These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#361 - 2013-05-01 18:52:49 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



You can believe whatever you want sir.

Especially considering my averages seem to be better than yours.

But hey, way to be a part of the conversation!


Come again?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#362 - 2013-05-01 18:53:22 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Hi! I'm the kettle.


And I'm the pot.


I did, as they say, fix that for you.

Mr Epeen Cool


Oh you!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#363 - 2013-05-01 19:12:43 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
My point, in regards to what you shown in your example, is that while you are not in a CTA to defend that moon, you can effectively ice mine while waiting for a CTA, and combine the incomes.
…but that means you're now comparing a completely different set of man-hours.

Quote:
The argument against me, put forth by Tippia, is that you can only do one or the other.
No. That's just some dribble you've dreamed up as a strawman because you don't grasp the concept of a man-hour. The actual argument is the complement to the one you just made: that while you're in that CTA, you can't ice mine. That is all. You are desperately trying to inflate this simple and undeniable fact into some grandiose claim about some mythical Sisyphean task that has no basis in reality or in anything I've ever said.

You cannot defend the tower and mine ice at the same time.
The work required to defend the tower, and the profits you get for doing so equates the work required to gain the same amount of profits ice mining. 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK ≡ 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK.

Quote:
In regards to the defense of towers, that idea alone does not belong in this thread because it isn't the defenders who benefit directly from that operation.
The idea belongs in this thread because it belies the notion that the massive industrial imbalance in favour of highsec is in any way countered by the presence of moon goo in null: as the effort-to-profit calculations show, you can trivially produce the same level of industrial income in high using the same amount of work.

Quote:
Which I have been saying has nothing to do with the fact moon mining is a passive income that you can stack with active incomes.
…a “fact” that is a simplification that casually but completely incorrectly glosses over one critical component: that all passive income has an active component. For moons, that active component is pretty huge — easily somewhere in the region of 500 mah-hours a month. During that time, you are exclusively spending your time on keeping the moon up and running so you don't lose that month's production. As it happens, this active work and the earnings that come out of it are easily matched (and completely comparable) to the active work and earnings that come out of ice mining.

Sooooo… 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK ≡ 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK. The presence of moons does not push the balance of industrial production in favour of nullsec, leaving the original imbalance in favour of highsec unaffected.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#364 - 2013-05-01 19:15:39 UTC
Sure you can Tippia. You can easily be in a neighboring system mining ice while keeping an eye out on local for any incoming threat.

That would be an example to prove your theory wrong.

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.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#365 - 2013-05-01 19:17:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Sure you can Tippia. You can easily be in a neighboring system mining ice while keeping an eye out on local for any incoming threat.
No, you can't defend the POS without defending the POS.

Your ice mining ship one system over does exactly 0 DPS to the attacking fleet. So you didn't put in the man-hours required. So you lost the tower. So you didn't earn the 5bn ISK.

Quote:
That would be an example to prove your theory wrong.
It would if what you said were true, but game mechanics unfortunately renders your idea impossible. The way the game works, tower defence and ice mining are mutually exclusive activities.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#366 - 2013-05-01 19:32:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Sure you can Tippia. You can easily be in a neighboring system mining ice while keeping an eye out on local for any incoming threat.
No, you can't defend the POS without defending the POS.

Your ice mining ship one system over does exactly 0 DPS to the attacking fleet. So you didn't put in the man-hours required. So you lost the tower. So you didn't earn the 5bn ISK.

Quote:
That would be an example to prove your theory wrong.
It would if what you said were true, but game mechanics unfortunately renders your idea impossible. The way the game works, tower defence and ice mining are mutually exclusive activities.



No it doesn't. Your idea of "defending" is I'm going to assume, solely discretionary on actively being at the pos.

But the act of defense is much more than that. You do not, as 1 person in part fo a defense fleet, need to be AT the pos you are defending in order to be a part of that defense.

Roadblocks, Scouts, gate camps, even a CLOAKED SHIP can be used and important in the defense of a pos.

None of which require you to do any dps, nor are considered NOT defending.

The only reply I can give to any sort of retort is to communicate to your FC whenever he/she asks for "eyes on X system" or gives a non dps role in regards to being a part of a defense CTA.

Concurrently, if you don't get attacked or have sufficient preventive measures in place that do not require you to be actively defending the POS, you aren't spending man hours on the defense of that POS which would also negate your "500 man hours equals 5bil isk" because the POS would STILL generate the product if it is never attacked or harassed at all.

I'm almost wondering if you know what an "intel channel" is and if you have ever used one.

Your ignorance to those tools seem to lend me to believe you do not.

Either that or you are just that much more preoccupied with the semantic word of the argument as opposed to the theory.

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.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#367 - 2013-05-01 19:39:13 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Your idea of "defending" is I'm going to assume, solely discretionary on actively being at the pos.
Of course, since that's what we've been talking about this whole time: time time and personnel required to keep the POS up and running — hence the mere 500 man-hours required for this task out of the several tens of thousands that the alliance puts in over a month.

