These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

If null-sec industrialism is broken, it might not be CCP's fault.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#261 - 2013-04-30 20:03:54 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
For the average nullsec resident, the answer to the first delegation, to go PVP for an hour, would be 'OK', and to the second, to go ice mine for an hour, would "no way Jose"; going by the self-representation of null-residents I've seen on these forums. These results do not seem the same to me, but rather quite opposite. Am I in error in assuming that nullers would prefer to PVP?


Sure, but that has nothing to do with the argument, as has been explained before.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#262 - 2013-04-30 20:05:14 UTC
In short, you are saying I need to spend 500 man hours to gain 5b from a moon tower. And cannot be doing anything else other than that.

This again, is false. And it is not skipping, skimming, or confusing anything since you have repeated countless times that you are saying active income and passive income is the same, and could not do both while still receiving 5bil a month.

My argument, is that you can, and can earn MORE than 5bil per month.

Cited as requested. Now stop.

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.
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#263 - 2013-04-30 20:05:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I am not required to defend my tower to gain income from that tower. I can delegate the responsibility and pursue other activities.

Such as mining ice.

Therefore I can do both at the same time.
No. You've just delegated it — you're not defending the tower at all. So you're just doing one thing at the same time. Those other guys? They're also only doing one thing at a time: defending the tower. If they don't put in the 500 man-hours required, the tower goes poof and there's no income from it. If they do put in the 500 man-hours, then it means 5bn ISK income this month for all that work (work that you didn't contribute to).

Quote:
This is alliance level income, not personal.
…just like the ice mining in question. If the poor moon-less alliance doesn't put in the 500 man-hours required, their hangars will be devoid of ice and there's no income from it. If they do put in the 500 man-hours, then it means 5bn ISK income this month for all that work.

It requires 500 man-hours to earn 5bn from moon mining. If you don't put that time in, you lose the tower and earn 0 ISK
It requires 500 man-hours to earn 5bn from ice mining. If you don't put that time in, you have no ice and earn 0 ISK.

Either way, 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK ≡ 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK. Simple. Comparable. Competitive.

Again, no it doesn't.

No single alliance or coalition has ever spent 500 man hours per month defending each and every single one of their tech moons. This argument is intentionally misleading and patently false.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#264 - 2013-04-30 20:07:38 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I am not required to defend my tower to gain income from that tower. I can delegate the responsibility and pursue other activities.

Such as mining ice.

Therefore I can do both at the same time.
No. You've just delegated it — you're not defending the tower at all. So you're just doing one thing at the same time. Those other guys? They're also only doing one thing at a time: defending the tower. If they don't put in the 500 man-hours required, the tower goes poof and there's no income from it. If they do put in the 500 man-hours, then it means 5bn ISK income this month for all that work (work that you didn't contribute to).

Quote:
This is alliance level income, not personal.
…just like the ice mining in question. If the poor moon-less alliance doesn't put in the 500 man-hours required, their hangars will be devoid of ice and there's no income from it. If they do put in the 500 man-hours, then it means 5bn ISK income this month for all that work.

It requires 500 man-hours to earn 5bn from moon mining. If you don't put that time in, you lose the tower and earn 0 ISK
It requires 500 man-hours to earn 5bn from ice mining. If you don't put that time in, you have no ice and earn 0 ISK.

Either way, 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK ≡ 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK. Simple. Comparable. Competitive.



As an alliance, I do not need to be there with my grunts defending my tower. Nor do I need to pilot an exhumer.

Consequently, grunts do not receive direct compensation for the man hours they put in defending either (there are various options that alliances do use as recompense, but there is no direct moon mining to grunt xfer).

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.
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#265 - 2013-04-30 20:08:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathalie LaPorte
Varius Xeral wrote:
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
For the average nullsec resident, the answer to the first delegation, to go PVP for an hour, would be 'OK', and to the second, to go ice mine for an hour, would "no way Jose"; going by the self-representation of null-residents I've seen on these forums. These results do not seem the same to me, but rather quite opposite. Am I in error in assuming that nullers would prefer to PVP?


Sure, but that has nothing to do with the argument, as has been explained before.


