These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#421 - 2013-03-27 18:46:50 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.


Do you think that income from owning bonds and owning stocks are competitive? They're clearly not comparable due to the vastly different risk and benefit structure, but as an investor, I certainly look at them as being competitive.

You can compete with an income source without having a similarly structured income source.

Quote:
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.


You claimed that no alliance requires their members to mine. I simply pointed out that Rent is exactly that, since the actual activity being used to replace and compete with tech moon income is irrelevant.

Quote:
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.


And you don't need to Ice mine 24/7 with comparable numbers to replace the income from a Tech moon.

In fact, using the assumptions you presented, you need to spend less time and effort mining Ice to make 5b ISK than you need to spend defending a Tech moon.


Murk Paradox wrote:
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.


Averages. They're what's for dinner.

You never have to spend more than 500 man hours to mine Ice worth 5b ISK. Some months you might have to defend a Moon more times than you'd planned for (not to mention the fact that each time you've been forced to defend a moon, you loose 300m ISK worth of production).

Also, the fact that Ice mining can be done individually, on their own time, is a huge advantage for Ice mining. If you have variation on participation for your Tech moon defense fleets, you may well lose the moon (loosing all the income, not just part of it). Then you need at least 2 successful fleets in a row to get it back.

The original claim was that "nobody can compete with Tech moon income." The fact that a similar sized group to goonswarm could produce an income greater than the entire combined income of all Tech moons by having its members donate only 250m/month to the war effort (be that through 25hrs/month of mining, 5hrs/month missioning, 2hrs/month running incursions), means that that claim is entirely discredited.

Nobody has said that Passive = Active. Just that they can compete with each other as income sources, and that Tech moons are only as passive as the enemies of the owners let them be. In other words, if you don't like the fact that Tech moon income is as passive as it is, form up some bomber alts and keep them permanently reinforced.

"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
Anabella Rella
Gradient
Electus Matari
#422 - 2013-03-27 20:46:45 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


...Nobody has said that Passive = Active. Just that they can compete with each other as income sources, and that Tech moons are only as passive as the enemies of the owners let them be. In other words, if you don't like the fact that Tech moon income is as passive as it is, form up some bomber alts and keep them permanently reinforced.


Right, like that's even possible. You guys seriously need to stop pushing the lie that your mega-alliances can ever be dethroned. You have had years of all the advantages of income, organization, super capital blobs, etc to ever be taken down via in-game mechanics. The only way a mega-alliance will go down is via metagaming or internal dissent. To pretend otherwise is either naive in the extreme or intellectually dishonest.

When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#423 - 2013-03-27 20:49:16 UTC
Anabella Rella wrote:


Right, like that's even possible. You guys seriously need to stop pushing the lie that your mega-alliances can ever be dethroned. You have had years of all the advantages of income, organization, super capital blobs, etc to ever be taken down via in-game mechanics. The only way a mega-alliance will go down is via metagaming or internal dissent. To pretend otherwise is either naive in the extreme or intellectually dishonest.


War is war, how its fought matters not so long as you win. No empire lasts forever, not even ours.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#424 - 2013-03-27 21:23:51 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
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.


Do you think that income from owning bonds and owning stocks are competitive? They're clearly not comparable due to the vastly different risk and benefit structure, but as an investor, I certainly look at them as being competitive.

You can compete with an income source without having a similarly structured income source.

Quote:
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.


You claimed that no alliance requires their members to mine. I simply pointed out that Rent is exactly that, since the actual activity being used to replace and compete with tech moon income is irrelevant.

Quote:
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.


And you don't need to Ice mine 24/7 with comparable numbers to replace the income from a Tech moon.

In fact, using the assumptions you presented, you need to spend less time and effort mining Ice to make 5b ISK than you need to spend defending a Tech moon.


Murk Paradox wrote:
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.


Averages. They're what's for dinner.

You never have to spend more than 500 man hours to mine Ice worth 5b ISK. Some months you might have to defend a Moon more times than you'd planned for (not to mention the fact that each time you've been forced to defend a moon, you loose 300m ISK worth of production).

Also, the fact that Ice mining can be done individually, on their own time, is a huge advantage for Ice mining. If you have variation on participation for your Tech moon defense fleets, you may well lose the moon (loosing all the income, not just part of it). Then you need at least 2 successful fleets in a row to get it back.

The original claim was that "nobody can compete with Tech moon income." The fact that a similar sized group to goonswarm could produce an income greater than the entire combined income of all Tech moons by having its members donate only 250m/month to the war effort (be that through 25hrs/month of mining, 5hrs/month missioning, 2hrs/month running incursions), means that that claim is entirely discredited.

Nobody has said that Passive = Active. Just that they can compete with each other as income sources, and that Tech moons are only as passive as the enemies of the owners let them be. In other words, if you don't like the fact that Tech moon income is as passive as it is, form up some bomber alts and keep them permanently reinforced.