…and, as you know, these defence man-hours are dedicated to this one task. No other active income is being gathered at the same time. You certainly can't mine ice at the same time, but as we've shown over and over again, it doesn't matter: those 500 man-hours are spent on getting 5bn ISK that month — had there been no moon to defend, those 500 man-hours would be spent on getting 5bn ISK that month through, say, ice-mining.

Sooooo… 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK ≡ 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK. Ice or moon goo makes no difference in either the work required or the resulting income.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#368 - 2013-05-01 19:40:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Your idea of "defending" is I'm going to assume, solely discretionary on actively being at the pos.
Of course, since that's what we've been talking about this whole time: time time and personnel required to keep the POS up and running — hence the mere 500 man-hours required for this task out of the several tens of thousands that the alliance puts in over a month.

…and, as you know, these defence man-hours are dedicated to this one task. No other active income is being gathered at the same time. You certainly can't mine ice at the same time, but as we've shown over and over again, it doesn't matter: those 500 man-hours are spent on getting 5bn ISK that month — had there been no moon to defend, those 500 man-hours would be spent on getting 5bn ISK that month through, say, ice-mining.

Sooooo… 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK ≡ 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK. Ice or moon goo makes no difference in either the work required or the resulting income.



I would highly suggest learning about "preventive maintenance" given your short sighted views on the subject. "Intel" is also equally important in regards to being a scout.

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
#369 - 2013-05-01 19:42:52 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Your idea of "defending" is I'm going to assume, solely discretionary on actively being at the pos.
Of course, since that's what we've been talking about this whole time: time time and personnel required to keep the POS up and running — hence the mere 500 man-hours required for this task out of the several tens of thousands that the alliance puts in over a month.

…and, as you know, these defence man-hours are dedicated to this one task. No other active income is being gathered at the same time. You certainly can't mine ice at the same time, but as we've shown over and over again, it doesn't matter: those 500 man-hours are spent on getting 5bn ISK that month — had there been no moon to defend, those 500 man-hours would be spent on getting 5bn ISK that month through, say, ice-mining.

Sooooo… 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK ≡ 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK. Ice or moon goo makes no difference in either the work required or the resulting income.



As an aside, if there is no attack, there is nothing to defend. If you apply those same 500 man hours to ice mining as you suggest, you would in theory be getting closer to 10bil/month as opposed to the 5. Which is what I've been saying all along.

Thanks for finally agreeing. Because that moon tower will still be chugging along generating it's monthly income passively while you are actively gaining that ice mining income.

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.

Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#370 - 2013-05-01 19:46:08 UTC
my favourite part is the part where the moon is attacked three times in the month, and the defenders' 1500 hours are worth three times less than the miners' 1500 hours
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#371 - 2013-05-01 19:46:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
I would highly suggest learning about "preventive maintenance" given your short sighted views on the subject. "Intel" is also equally important in regards to being a scout.
…neither of which changes the fact that you have to spend man-hours to actual repel the attack and that in doing so, you end up with a situation where 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK ≡ 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK.

But it's nice to see that you've finally accepted the fact that the supposedly “passive” income compares just fine to active income sources since we can measure both work and income in both cases, and since the actual activities are both quite exclusive — definitely mutually exclusive since the game enforces completely separate arenas (and ships).

Quote:
As an aside, if there is no attack, there is nothing to defend.
…and if there's constant attack, there will be a need to spend many thousands of man-hours. This should clue you in to why we're talking about monthly averages here.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#372 - 2013-05-01 19:47:05 UTC
Oh! And since you wanted me to learn about "man hours".. I guess it would be inopportune of me to NOT mention alts right?

Because that would be considered 1 man hour regardless of # of accounts. Not to mention the variables associated with multiboxing miners to dispute your income versus # of man hours... (that would be me splitting hairs which I'm trying to avoid).

My main point, is to focus on the fact comparing the 2 methods of income is a poor choice to do, in any sense form or stance of the argument.

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
#373 - 2013-05-01 19:47:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I would highly suggest learning about "preventive maintenance" given your short sighted views on the subject. "Intel" is also equally important in regards to being a scout.
…neither of which changes the fact that you have to spend man-hours to actual repel the attack and that in doing so, you end up with a situation where 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK ≡ 500 man-hours spent to earn 5bn ISK.

But it's nice to see that you've finally accepted the fact that the supposedly “passive” income compares just fine to active income sources since we can measure both work and income in both cases, and since the actual activities are both quite exclusive — definitely mutually exclusive since the game enforces completely separate arenas (and ships).



Repel the attack...

Ensuring your chances of no attack to prevent is paramount to defending the pos from the attack that you wait for.

Active and passive are way too different, regardless of how passive aggressive you wish to be with your posting.

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
#374 - 2013-05-01 19:50:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:

…and if there's constant attack, there will be a need to spend many thousands of man-hours. This should clue you in to why we're talking about monthly averages here.



