active relate to null vs high?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#406 - 2013-03-26 17:21:58 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

It's a typical high sec, null sec discussion, with the null sec side saying some stuff unsupported by any kind of reason and the hi sec side presenting actual verifiable/testable facts...and getting ignored.....

In other words, Tuesday in General Discussion.


FIXED
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#407 - 2013-03-26 18:01:33 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
So... what's the problem again? Oh yeah, it keeps the Blue Doughnut interested enough to keep playing without starting a war big enough to inflict any actual harm to the Blue Doughnut. In other words, it avoids the two outcomes that can bring down the Blue Doughnut, namely bittervets unsubscribing from boredom and the possibility of the Blue Doughnut becoming a Red Doughnut.
…too bad that the blue doughnut doesn't actually exist. If it did, those things might have actually been real problems...


Do you even live in null? If so do you play with your eyes open or are they shut like your mind on anyone that disagrees with you.

The sea of blue in null is not imaginary just like the response to potential war that was going to happen and replaced with war games.
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#408 - 2013-03-26 18:02:44 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

It's a typical high sec, null sec discussion, with the null sec side saying some stuff unsupported by any kind of reason and the hi sec side presenting actual verifiable/testable facts...and getting ignored.....

In other words, Tuesday in General Discussion.


FIXED



LOL very true.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#409 - 2013-03-26 23:18:05 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Considering you were the one who went straight to "cannot compete with 500 mackinaws" in a quick kneejerk response.. it isn't ME who was being dense.

I've been in a talk with Tippia for like 7 pages sparring over different points without having to resort to name calling.

Guess it's you with the issues, not me.



Where in the world did I say anything to the effect that anyone "cannot compete with 500 mackinaws"? I said that 500 mackinaws can produce income that is competitive with all the tech moons in the game, combined. I never said that that was the only way to produce an income that is competitive with tech moon income, just one way.


You then presented the assumption that it takes 4,000 man hours to defend a Tech moon, and claimed that the remainder of the defender's play time lets them somehow make more money doing the same activities available to non-moon holders than the non-moon holders can with their 3500 man-hour head start.

And then you bizzarely tried to claim that renting space does not represent a way to produce income for the alliance without Tech because not all of the rental income comes from Ice mining.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#410 - 2013-03-26 23:21:36 UTC
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
So... what's the problem again? Oh yeah, it keeps the Blue Doughnut interested enough to keep playing without starting a war big enough to inflict any actual harm to the Blue Doughnut. In other words, it avoids the two outcomes that can bring down the Blue Doughnut, namely bittervets unsubscribing from boredom and the possibility of the Blue Doughnut becoming a Red Doughnut.
…too bad that the blue doughnut doesn't actually exist. If it did, those things might have actually been real problems...


Do you even live in null? If so do you play with your eyes open or are they shut like your mind on anyone that disagrees with you.

The sea of blue in null is not imaginary just like the response to potential war that was going to happen and replaced with war games.


Once again, if you don't like it, why aren't you forming a response to disrupt the event or distract the participants?

There are literally no game mechanical obstacles in your way. The only possible obstacles are ineptness, laziness, or poverty (which comes back to ineptness). What's your excuse?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#411 - 2013-03-26 23:29:49 UTC
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:


Do you even live in null? If so do you play with your eyes open or are they shut like your mind on anyone that disagrees with you.

The sea of blue in null is not imaginary just like the response to potential war that was going to happen and replaced with war games.


Its clear you dont live in null.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#412 - 2013-03-26 23:54:02 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Is the income from holding Stocks competitive with the Income from holding Bonds?

They're not comparable, clearly, because holding stocks incurs risks and obligations far different from the risks and obligations incurred by holding bonds; for instance, stocks represent holding an equity stake in the company while bonds just represent a lien on the company's assets. Another example: Stocks come with risks


I would TOTALLY love you explained these utterly basic concepts to the average EU Bruxelles boureucrat, who keep inventing new and destructive ways to destroy the risk:reward equation off RL trading.

In my country due to Tobin Tax and other similar atrocities a bond yields 4% a year and pure security trading (riskier than stocks) is slowly dropping down to 6%. Result: most stopped doing anything and closed shop or (like in my case) have to leave their country, their home and their relatives and migrate in civilized countries where capital at risk is still valued.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#413 - 2013-03-27 00:20:26 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


I would TOTALLY love you explained these utterly basic concepts to the average EU Bruxelles boureucrat, who keep inventing new and destructive ways to destroy the risk:reward equation off RL trading.

In my country due to Tobin Tax and other similar atrocities a bond yields 4% a year and pure security trading (riskier than stocks) is slowly dropping down to 6%. Result: most stopped doing anything and closed shop or (like in my case) have to leave their country, their home and their relatives and migrate in civilized countries where capital at risk is still valued.


The US has a fairly friendly capital gains tax setup. It's actually somewhat friendlier to stocks than to bonds. (You pay tax on the interest from the bonds every year, even on zero coupon bonds, while you only pay taxes [at a lower than normal rate to boot*] on the net profit over the life of your holding of a piece of stock.)

Of course, some (mostly municipal) bonds are partly or entirely tax free.