I think it does, actually. :) When evaluating an economic option, the concept of opportunity cost is key. To fully understand the opportunity cost of defending moons, one has to know whether the alliance would defend their space in the hypothetical scenario where they were without the moons. To understand whether the alliance would defend space without the moons, one has to know whether the alliance members are in the nullsec alliance because they want to PVP in nullsec, or whether they joined a nullsec alliance so that they could mine ice in highsec by themselves. By this simple chain of logic, we see that the above question is highly relevant to the economic analysis of nullsec moons.

edit: (E.g.: let's say someone offered me 5 dollars per hour to play EVE for a few hours every day. This is significantly less than I make at my current job. However, I already play EVE a few hours every day anyway, so this is basically just someone offering me 5000 dollars a year to do exactly what I'm already doing, so obviously, looking at opportunity costs, I would take the free 5000 dollars. The question is: Is defending space that contains tech moons, for the average nullsec alliance, comparable to this situation? Would they defend it anyway? I'm not claiming to know the answer, but I have a guess, and the question is certainly relevant)
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#266 - 2013-04-30 20:09:17 UTC
Once and for all Tippia, stop splitting hairs. Those same hairs you accuse others of doing.

Dock up and reship if you need to, but I suggest against undocking.

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.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#267 - 2013-04-30 20:16:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
I think it does, actually. :) When evaluating an economic option, the concept of opportunity cost is key. To fully understand the opportunity cost of defending moons, one has to know whether the alliance would defend their space in the hypothetical scenario where they were without the moons. To understand whether the alliance would defend space without the moons, one has to know whether the alliance members are in the nullsec alliance because they want to PVP in nullsec, or whether they joined a nullsec alliance so that they could mine ice in highsec by themselves. By this simple chain of logic, we see that the above question is highly relevant to the economic analysis of nullsec moons.


Except it's specifically not an economic argument, but a financial one, which has also already been gone over.

This all stems from whether moon income is an unassailable advantage (already presuming that income even plays a major role in the outcome of wars, which it doesn't). The argument is that the time spent capturing and maintaining the income from moons has financially comparable options, such as ice-mining among others.

It is not a discussion of the economic profits of the two activities, but rather their use as a source of finance for organizations. You're welcome to follow your train of thought into a separate discussion, but I will not be following because I don't care.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Lady Areola Fappington
#268 - 2013-04-30 20:18:37 UTC
Ice mining has a very direct cost. Ship, fittings. Then, you go get ice, which directly arrives in your ISK wallet.

Moongoo has many indirect costs. While it's next to nothing to actually run the tower, you have many fuzzy costs...the above mentioned defense, actually taking the moon, holding the moon and a buffer zone, diplomats who handle keeping people pacified, logistics of fuel. To go along with that, moongoo is mostly an alliance level income, that goes to things like SRP, sov fees, the occasional bribe, such as that. It's not a direct to the wallet moneymaker.

What Tippia is saying is that someone, somewhere, has to put in the time needed to keep that tower cranking goo. Since it's a team effort to achieve moongoo at a reasonable rate, the time cost is spread overall across the alliance holding it. 500 peoples spending one hour at *whatever* to hold the tower is much easier than one guy doing 500 hours of ice mining...but in the end, it's still 500 hours of effort put in.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#269 - 2013-04-30 20:19:04 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Murk Paradox wrote:
Ok so wait, just had an interesting brainstorm.

According to Tippia, I need to spend 1 hour a month to get 5b a month from a specific moongoo tower. Now granted, during that 1 hour, I have to employ X amount of pilots to help defend it (eh? 1 hr a month???), and cannot do anything else for that 1 hour.

You know what, fair enough. I can only do admin work for that 1 hour. I cannot mine ice while I do that. I'll mine ice for the other 29 days and get UNDER 5bil, maybe say... 4.3bil? to get my a total of 9.3bil for the 30 days of adding passive and active incomes.

So much for 5bil versus 5bil.

No, the 500 other players you got to help in defending that moon just got a piece of the 5bil the tower outputed, so you are still with 5bil, even though you hold 9.3 bil.


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#270 - 2013-04-30 20:21:10 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Falin Whalen wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Ok so wait, just had an interesting brainstorm.

According to Tippia, I need to spend 1 hour a month to get 5b a month from a specific moongoo tower. Now granted, during that 1 hour, I have to employ X amount of pilots to help defend it (eh? 1 hr a month???), and cannot do anything else for that 1 hour.

You know what, fair enough. I can only do admin work for that 1 hour. I cannot mine ice while I do that. I'll mine ice for the other 29 days and get UNDER 5bil, maybe say... 4.3bil? to get my a total of 9.3bil for the 30 days of adding passive and active incomes.

So much for 5bil versus 5bil.

No, the 500 other players you got to help in defending that moon just got a piece of the 5bil the tower outputed, so you are still with 5bil, even though you hold 9.3 bil.


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal



How did they get a piece?

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.
Liz Laser
Blood Tribe Inc
#271 - 2013-04-30 20:23:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Liz Laser
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Why the hell are people still going on about moons?


While all of your latter arguments seem to have merit, the simple answer to your question: "Why the hell are people still going on about moons?", is because of certain statements made loudly and repeatedly by members of your alliance about how much ISK tech made them, over a period of years. Those statements, stated in a loud and direct manner, are much easier to understand than a bunch of math formulas about changes that have yet to be made; and so a certain set of people is still basing their statements on them. Glad I could help alleviate your confusion.



But it is only my alliance and not all of nullsec.

This industry changes are for all of nullsec, so it is dishonest or just plain ignorant to try and argue that Providence and Detroid and Cobalt Edge don't deserve a few more factory slots and a bit more trit in their mining sites because the CFC managed to monopolize a specific moon.


Yay, lunchbreak. I have to respond to this one.

No one says we can't have more slots. We're getting them. There's a tiny bit of semantics which everyone (including me) is going batty over and that is whether the justification for it is because null-sec is on the weak side of an industrial imbalance.

Null and high are indeed different. But even some of us who have spent time in null don't think that null is on the losing side of an industrial imbalance, largely because of moon-goo.

I'll contend that those null-seccers who don't enjoy the benefits of moon-goo are on the losing side of an INTENDED industrial imbalance between winners and losers.

You are on the winning side, and while your compassion for the plight of other null-seccers is commendable, it is perhaps worth considering if null-sec should be a wonderful place even for the losers, and if it is, what will be the conflict driver?

There are lots of reasons to justify slots or the rest of the resource shake-up, I've listed a few I agree with, earlier in the thread. I'm looking forward to the resource shake-up for the next time I'm in null. But we've spent 10(?) pages on how null gets to depict themselves and/or their plight. Welcome to the show.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#272 - 2013-04-30 20:23:37 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Ice mining has a very direct cost. Ship, fittings. Then, you go get ice, which directly arrives in your ISK wallet.

Moongoo has many indirect costs. While it's next to nothing to actually run the tower, you have many fuzzy costs...the above mentioned defense, actually taking the moon, holding the moon and a buffer zone, diplomats who handle keeping people pacified, logistics of fuel. To go along with that, moongoo is mostly an alliance level income, that goes to things like SRP, sov fees, the occasional bribe, such as that. It's not a direct to the wallet moneymaker.

What Tippia is saying is that someone, somewhere, has to put in the time needed to keep that tower cranking goo. Since it's a team effort to achieve moongoo at a reasonable rate, the time cost is spread overall across the alliance holding it. 500 peoples spending one hour at *whatever* to hold the tower is much easier than one guy doing 500 hours of ice mining...but in the end, it's still 500 hours of effort put in.



You just explained why it's not very good to compare the 2. Especially when something relative like "time" is factored in with so many variables.

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.
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#273 - 2013-04-30 20:24:19 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:


This all stems from whether moon income is an unassailable advantage (already presuming that income even plays a major role in the outcome of wars, which it doesn't). The argument is that the time spent capturing and maintaining the income from moons has financially comparable options, such as ice-mining among others.

It is not a discussion of the economic profits of the two activities, but rather their use as a source of finance for organizations. You're welcome to follow your train of thought into a separate discussion, but I will not be following because I don't care.