Stocks and bonds huh? Ok, which is moon mining and which is ice mining?

And seriously, moon mining and ice mining can NOT be competitive if you can do both at same time. This is why it shows as a failure to compare. You have to choose 1 or the other as a comparison. Those activities do not fit the criteria.

Period.

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
#425 - 2013-03-27 21:25:13 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Anabella Rella wrote:


Right, like that's even possible. You guys seriously need to stop pushing the lie that your mega-alliances can ever be dethroned. You have had years of all the advantages of income, organization, super capital blobs, etc to ever be taken down via in-game mechanics. The only way a mega-alliance will go down is via metagaming or internal dissent. To pretend otherwise is either naive in the extreme or intellectually dishonest.


War is war, how its fought matters not so long as you win. No empire lasts forever, not even ours.



Unfortunately, that point has been argued by "your" side by quite a few people in other sov discussions, namely power projection.

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.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#426 - 2013-03-27 22:50:19 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Stocks and bonds huh? Ok, which is moon mining and which is ice mining?

And seriously, moon mining and ice mining can NOT be competitive if you can do both at same time. This is why it shows as a failure to compare. You have to choose 1 or the other as a comparison. Those activities do not fit the criteria.

Period.


You can't ice mine and defend a moon at the same time.

Also, we're not comparing them. Just showing that the income derived from each can be competitive.

"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
#427 - 2013-03-27 22:54:24 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Anabella Rella wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


...Nobody has said that Passive = Active. Just that they can compete with each other as income sources, and that Tech moons are only as passive as the enemies of the owners let them be. In other words, if you don't like the fact that Tech moon income is as passive as it is, form up some bomber alts and keep them permanently reinforced.


Right, like that's even possible. You guys seriously need to stop pushing the lie that your mega-alliances can ever be dethroned. You have had years of all the advantages of income, organization, super capital blobs, etc to ever be taken down via in-game mechanics. The only way a mega-alliance will go down is via metagaming or internal dissent. To pretend otherwise is either naive in the extreme or intellectually dishonest.


Absolutely. NoBOBy could ever be dethroned by a less experienced group due to their years of income*, nobody with Tech could be taken out by someone without Tech due to their high levels of orgaNCization**, and no longstanding mega-alliance can be destroyed without disintegrating due to purely internal issues because of their Super C-A-pital Blobs***.

To pretend otherwise would indicate a grasp of history.

And the Titanic is still unsinkable.


*An Alliance losing all of its Sov in one go is not the death knell everyone makes it out to be, ergo BOB could have recovered: See GSF and their whoops ::Sov:: moment.

**Owned Tech for years and years, had a Massive Super Blob, and got curbstomped by a coalition that did not own Tech.

***-A-, old guard alliance extraordinaire, died to a beat-down, plain and simple.

"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
David Cedarbridge
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#428 - 2013-03-28 04:37:20 UTC
Anabella Rella wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


...Nobody has said that Passive = Active. Just that they can compete with each other as income sources, and that Tech moons are only as passive as the enemies of the owners let them be. In other words, if you don't like the fact that Tech moon income is as passive as it is, form up some bomber alts and keep them permanently reinforced.


Right, like that's even possible. You guys seriously need to stop pushing the lie that your mega-alliances can ever be dethroned. You have had years of all the advantages of income, organization, super capital blobs, etc to ever be taken down via in-game mechanics. The only way a mega-alliance will go down is via metagaming or internal dissent. To pretend otherwise is either naive in the extreme or intellectually dishonest.


Which one does "whine on the forums" fall under? It seems the forum warriors have been trying that one for a while now but no level of "nerf goons" has worked so far. Its all just "you're organized and we're not so we can't beat you in a game about organizing" and lots of navel gazing. Certainly somebody out there is capable of more than that, just not from inside Jita 4-4.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#429 - 2013-03-28 04:50:17 UTC
David Cedarbridge wrote:
Which one does "whine on the forums" fall under? It seems the forum warriors have been trying that one for a while now but no level of "nerf goons" has worked so far. Its all just "you're organized and we're not so we can't beat you in a game about organizing" and lots of navel gazing. Certainly somebody out there is capable of more than that, just not from inside Jita 4-4.


Dude, Check out this sweet lint I found.

"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
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#430 - 2013-03-28 06:04:18 UTC
So when does the first Thunderdome™ match start? Or are you all waiting for TEST to Failscade then hold them?
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'
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#431 - 2013-03-28 06:13:46 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
David Cedarbridge wrote:
Which one does "whine on the forums" fall under? It seems the forum warriors have been trying that one for a while now but no level of "nerf goons" has worked so far. Its all just "you're organized and we're not so we can't beat you in a game about organizing" and lots of navel gazing. Certainly somebody out there is capable of more than that, just not from inside Jita 4-4.


