EVE General Discussion

Because it is a lot more fun watching stuff blow up than watching Ice harvesters cycle.

…and at no point did anyone say that moongoo was worthless. It was just something you made up.

No-one said they weren't valuable either — again, you made it up. You should probably take this opportunity to look up the concept of a strawman argument and check out why it's not a very good thing to try to use.

You specifically said ice mining was just as profitable as moon harvesting. I did not specifically say it was worthless. I just said it seems that you are saying that you do not think it more valuble than 500 man hours of ice harvesting.

What I could only infer from what you said on the equivalence of manpower spent was that it was not as valuable as people made it out to be. I was not saying it was worthless, I was asking you if you thought it was worthless.

Yes? That does not make moon harvesting worthless or moons not valuable.

You just specifically asked why people mined moon goo, seeing as how it was worthless — a claim that no-one did but you. So yes, yes you did.

Then you're not getting it. The message is that spending time on getting keeping moon goo is as much worth as spending time getting ice. As such, its an injection of wealth that is trivially matched in highsec, so that highsec entities could also be rich enough to spend billions on ships.

So the notion that moon goo somehow skews wealth production towards null rather overlooks what's required to actually produce that wealth, and that it's entirely comparable to what you'd see from even a hideously wasteful use of highsec time.

LOL. Yeah, I didn't think that one out all the way.

Still, even THAT would be more "balance" than just null getting more null-sec slots.

It might also be a bit more INTERESTING.

Go find quotes of the actual arguments you would like to counter instead of just making them up, and you will find yourself experiencing much less confusion.

We have ways to make high sec POS totally invulnerable that are within the rules. It would be horrid.

Also, just wondering what is balanced about null sec being unable to meet its ammo demands in peacetime due to having fewer slots than a single high sec system?

Maybe my grasp of diatribe is failing me, but last I checked asking a question was not making a statment. You can make a loaded question, but if I was asking a question I was not telling you "X fact was true", I was asking you "If X fact was true, then why does Y happen?"

I see that I forgot to type a ? but I'm pretty sure the sentence started with an "if" and contained a "why".

I was just asking if you think it worthless as much as ice mining is (relative worthless), then why do people fight over it.

I was simply trying to get you to say "Yes it valuable and worth fighting for." so perhaps it was loaded.

Hopefully I have not made you mad in the process.

Anyways... Given that everyone is saying that "Yes, it is valuable" then doesn't that mean its something null-sec has that hi-sec doesn't have. Unless you would rather be ice mining.

They are valuable and worth the effort, in so much as we would rather have a fight every once in a while to defend/take a moon than bore ourselves to death watching ice harvesters cycle.

Some people find the opposit appealing, and would happily mine ice rather than go and defend/blow up something.

Both are equaly valuable to their respective parties.

Seriously, it's good enough for me.

I like shooting structures rather than roaming and not finding a fight.

Shooting structures (especially at a tech moon) highly increases the likelihood of getting a fight.

I don't even care WHY the structure is *deemed* important. It can be voodoo. It can have all the intrinsic worth of a dollar bill (and being just pixels it arguably does). But if it gets two or more opposing fleets in the same space, hurrah!