*Assuming you've held for over a year.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#414 - 2013-03-27 01:04:35 UTC
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
So... what's the problem again? Oh yeah, it keeps the Blue Doughnut interested enough to keep playing without starting a war big enough to inflict any actual harm to the Blue Doughnut. In other words, it avoids the two outcomes that can bring down the Blue Doughnut, namely bittervets unsubscribing from boredom and the possibility of the Blue Doughnut becoming a Red Doughnut.
…too bad that the blue doughnut doesn't actually exist. If it did, those things might have actually been real problems...


Do you even live in null? If so do you play with your eyes open or are they shut like your mind on anyone that disagrees with you.

The sea of blue in null is not imaginary just like the response to potential war that was going to happen and replaced with war games.


Yes we live in null. No we don't play with our eyes shut. Yes the sea of blue is imaginary. The response to the potential war was a result of politics.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Mikhael Taron
Four Winds Industry
#415 - 2013-03-27 10:38:26 UTC
Consider the effect the following will have on the game before advertising your noobness:

Jump drives work only in nulsec.

You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can make a fool out of yourself anytime.
Anunzi
Solace Corp
#416 - 2013-03-27 10:57:07 UTC
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
So... what's the problem again? Oh yeah, it keeps the Blue Doughnut interested enough to keep playing without starting a war big enough to inflict any actual harm to the Blue Doughnut. In other words, it avoids the two outcomes that can bring down the Blue Doughnut, namely bittervets unsubscribing from boredom and the possibility of the Blue Doughnut becoming a Red Doughnut.
…too bad that the blue doughnut doesn't actually exist. If it did, those things might have actually been real problems...


Do you even live in null? If so do you play with your eyes open or are they shut like your mind on anyone that disagrees with you.

The sea of blue in null is not imaginary just like the response to potential war that was going to happen and replaced with war games.




I don’t what part of null you live in sparky, I'm going to guess somewhere like Jita, but down in actual null we get fights very often.

Maybe you should actually try coming to null sec before spouting such drivel?


"It was the way she said it, Rimmer, to rhyme with scum"
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#417 - 2013-03-27 13:30:39 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Considering you were the one who went straight to "cannot compete with 500 mackinaws" in a quick kneejerk response.. it isn't ME who was being dense.

I've been in a talk with Tippia for like 7 pages sparring over different points without having to resort to name calling.

Guess it's you with the issues, not me.



Where in the world did I say anything to the effect that anyone "cannot compete with 500 mackinaws"? I said that 500 mackinaws can produce income that is competitive with all the tech moons in the game, combined. I never said that that was the only way to produce an income that is competitive with tech moon income, just one way.


You then presented the assumption that it takes 4,000 man hours to defend a Tech moon, and claimed that the remainder of the defender's play time lets them somehow make more money doing the same activities available to non-moon holders than the non-moon holders can with their 3500 man-hour head start.

And then you bizzarely tried to claim that renting space does not represent a way to produce income for the alliance without Tech because not all of the rental income comes from Ice mining.



I would encourage you to reread the thread. I've only regurgitated whatever facts have been spilled over this thread. I did not make up any of my own. I still find it silly you think passive and active incomes are comaprable, or even competitive, since by nature, they are different.

You can say "you you you you" all you want until you are blue in the face, but it's still the redundancies you post that are skewed. I still maintain passive is passive, and active is active, therefore in different realms and not to be compared.

I am not the one who said anything about it taking anything for any group to do anything at all. I also did not say anything about rent, or from ice, save for the fact that all those streams of income are varied and different.

Please, for the love of god, read the thread before you chime in with wild accusations. Or atleast cite your work.

What I did mention, is that you don't need to defend a moon 23/7. That was in retaliation to say it took more logisticly, to gain benefit from moon mining. I spoke of the fact that the person netting the income doesn't need to defend it, because it is done on an alliance level, therefore NOT COMPARABLE to ice mining, which is done on the single player level.


Read read read read man, just read ffs.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#418 - 2013-03-27 13:41:51 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

It's a typical high sec, null sec discussion, with the null sec/REAL EVe PLAYER side saying some stuff unsupported by any kind of stupidity and the hi sec side presenting actual non-existant and imaginary facts...and clinging to that BS.....

In other words, DarthNefariusday in General Discussion.


FIXATED ON NULL


Repaired!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#419 - 2013-03-27 13:53:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mr Kidd wrote:
I understand what you're saying about the 250 players having to defend the moon goo pos. I do. But you still can't say it equates to ice mining and being competitive.
How is spending 500 man-hours to earn 5bn ISK not the comparable to or competitive with spending 500 man-hours to earn 5bn ISK?

Quote:
It's not, not until you want to analyze opportunity costs, the number moon goo pos's in a select alliance, how many times they have to defend those pos's and sov, plus all the additional income they generate doing other things.
True. All in all, keeping that POS up and running to ensure the income probably costs far more (but offers some fun and banter) than doing in the simple (but boring) way and just mine for the income.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#420 - 2013-03-27 14:04:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
1 method you HAVE to spend the man hours to achieve, the other you only MAYBE have to spend man hours to ensure you achieve it. That's the difference. 1 you, by definition, HAVE to have an alliance to do (which I believe is false, you only have to have an alliance to keep it solvent but that's moot), the other, can be accomplished by X# of pilots on a singular level and therefore is a variable based on that fluctuation for it's income.

Passive =/= Active.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.