EVE General Discussion

Come now, it was perfectly obvious from context (the context which you removed) that I was talking about moongoo producing POS, not reaction POS or invention POS or whatever.

This level of petty dishonesty is beneath you.

None. My moons don't produce anything worth extracting. My point is (and has been all along) that even with non-valuable moons I can make better profits than with L4 missions, discrediting the radical claim that L4's are better than (R64) moons on an individual basis. In other words, if I can make more with non-raw-material-producing moons than L4's, no one with any sense or a good conscience could claim that R64-producing moons are less profitable than L4's.

These are the kinds of BS, along with misleads and misdirection, that are fed on these threads to keep them going.

I remember I started before HP buff in RMR or whatever the expansion was. With training skills etc. I still remember doing some lvl3 in my domi with sub-par skills, having to warp out several times. Then I got my t2 tank and I could tackle lvl4s. After I move to null and the belt-spawns were so much better isk then the lvl4s.

Null didn't last very long. Back in hi-sec I had my t2 drone skills. That was a complete game changer. When I got my mach it was another game-changer. Most have forgotten what it feels like to have 150dps from a ship that will do 600 with proper skills.

Of course being a nub these days is much easier and there is nothing wrong with that. Some of the "100mil/h or you are doing it wrong" people should try getting a friend (if they have any) to play eve. See how long it will take a new player with no knowledge or SP to reach the 100mil/h mark running lvl4s. With 100mil SP, any ship/mod at your desposal and knowing all the missions inside and out, it's still a grind with cutting all the corners you can to get that 100mil/h.

Never mind the fact that people who claim 100mil/h rarely take into account time to convert LP and move the loot. If a guy ratting in a carrier tells you he is doing 40mil/tick you can go look. 100mil/h is usually code for "I blitzed this one mission in 5 min and got 15mil" so I must be doing 100mil/h. Running DEDs in null can be 1bil/h if you are lucky. What usually ends up happening is you don't find anything or the loot is not good.

…because that's what we're discussing: whether or not L4s offer better income than moon goo.

(Hint: they do)

Had you actually read the thread rather than jump in and started making assumptions about the topic and about other people's positions, you would have noticed this right off the bat. You didn't, so you didn't, so you keep being very confused and very wrong.

Also, since your point is “that even with non-valuable moons I can make better profits than with L4 missions, [which discredits] the radical claim that L4's are better than (R64) moons on an individual basis”, showing that R64 moons don't actually provide better income than L4s addresses your post just fine. Just because you keep assuming (incorrectly) that R64 moons provide better income than your non-valuable moons doesn't mean you have actually discredited the claim that they're worse than L4s.

If you want to discuss what kind of income individual arrays produce so we can look at mixed income, then sure, let's do that. Just remember one thing, though: a harvester and a silo to store the goo eats up 1,000tf and 60 GW worth of fitting space… Would you like to list the kind of arrays you're using and what each of those produce per hour?

It still doesn't change the fact that moon goo offers (much) lower income than L4s.

I know. That's why I suggested grinding them down with facts. They can use a lack of logic all they like, but their fallacies faceplant pretty well against reality.

…if I were a highsec carebear, which I'm not.

There's a pretty strong contingent of highsec carebears who want nullsec to be useless. Close enough?

No. That's where you moved the goal post and that's what you now want readers to believe.

For the fourth (or fifth) time, this is what you said (your own words):



Notice how you said "moon" PERIOD, as in L4's are FAR BETTER than.

See where the goal post moving is? We went from moon value to moon goo value. Nice play of words . Points for that.

Feel free to spin this however you wish.

You are simply too dishonest and deceiving to hold a conversation with.

Wrong. That's the entire problem here: you are assuming things. You moved the goalposts the moment you stepped on the turf and then got all upset when I didn't move with them.


Let's see what I actually said, this time including the context in which it was said, ok?