Dude, Check out this sweet lint I found.

why is it always blue?
dark heartt
#432 - 2013-03-28 07:59:15 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
So when does the first Thunderdome™ match start? Or are you all waiting for TEST to Failscade then hold them?


Test is constantly fail cascading.

http://tetrisisunrealistic.blogspot.com.au/
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#433 - 2013-03-28 09:33:36 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

You never have to spend more than 500 man hours to mine Ice worth 5b ISK. Some months you might have to defend a Moon more times than you'd planned for (not to mention the fact that each time you've been forced to defend a moon, you loose 300m ISK worth of production).


This is not really correct. Today EvE ISK per hour reports 4.9M x hour for the best ice. 500 man hours will create 2.450B gross profit, which is less than half of what you say.



RubyPorto wrote:


You can't ice mine and defend a moon at the same time.

Also, we're not comparing them. Just showing that the income derived from each can be competitive.


This is also incorrect. Beginning with the fact that industry characters tend to train well different skill "trees" (and you are not going to see appreciated a PvP character with lots of industry SP), these are usually relegated to be alts. AFK alts, and they can easily be multi-boxed while your main is sitting at a POS to defend, bored as fck.

Been there, done that. Blink

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#434 - 2013-03-28 14:16:32 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

You never have to spend more than 500 man hours to mine Ice worth 5b ISK. Some months you might have to defend a Moon more times than you'd planned for (not to mention the fact that each time you've been forced to defend a moon, you loose 300m ISK worth of production).


This is not really correct. Today EvE ISK per hour reports 4.9M x hour for the best ice. 500 man hours will create 2.450B gross profit, which is less than half of what you say.


Ok, I'll rephrase: you will never have to spend more than [fixed amount of man hours based only on market price, and not significantly affected by anything the enemy does] to mine Ice (or Mission for ISK+LP, or whatever) worth 5b ISK. I'm using the (many times mentioned) assumption of 10m ISK/hr, because the specific activity used to replace Tech moon income is largely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it is true that "nobody can compete with Tech income".


Quote:
This is also incorrect. Beginning with the fact that industry characters tend to train well different skill "trees" (and you are not going to see appreciated a PvP character with lots of industry SP), these are usually relegated to be alts. AFK alts, and they can easily be multi-boxed while your main is sitting at a POS to defend, bored as fck.

Been there, done that. Blink


Then the Ice mining group can do that with the one additional alt that they don't need to have defending a POS.
One of the assumptions is similar resources with regards to personnel resources (represented by man-hours), because there's no reasonable reason to expect to compete with an established group without at least a rough parity in numbers.

"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
David Cedarbridge
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#435 - 2013-03-29 09:02:33 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Then the Ice mining group can do that with the one additional alt that they don't need to have defending a POS.
One of the assumptions is similar resources with regards to personnel resources (represented by man-hours), because there's no reasonable reason to expect to compete with an established group without at least a rough parity in numbers.


Reasonable reasons and the reasonable reasoners who reason them.
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#436 - 2013-03-29 10:50:05 UTC
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Regardless of my own feelings, if I place myself in their shoes for a minute I can see that I would be enjoying the comfort & security of living in a place that is as profitable as sov claimed blue nullsec combined with even greater effective safety than even half of hisec could offer. Moon goo faucets for infinite PLEX and infinite goodies would certainly be a load off my mind, to be sure, and if I had that I certainly would not want it going away. I'd actively fight to protect it. In this instance "fight" actually means CSM block voting for special interest candidates and political manipulations to make sure that nothing ever changes.


Yeah, who wouldn't want to protect it?

So folks moved high sec into null for an acceptable mechanic ingame - making isk.

CCP can't just change that because no one is breaking any rules, they're playing the game as the game was designed to the letter. But folks don't like it because there's some peace in a region that's suppose to be about warfare (let alone fund the PvP war machine).

This was bound to happen when there's a faucet to pay for their 10+ accounts for free, and in the end probably the end of PvP as players want to know it (what is PvP in EvE now? Hiring mercs?); because if it's free playtime vs PvP guess what is going to change? Nullsec wasn't like that years ago, it was territory to be fought over for riches, now it's come in as blue and enjoy the riches, instead.

I'm not going to argue over it, because this was naturally going to happen...economics trumps all.

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#437 - 2013-03-30 15:13:56 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

You never have to spend more than 500 man hours to mine Ice worth 5b ISK. Some months you might have to defend a Moon more times than you'd planned for (not to mention the fact that each time you've been forced to defend a moon, you loose 300m ISK worth of production).


This is not really correct. Today EvE ISK per hour reports 4.9M x hour for the best ice. 500 man hours will create 2.450B gross profit, which is less than half of what you say.


