EVE General Discussion

No, I just used its vagueness to turn it around, that's all.

The problem there is that I think many have lost sight of what the actual argument is and have instead dived headlong into their bunkers to scream about how teh evilz nullsec is coming to eat their babies.

And I still feel that this segment would be better served by offering a different kind of content. L4s need to become the middle of the pack far more clearly, progression-wise as well as ISK-wise, and need to communicate this to the runners better than they do now. The breadth of the income band they offer causes all kinds of problems as far as balancing income streams — including introducing new streams — goes.

That's probably what the people in the bunkers keep missing: yes, L4 income should probably be capped for a number of macroeconomical and game design reasons; no, that does not mean that highsec is dead — it means highsec is given more room to breathe and to offer different activities and content.

I don't know but, I would consider doing 132.8m per hour in highsec with a reasonably fitted Marauder (Paladin) op.

I can remember doing Sanctums in an Aeon before the nerf for ticks of ~33m. That's a measly 100m/hour.

And my figure is not even cherrypicking missions more than once every 4 hours. So I did indeed do all the terrible ones as well (Guristas in a Paladin). And yes it is including travel time etc and only using a single ship (no Noctis salvaging alt or similar).

Thanks for affecting my game play in a negative way, why should it matter if l4 missions outperform other ways of making isk?
Why does it matter to you when you are not a dev? Are you one of the crowd that wants to force players into null so you can have more soft targets? Thing is though more people in null would unbalance the delicate eco system out there making it impossible for you to farm your iskies without your arse being vaporized on undock, hence more people in null would be bad for your income.

Sure I do, with you even. But they don't make an iota of difference to you. You simply pick up the goal posts and start moving them around convoluting your own responses. But I'll bite again.

As an example, you make the misinformed and non-sensical claim that, even on an individual level, L4 missions are "far better" in terms of isk-making than moon material production. Your original quote is:

"Yes, L4s are far better — especially for the individual — since a single person can trivially produce the same income as a single moon."

And your original quote can be found here.

I disproved your outlandish claim because I myself am a moon owner and have experienced much better isk returns with my moons than I ever did running missions. My response can be found here.

And your answer to this was that it "is a true and entirely honest response to his [E-2's] nonsensical claim that moon goo offer a better source of income than L4s." You simply go off on a tangent claiming that moon goo isn't what it is claimed to be and that I some how had proven your point.

Of course this is absolutely not true (see bold especially), never mind that there is no factual content in your response. You do what you do best; convolute responses, go on irrelevant spins, and ensure you always have the last word with no useful content to show for. On a few occasions (on this very thread) I asked you to show me data on what you perceive the problem to be so we could at least know what it is you are trying to "solve" (see here and here). And your response? That's right, silence. You simply skipped these questions and instead proceeded to quote me elsewhere with your typical "if by X you really mean Y, then yes". It's like arguing with children. And to be honest, I'm not really interested in spin rides. So feel free to have the last word on this and use your "if by X you really mean Y, then yes" one-liner.

None the less, you had just moved a goal post. This is what these threads usually consist of because it is the only way to keep them in "motion" and alive. Luckily, the vehement anti-hi-sec players, as loud and stubborn as they are, seem to be a small minority. And it really isn't that hard picking you out. If there's an anti-"carebear"/anti-hi sec rant post some where, I have come to expect to find you there.

You are free to do what I and that other guy did and post continued revenue statistics spanning 2-4 months of L4 missioning.

Sure, if you get the 4k pu LP item the income is going to be great but then, it means you DID pour in time and effort to:

- select the correct market and items

- grind the correct faction standings

- pick the best ship


Doing sanctums less setup, you "only" got the low / null sec risk but then, if you could do it in an Aeon it means you were doing it in safe enough areas to risk such a ship.

Again, muddling responses. My claim is that, as an owner of non-RXX moons I already make MORE than I ever made running missions. Therefore, RXX moons being more valuable than my own, are better than L4's, as in:

If B is greater than A
and C is greater than B
then C is greater than A

I have NEVER said that "moon goo" is better. That is just you twisting answers around to suit your agenda.

Sigh. And off chasing goal posts we go... I give up. You "win".

Maybe you shout stop moving them about so much then.
Or maybe you should stop confusing a dawning understanding of what I'm saying on your part as a change of position or argument on my part.

Seeing as how you're trying to argue that 100 units/hour @ 30k ISK/unit somehow translates into tens of millions of ISK/h, that's probably a wisest strategy to choose…

My alts have some POSes. I don't find "quite expensive to fuel them relative to the income that they produce". Unless you do something like extracting / reacting bad T2 mats or screwing something up.
POSes are an advanced-ish gameplay reserved for those who can make them perform.

The thing is that the trap of “extracting [bad] T2 mats” is actually much easier to fall into than many would think. R8s are not worth even a small tower; R16s only just pay for a medium tower. R32s and R64s generate 1–3M ISK/h in goo, and the 150–600k ISK per hour in fuel this costs means you can easily be out 15% in fuel costs alone.

Yes, you can introduce more income-generating processes as the towers grow bigger, thereby reducing the cost for any individual activity, but the income from the goo extraction itself is still fairly small (as MatrixSkye accidentally suggest, it could quite possibly be a waste of tower fitting space given the low income you get out of the 1k CPU and 60k grid needed… after all, compare that to what you can get out of the 500 CPU / 100k grid for a lab).