Khemax: “I Believe that the level 4 mission payouts are at a good level compared to other money making activities, but the level 2/3 ones could do with an increase....especially level 3s”
baltec1: “That would inject too much isk into the system and do great harm to the game.”
E-2C Hawkeye: “Too much isk?? As compared to the moon goo isk faucet? Seriously?.....no seriously?”
baltec1: “Moon goo has injected zero isk into the system ever.”
E-2C Hawkeye: “Yes you are right. The trillions and trillions of isk the moons generated all went where? RMT? Moon goo is an income just like any other.”
Tippia: “Moon goo may be an income source, but it is not an ISK faucet. It's a materials faucet, and a pretty moderate one at that.”
E-2C Hawkeye: “Yes it requires resources and management but I would argue it has done more damage to the game more than any lvl 4 mission ever could. ”
Tippia: “Ok. And your argument for that is… what, exactly? Remember, even at their best, high-end moons provide about the same ISK/h (ore more accurately, the same ISK-worth of materials injection) as highsec ice mining.”
E-2C Hawkeye: “I am sure you economic majors will all agree that lvl 4 missions are better income than moon goo....right ”
Tippia: “On an individual level, it certainly is.”
E-2C Hawkeye: “Your quick to jump on a topic that effects hi-sec yet dont really want to talk about how damaging moo goo income is to the game in general.”
Tippia: “Maybe if you took the time to explain how it damages the game, because until you do, there's not really much to talk about…”
Malcanis: “IIRC a "good" moon these days makes on the order of 5M ISK/hr worth of moon goo. (You can work this out from the market price of the moon materials), which should be easily exceeded by a noob running level 2s. […] I feel pretty confident is saying that hi-sec missions in sum outproduce moon wealth generation by at least an order of magnitude. (If I had to guess, then I'd say by about 2000%).”
E-2C Hawkeye: “How many moons are in null? And you still think lvl 4 missions are better?”
Tippia: “Yes, L4s are far better — especially for the individual — since a single person can trivially produce the same income as a single moon. In fact, on an individual level, AFK mining is a better source of income than an R64 moon is.”

Notice how I, and everyone else involved, were discussing moon goo, as in L4s are far better than that? Notice how you cut all the context that described what we were discussing — i.e. moon goo? Notice how you are the one moving the goal posts by lying and deliberately misrepresenting what other people are saying?

We have been discussing the income from moon goo in relation to the income from L4s all this time.

Yes. It's in your inability to actually read the topic and failing to take context into account. So stop doing that.

It's more that I admit that the reasoning won't have an effect.

What you're seeing is people saying “no, you can't just buff your way out of the problem because that causes even bigger problems — you have to create margins within which reasonable buffs can be made.” So it's not a matter of nerfing highsec instead, but of also nerfing highsec. The part people always miss is that many of those nerfs would actually be beneficial for highsec and for the overall game…

Renting is a lot about throwing money at people to be able to avoid all the screwed-up areas of null living and only getting the good bits.

Some of it is. A lot of it is not, and none of it can sustain as many players as highsec can.

In many cases, yes, but the renters don't have to deal (as much) with those problems. They can inhabit a system that supports 20 or so players without worrying about the fact that 20 isn't nearly enough to actually own it. Or to look at it from the opposite point of view, they don't have to maintain the 200-man force required to actually keep the system so they get a full share each (= good income) rather than just the tenth of a share (= bad income) they'd get if they were owning rather than renting.

No. Or actually yes, but that's a separate issue.

The conversion is 1:2000 and not exactly a big secret imo.

And the rough spread of the 130m/hr is:
1/3rd Bounties and mission rewards
1/3rd loot + salvage (yes, even after the nerf - Marauder salvaging on the go)
1/3rd LP




Regarding 4k LP pu: see above.
Also I didn't bother to do any market PvP -> I did indeed sell the items to buy orders
Same goes for loot (refine or plain sell chosen by a gut feeling not exact research)

And by the way: the item is still the same like 2 years ago (which is when I last could be bothered to do missions).


EDIT: The way - I still see a lot of room for improvement here. Once you get high Faction Standings you can easily abandon all the bad missions since your high faction standings insure access to the agent.

For example I had one session where I only had 36m/hour, another with 273m/hour. But I simply did all the missions not declining any (unless lowsec) and included storylines as well.