Jita Park Speakers Corner

Well, to be fair to yourself, that was only one part of your post.

And really, what I am suggesting is quite inline with your goal quoted as being, " there need to be opportunities for high-risk, high reward gameplay within hi-sec". You suggested achieving this with moving Level 5 missions into hi-sec. I suggested achieving the very same thing using Incursions.

And that is why I wanted to see your technical rebuttal about why it could or couldn't work. The rest of your post I believe firmly that you are right on the money.

You've obviously never done this and so, have no ******* clue what you are talking about.

The work far outweighs the reward for this. The more work you put in the less it actually pays off because markets get flooded so easily.

Honestly, talk about **** you know about - 0.0. You're talking out your ass and gleaning a few small perceived "facts" from what you read on forums or come across by hearsay. As it is the industry sector has had no love from ccp for quite some time. The work to profit equations are hugely high.

Mining is all but dead for players to take part in thanks to botters and RMT. CCP has done jack **** about that.

t2 production cannot be done en-mass and each job done laboriously one at a time. Then even if one completely finishes a job, the wheeling and dealing of market entanglements, distribution or profit sharing have to be engaged. Add to that risks of suicide gankers and other pressures from aforementioned mining killers - the RMTers, then you have a small idea of what it's like to produce t2.

You sir are a buffoon and I hope the community can see through your uneducated views. You obviously just belong to a large alliance who have blue'd too many people and must now declare war on empire as a way to refresh your targets.

Well you say yourself that you don't live in empire.

You say empire should be changed this way and that way and these guys are all rich and making squillions of isk while we labor out in 0.0 eeking together our meagre incomes.

Fact is it's the other way around. If some guy is making huge amounts of isk in empire doing mining or t2 production, leave the poor bastard alone. He has enough woes.

If you can't handle that, sorry.

I have a full POS t2 production facility in empire. Due to market constraints and various other issues, it makes a profit but nothing sizeable considering the effort required.

Each month it costs 350m to run a large pos in empire. Lots of people have a large because anchoring a large is smarter than a small if you don't hvae the standings yourself for anchoring.

So each month I have to make AT LEAST 350m.

Let's assume I have to make ... cap rechargers? (which are one of my favs due to the profits).

JUST TO MAKE FUEL, i have to make 700 cap recharger II's.

Let's further assume I have all the materials on hand.

I have to make 70 t2 bpc's.

Each one takes 13 hours or so to ATTEMPT to make. so I have to continually relog to start a new batch.

So let's see at 10 jobs for a toon to make 10 bpc's It's 13 hours, so this month it will take 2 weeks just to cover tower costs. (Given that I'm a .. carebear who has no life or anything) I login each day for a week just to cover the costs of the tower.

Now if you've never seen the t2 interface, that's about 15 clicks per job to start the job, find any named products that might increase your base 50% chance and the specific module and slot that you want the job to go into.

Now add to that market costs, hauling time, not to mention I don't have the 15 different parts I need on hand all the time and have to go shopping around the entire region IN A HAULER picking them up. And any jump I go through could be my last due to a suicide ganker out for a lark.

You're telling me now that I should also add to that ship losses because you're bored?

**** you kid.

0.0 alliance leaders and station owners are making far more than anyone in empire.

WTF are you talking about ?

(Because the things you're ranting about don't seem to bear any relationship to what I'm advocating)


(calm down, use some quotes, dial back the ranting a bit, and ask a coherent question if you don't want to me to point and laugh at you)

Man, if only someone would post a manifesto based on that very idea. How awesome that would be, they could get like a hundred likes and CSM support for the idea, and people from every part of EVE would comment and support it.

But then some people wouldn't read it properly, see one line that they misinterpret and flip out over, and then hilariously mischaracterise the OP in order to start a huge rant against their own misunderstanding of what's being suggested.

What exactly is it that you think that I'm saying in my manifesto? It seems like you think that I said that ALL industrialists make billions a month and should be nerfed, when what I actually said was that industrialists INCLUDE people who make billions, and should have the opportunity to trade taking risks in return for higher margins. Notice that I said "opportunity", not "should be forced to".

I mean you even start the same old baww about "forcing people into nullsec" when the entire ******* point of my manifesto is that this is the exact opposite of what we should look to do. I even used the exact words "we should stop punishing people for wanting to live in hi-sec". That right there tells me that you haven't understood a damb word of what I wrote.

If you want to read it again, with an open mind, and reply in detail, without yelling and ranting and making hilariously false accusations about what kind of player I am, then I'll be glad to discuss it with you.

So you'd balance an opportunity to widen those margins by 400 basis points vs the increased risk.

You're also apparently assuming that prices would stay constant. I doubt they would.

Price fluctuations can be profitable I'm sure I'd make a bit off of that (like I said don't much bother with manu). Plenty of people do manu at a loss as is (20 minutes with a calculator can show you that.) The real impact would be a lot of inflation in ship prices. And of course making manu as a practical endeavor limited to large stable organizations in low and null sec. Which would kind of ruin the game for anyone who came in looking at being a manu player. Hell i still have a bunch or R&D on my original that hardly gets used....

This guy's nervousness is really funny.

Incursion rats do change targets, and do primary, but the response is not instantaneous. The next time the incursion rats decide to change primary targets, they might primary an interloper, but this might not be until a half-minute or full minute after the interloper warped in.

Who the incursion rats decide to primary has been, thus far, very difficult to divine. Damage actually dealt, repairs done, ECM done, and so on are all suspected to be factors. But, it does seem to be fleet-independent.


This actually ties into another point that others in this thread have touched upon lightly, but may actually be significant enough in the risk-reward balance to be given a spotlight in this discussion.

Mission rats, PvE ships, and PvP ships have a somewhat strict rock-paper-scissors relationship: PvE ships eat mission rats (because the mission rats can't beat the low-buffer but high-sustained tank on a PvE ship), PvP ships eat PvE ships (because high-sustained tank usually can't hold against even higher PvP DPS), and Mission rats eat PvP ships (because there are so many mission rats that they'll eat through the high buffer and zero sustainability before the PvP ship can kill them all). This is why missionrunning ships will rarely win a fight against a PvP ship, and why a PvP ship is not suitable for running missions solo.

At this point, I'm going to start rambling, but these are the thoughts I've had on the subject: (Note that these various thoughts are not necessarily all connected to each other nor all disconnected from each other.)

1) If one expects a missionrunner to bring PvP-fit friends for protection in LowSec, then the mission needs to pay plenty so that the rewards per hour per person are higher than everyone involved just being their own solo missionrunners in a safer missioning activity.

2) A set of fundamental changes of some sort involving changes to missions, mission rats, player ships, and player modules might be possible such that a player ship fitting that's suitable for missionrunning can also reasonably hold it's own in a PvP fight, or at least have a reasonable chance to escape. This same fundamental change should also make PvP fits viable in missionrunning. If there ceases to be any distinction between mission fits and PvP fits, then so much the better.

3) Constantly spamming Directional Scanner or otherwise looking out for threats during a mission when I don't have a friend available to stand guard and spam Directional is exhausting. If I do have a scout player standing watch, then we're back to #1, above, since the rewards must be worthwhile for the player to do nothing but stand watch for someone else.

4) Failing a mission carries consequences: loss of standing for the agent, corporation, and faction. If a missionrunner keeps failing missions due to PvP interference, then the agent will stop talking to the missionrunner, forcing that missionrunner to go somewhere else, anyway, to run missions. In other words, even if the missionrunner were willing to accept the risks of PvP after so any failures, the NPC agent would not be willing to accept the risk, and will not give out the mission. This is, of course, assuming that the missionrunner doesn't run close enough to completely broke that a safer activity must be sought for ISK reasons, which brings me to #5, below.

5) The example posted by Ishtanchuk Fazmarai in Post #29 is on the high end, but assuming the same income level (600 million ISK per month) and that a Tech 1 battleship fit with Tech 2 modules costs 200 million ISK, one can buy 3 such battleships each month. In other words, it would take ten days to recover from a PvP loss because of being ambushed by another player. Any missionrunner who's being asked to risk losing their ship in PvP needs a lower recovery time than that.

[edit]

6) Many players do PvE to pay for their PvP. It's hard to participate in PvP if one can't generate the ISK to support it.