Fair enough. You want to make this a practical discussion of financial options, not a theoretical economic discussion. So, the first step in this practical discussion, would be for you to give examples of null sec alliances which finance operations with huge high sec ice mining fleets. Since that hasn't happened yet, our practical discussion is currently stuck on step zero.
Zhade Lezte
#274 - 2013-04-30 20:29:16 UTC
No one is saying you can't defend the moon and mine ice later. But the time spent defending the moon to secure that "passive" income is still time that SOMEBODY spent. And that time could have been spent mining ice since mining ice is infinite.

To address another person yes, defending the moon is probably more fun than mining ice. Something being fun will certainly encourage people to do it, but should we balance around how fun things are?

What exactly are you trying to argue beyond that Murk? That no one attacks moons as often as once a month? Because you're being really, really freaking unclear if that's the case.

I would actually agree that 500 man hours spent defending an individual moon per month is probably an inaccurate estimation. It's also inaccurate in that it is assuming no one lost a single ship (and thus cost the alliance income). It's also inaccurate to entirely discount the ships lost indirectly defending moons over sov wars so that the sov mechanics can be used to better protect the moons. Where do you draw the line?

Are you arguing that it is better income because you can have someone else do it and claim all the money for yourself, not giving it back in form of reimbursements and such? Some have tried, some have succeeded, many have been overthrown for doing so. But if you are robbing your membership like that you are taking advantage of them to do the work, using their time for your own ends, not creating ISK out of nowhere no for no work.

Plus moons are being nerfed and spread about so they should be more at risk than the laughable situation of regionalized technetium. So you know, it seems like a pretty good time to address the hilarious industrial imbalance in manufacturing between null and high, if only for the reasons that making it feasible might make industrialists like myself build in null instead of on highsec alts!

:wtc: why do I read Eve-O.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#275 - 2013-04-30 20:30:20 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Varius Xeral wrote:


This all stems from whether moon income is an unassailable advantage (already presuming that income even plays a major role in the outcome of wars, which it doesn't). The argument is that the time spent capturing and maintaining the income from moons has financially comparable options, such as ice-mining among others.

It is not a discussion of the economic profits of the two activities, but rather their use as a source of finance for organizations. You're welcome to follow your train of thought into a separate discussion, but I will not be following because I don't care.


Fair enough. You want to make this a practical discussion of financial options, not a theoretical economic discussion. So, the first step in this practical discussion, would be for you to give examples of null sec alliances which finance operations with huge high sec ice mining fleets. Since that hasn't happened yet, our practical discussion is currently stuck on step zero.



Ice isotopes are tiny, When I lived in 0.0, we'd have them shipped in from high sec.

Sure, we didn't have a "sub corp" in high sec, but we did buy lots and lots of ice isotopes from the market.

If it is something like tirt, selling for 5 ISK in high sec, and costs 5 ISK for jump fuel to ship to deep null, then you have to find ways to get trit local.

It if is something like ice isotopes that cost 400 iSK in high sec, then only 5 isk to ship to null.... shipping is less of an issue.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#276 - 2013-04-30 20:32:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Zhade Lezte wrote:
No one is saying you can't defend the moon and mine ice later. But the time spent defending the moon to secure that "passive" income is still time that SOMEBODY spent. And that time could have been spent mining ice since mining ice is infinite.

To address another person yes, defending the moon is probably more fun than mining ice. Something being fun will certainly encourage people to do it, but should we balance around how fun things are?

What exactly are you trying to argue beyond that Murk? That no one attacks moons as often as once a month? Because you're being really, really freaking unclear if that's the case.

I would actually agree that 500 man hours spent defending an individual moon per month is probably an inaccurate estimation. It's also inaccurate in that it is assuming no one lost a single ship (and thus cost the alliance income). It's also inaccurate to entirely discount the ships lost indirectly defending moons over sov wars so that the sov mechanics can be used to better protect the moons. Where do you draw the line?

Are you arguing that it is better income because you can have someone else do it and claim all the money for yourself, not giving it back in form of reimbursements and such? Some have tried, some have succeeded, many have been overthrown for doing so. But if you are robbing your membership like that you are taking advantage of them to do the work, using their time for your own ends, not creating ISK out of nowhere no for no work.

Plus moons are being nerfed and spread about so they should be more at risk than the laughable situation of regionalized technetium. So you know, it seems like a pretty good time to address the hilarious industrial imbalance in manufacturing between null and high, if only for the reasons that making it feasible might make industrialists like myself build in null instead of on highsec alts!

:wtc: why do I read Eve-O.


That using ice mining and moon mining in some sort of comparable argument is to be it friendly.. silly.

That the 2 methods of income are so far apart and done on so many seperate levels, linking them in the same sentence is horrid and bad.

Again, it's not MY argument but Tippia's. At first mention I told her to leave it alone, as another thread already went over it. But she took it to her teeth and decided to hijack the thread with 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.
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#277 - 2013-04-30 20:33:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathalie LaPorte
Zhade Lezte wrote:

To address another person yes, defending the moon is probably more fun than mining ice. Something being fun will certainly encourage people to do it, but should we balance around how fun things are?


I'm not arguing that things "should" be balanced around how fun they are, I'm arguing that things "are" balanced around how fun they are, among other things. Put simply, for the average player, PVP costs money(ship reimbursements may move this cost, but it's still a cost to someone), PVE makes money. For the average player, PVP is more fun, PVE is less fun. There's no 'should' about it, this is how it is.

Varius Xeral wrote:
No, I don't want to have a discussion about the relative economic profits of ice-mining versus moonmining.


Neither do I :)
Lady Areola Fappington
#278 - 2013-04-30 20:37:38 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Ice mining has a very direct cost. Ship, fittings. Then, you go get ice, which directly arrives in your ISK wallet.

Moongoo has many indirect costs. While it's next to nothing to actually run the tower, you have many fuzzy costs...the above mentioned defense, actually taking the moon, holding the moon and a buffer zone, diplomats who handle keeping people pacified, logistics of fuel. To go along with that, moongoo is mostly an alliance level income, that goes to things like SRP, sov fees, the occasional bribe, such as that. It's not a direct to the wallet moneymaker.

What Tippia is saying is that someone, somewhere, has to put in the time needed to keep that tower cranking goo. Since it's a team effort to achieve moongoo at a reasonable rate, the time cost is spread overall across the alliance holding it. 500 peoples spending one hour at *whatever* to hold the tower is much easier than one guy doing 500 hours of ice mining...but in the end, it's still 500 hours of effort put in.



You just explained why it's not very good to compare the 2. Especially when something relative like "time" is factored in with so many variables.


Kinda what I was aiming at, good sir. You can technically break it down to isk/manhour, with with something so insanely fuzzy as alliance level work re:moongoo, it's nearly impossible to actually quantify a number that works. Tippia broke it down to bare bones pure work, but that fails when comparing direct vs. indirect work.

The accountant at the widget factory does not directly contribute to making widgets. Without the accountants work though, the widget factory wouldn't be able to make widgets. The nullsec grunt does not directly contribute to moongoo. Without his work shooting reds (and blues in the case of TEST), then the moongoo would not flow. You can't compare the grunt's actions directly to moongoo in much the same way you can't compare the accountant to direct widget production.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#279 - 2013-04-30 20:39:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
I'm not arguing that things "should" be balanced around how fun they are, I'm arguing that things "are" balanced around how fun they are, among other things. Put simply, for the average player, PVP costs money(ship reimbursements may move this cost, but it's still a cost to someone), PVE makes money. For the average player, PVP is more fun, PVE is less fun. There's no 'should' about it, this is how it is.


Edit: Never mind, I misunderstood.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#280 - 2013-04-30 20:43:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Lady Areola Fappington-

Exactly!

And like Zhade remarked on... you don't use your current haul of whatever-resource-you-are-defending to pay your grunts. He said something about giving those shares out. You do not want to do that as a commission because then you wouldn't attract enough people to employ (be it merc or corp/alliance member).

Whereas with ice.... you can cut a share of the profits since you don't need to wait 30 days, and much like mission running, you can cut up the salvage and hand out shares for a more short term.

Moon go type stuff would be better to keep isk flowing for sov bills, SRPs etc (not to mention taxes helping that) not to mention costs of rebuilding structure losses, or help fuel pos's as well as jf's and fund future endeavors.

Again so many variables, not to mention the ones that some people employ but others do not.

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.