Ok, I'll rephrase: you will never have to spend more than [fixed amount of man hours based only on market price, and not significantly affected by anything the enemy does] to mine Ice (or Mission for ISK+LP, or whatever) worth 5b ISK. I'm using the (many times mentioned) assumption of 10m ISK/hr, because the specific activity used to replace Tech moon income is largely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it is true that "nobody can compete with Tech income".


Quote:
This is also incorrect. Beginning with the fact that industry characters tend to train well different skill "trees" (and you are not going to see appreciated a PvP character with lots of industry SP), these are usually relegated to be alts. AFK alts, and they can easily be multi-boxed while your main is sitting at a POS to defend, bored as fck.

Been there, done that. Blink


Then the Ice mining group can do that with the one additional alt that they don't need to have defending a POS.
One of the assumptions is similar resources with regards to personnel resources (represented by man-hours), because there's no reasonable reason to expect to compete with an established group without at least a rough parity in numbers.



Passive and active streams of income have to many variables to be comparable and competitive (you keep saying it isn't comparable, which goes against the thread because the origination of it was based on comparison!), bar the fact that they both have a "rate".

That's folly to even use that to link the any multitude of income streams that can be chosen! Reason being is that one, using a cartel, allows for a fixed rate and also is controlled by a specific # for availability (not every system has a moon, and the systems that do have moons are extremely hostile, or can be) whereas the active income is performed by menial and manual, actions, to acquire that wealth.

Moons do NOT need to be defended 23/7, only sometimes they MIGHT need to be defended, and not by a fixed number.

Ice mining, using your comparison to prove competitiveness, has to be performed by atleast 1 person to acquire such wealth, every cycle, and can be spread across Eve in a way that only grows exponentially by the # of miners.

Whether you use 500 miners or 500 defenders, the moon goo amounts do not change with # of defenders, but the ice miner #s do impact the amount of ice gained.

Ergo, it is not truly competitive, because of variables.

Moon mining, is fixed as a passive income. Just like PI. You get the same amount of resources per cycle regardless of how many people are there defending it.

You used a bad example. Get over it.

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.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#438 - 2013-03-30 22:00:09 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Passive and active streams of income have to many variables to be comparable and competitive (you keep saying it isn't comparable, which goes against the thread because the origination of it was based on comparison!), bar the fact that they both have a "rate".


Nope. Started with a statement to the effect: "Nobody can compete with Tech moon income."

The income from Stocks is competitive with the income from Bonds despite the fact that Stocks and Bonds are so different as to be incomparable.

The income a group can earn from Ice mining is competitive with the income from Tech moons, because a group of similar numbers can earn similar incomes. The fact that one may require more effort than the other is irrelevant.

The goal is: "Earn X ISK for the Alliance to support SRP/whatever other alliance expenses." Both income sources can fulfill that goal. Therefore, people without Tech can compete with people who have Tech.

In fact, we have proof of exactly that happening. The DRF (who owned no Tech) stomped the Northern Coalition (who owned most of the Tech) out of their space. Proving, empirically, that you can compete with Tech income without Tech.

"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
Degren
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#439 - 2013-03-30 22:27:54 UTC
Is this DarthNefarius's first threadnaught?

10/10

Hello, hello again.
Eezee Gonozal
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#440 - 2013-03-31 00:02:06 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Regardless of my own feelings, if I place myself in their shoes for a minute I can see that I would be enjoying the comfort & security of living in a place that is as profitable as sov claimed blue nullsec combined with even greater effective safety than even half of hisec could offer. Moon goo faucets for infinite PLEX and infinite goodies would certainly be a load off my mind, to be sure, and if I had that I certainly would not want it going away. I'd actively fight to protect it. In this instance "fight" actually means CSM block voting for special interest candidates and political manipulations to make sure that nothing ever changes.


Yeah, who wouldn't want to protect it?

So folks moved high sec into null for an acceptable mechanic ingame - making isk.

CCP can't just change that because no one is breaking any rules, they're playing the game as the game was designed to the letter. But folks don't like it because there's some peace in a region that's suppose to be about warfare (let alone fund the PvP war machine).

This was bound to happen when there's a faucet to pay for their 10+ accounts for free, and in the end probably the end of PvP as players want to know it (what is PvP in EvE now? Hiring mercs?); because if it's free playtime vs PvP guess what is going to change? Nullsec wasn't like that years ago, it was territory to be fought over for riches, now it's come in as blue and enjoy the riches, instead.

I'm not going to argue over it, because this was naturally going to happen...economics trumps all.


I always love reading posts about how I get 10+ Plexes every month for my accounts. I could tell you how not even directors get all their accounts paid for, but in your alternate reality, where the CSM is actually blocking CCP from doing anything about moons, we all live in giant villas paid for by RMT.