Atleast you agree your formula sucks since you finally added a caveat to show the flat number is a horrible choice to use. Constant attack will result in a far different # of man hours, like you said, and that would bring greater chances of reinforcing the pos, which, regardless of how many man hours you put in, you won't be getting that 5bil.

SOOOOoooo...

500 man hours = 5bil isk... unless that pos gets reinforced ONE TIME...

then everythign you posted as a formula goes out the window.

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.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#375 - 2013-05-01 19:51:55 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



As an aside, if there is no attack, there is nothing to defend. If you apply those same 500 man hours to ice mining as you suggest, you would in theory be getting closer to 10bil/month as opposed to the 5. Which is what I've been saying all along.

Thanks for finally agreeing. Because that moon tower will still be chugging along generating it's monthly income passively while you are actively gaining that ice mining income.


And then comes that month where the tower is attacked constantly for the whole month.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#376 - 2013-05-01 19:53:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Oh! And since you wanted me to learn about "man hours".. I guess it would be inopportune of me to NOT mention alts right?
Using alts just mean you spend more man-hours. They don't change the work involved (but depending on control method, they may change the income since there's always a degree of lost efficiency compared to everyone being directly controlled).

Quote:
My main point, is to focus on the fact comparing the 2 methods of income is a poor choice to do, in any sense form or stance of the argument.
Nah. It works perfectly to demonstrate that the kind of income you get from moons, and the kind of effort required to get that income, is trivially matched by even the lowliest of highsec money-making activities. This neatly blows out the knees of the supposition that nullsec is uniquely blessed in its industrial income capabilities (assuming, of course, that we sort resource collection under the industry heading…).

As a result, the mechanically enforced industrial imbalance was, is, and unfortunately remains completely in favour of highsec and is entirely the result of CCP's design — player choice cannot affect it because it is limited by what the game actually allows you to do.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#377 - 2013-05-01 19:55:58 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



As an aside, if there is no attack, there is nothing to defend. If you apply those same 500 man hours to ice mining as you suggest, you would in theory be getting closer to 10bil/month as opposed to the 5. Which is what I've been saying all along.

Thanks for finally agreeing. Because that moon tower will still be chugging along generating it's monthly income passively while you are actively gaining that ice mining income.


And then comes that month where the tower is attacked constantly for the whole month.



Which also lends how 500 man hours does not just equal 5bil isk.

Again, so many variables to show the formula being terrible.

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
#378 - 2013-05-01 19:57:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Oh! And since you wanted me to learn about "man hours".. I guess it would be inopportune of me to NOT mention alts right?
Using alts just mean you spend more man-hours. They don't change the work involved (but depending on control method, they may change the income since there's always a degree of lost efficiency compared to everyone being directly controlled).

Quote:
My main point, is to focus on the fact comparing the 2 methods of income is a poor choice to do, in any sense form or stance of the argument.
Nah. It works perfectly to demonstrate that the kind of income you get from moons, and the kind of effort required to get that income, is trivially matched by even the lowliest of highsec money-making activities. This neatly blows out the knees of the supposition that nullsec is uniquely blessed in its industrial income capabilities (assuming, of course, that we sort resource collection under the industry heading…).



Same amount of man hours. You are doing more than 1 action at a time. That would be 1 man hour. Per player. Not per pilot. Using a man hour formula for something with unforseen variables is terrible.

For instance, I can control a highsec (or low or null) ice miner while ACTIVELY defending a pos. I can combine the income, move it around whereever I want. All being done at the same time.

1 account does not equal 1 man hour, thanks to isboxer, the ability to control more than one account, MECHANICS working on timers, tons of things.

And like you said, as well as Baltec... if you had 1 reinforce timer, or if that pos is under constant attack, your 500 man hours = 5 bil does not equate any longer.

Just like ice interdiction, NO, gankers, rats, travel times etc can affect the rate of gaining ice per hour.

The 2 won't compare because the variables do not compare.

The formula are way too far off.

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.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#379 - 2013-05-01 20:00:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Which also lends how 500 man hours does not just equal 5bil isk.

Again, so many variables to show the formula being terrible.
You're confusing “formula” with “value of variables”. No, the formula works perfectly. All we're doing is looking at a comparison of reasonableness: is it reasonable to assume that moon income can be matched by non-moon income? The answer is obviously yes, since it's so trivial to match both work and income with even a conservative estimate of what's required.

Quote:
Same amount of man hours. You are doing more than 1 action at a time.
…using more men at a time. One character doing something for 1h = 1 man-hour. Two character doing something for 1h each = 2 man-hours.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#380 - 2013-05-01 20:00:31 UTC
Tippia wrote:
(assuming, of course, that we sort resource collection under the industry heading…).


Yeah, that always bugged me about this line of argument. I think the vast majority of the people involved in capturing and securing moons would laugh at being even remotely associated with "industry".

The "you have moongoo, therefore you can't have anything else" is an extremely weak argument.


Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal