These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Do Level 4 missions pay too much compared to 1 through 3?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#441 - 2013-09-03 15:54:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Your killboard stinks. Its a bunch of gate camping blobs. Who are you fooling? Not a soul. Its why im laughing at the threat you thought you posed to me when you cursed at me unnecessarily.

I could spend all day killing alt ibis and get 800 kills if I wanted them. Like yours they wouldn't be satisfying.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#442 - 2013-09-03 15:55:44 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
[
What if we made the LP store cost much more ISK to buy items? It would effectively slow the injection of ISK in the game by deleting more of the bounty/reward from the mission. Could it possibly be enough to reduce the injection of ISK enough?



I can pull 60m/hr on bounties with a good mission spread.

That is an outlier though.


What if we add a 0 to the ISK cost of every LP items? Can it cover enough to burn ISK instead of injecting?



Which would kill the ten FW guys that are actually fighting.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#443 - 2013-09-03 16:00:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


Isk sinks (losing ships for example) balance out isk faucets. and promote a healthy circulation of currency, keeping the universe in balance. Levels 4's are pretty easy to grind at nearly 0 risk making them a dangerous faucet to leave as is.


Ship loss beside supercap are an isk faucet not sink. It's a cost to the guy who lost the ship but it inject ISK in the economy in the form of insurance payout. The only way it would be a faucet is if the transaction tax to buy the ship + isk cost for the production line removed more ISK than the insurance payout inject.

You can't solve the increased amount of ISK in the economy in the game by blapping ships. You will never succede.

It's impossible for the insurance to be a faucet. You get at most 100% payout, and to get that you have to have paid 30% of the ship cost to do that on a T1. So you lose 30%. That's if no modules explode and you had no rigs fitted.
T2's get you next to no insurance.

Try again.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#444 - 2013-09-03 16:01:21 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Lucas Kell wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Eve's virtual economy does indeed thrive on consumption. And it thrives just as much on production. Simply because mission running is not on the side of "consumption" doesn't mean they are not contributing. Not everything must involve a kill to add content. That's part of it or a way, but not the whole equation.

Are you simple?
Missions aren't construction production, they are an isk faucet. They work as long as people are losing ships in them, as the faucet provides a reason for player to mine materials, produce ships then sell them to transfer your isk to the rest of the player base.

I said production, not construction. And yes, missions produce ALL kinds of stuff. Just because the user interface isn't emulating a factory with make-believe factory buttons and factory options, doesn't mean that it is not producing.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#445 - 2013-09-03 16:06:33 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Eve's virtual economy does indeed thrive on consumption. And it thrives just as much on production. Simply because mission running is not on the side of "consumption" doesn't mean they are not contributing. Not everything must involve a kill to add content. That's part of it or a way, but not the whole equation.

Are you simple?

Missions aren't construction production, they are an isk faucet. They work as long as people are losing ships in them, as the faucet provides a reason for player to mine materials, produce ships then sell them to transfer your isk to the rest of the player base.

I said production, not construction. And yes, missions produce ALL kinds of stuff. Just because the user interface isn't emulating a factory with make-believe factory buttons and factory options, doesn't mean that it is not producing.

Well I meant production too :p
I'm not talking about factories. Missions print ISK. Nobody has to pay that to you, it's coming in from nowhere.

Production does balance, but only if the rate of isk production and isk destruction is balanced (not necessarily 1:1, but not 1b:1 either). The problem is with tactics ever increasing and players working out how to most efficiently pump isk out of missions with minimal risk, the ratio of production to destruction is out. CCP balance out all of the isk faucets to the isk sinks, so it's inevitable that missions will have to be balanced out eventually.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#446 - 2013-09-03 16:13:36 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
EVE's virtual economy thrives on consumption (ships exploding is the biggest part of that), mission runners contribute very little to this as the content they enjoy rarely kills anything bigger than a Condor

No one claims EVE's economy is about to crash. That doesn't mean there aren't fixable imbalances though.

Eve's virtual economy does indeed thrive on consumption. And it thrives just as much on production. Simply because mission running is not on the side of "consumption" doesn't mean they are not contributing. Not everything must involve a kill to add content. That's part of it or a way, but not the whole equation.


And your post is A way to miss the point. Who said anything about killing?

I'm talking about balance. In other pve areas (incursions, null sec anomalies and FW though it wasn't an isk faucet per se etc) there have been balance measures taken because too much isk was being injected into the economy. This dispite the fact that ships do frequently die while players are engaging that content.

Yet Missions are allowed to continue to collectively spew isk into the system with no counterbalancing consumption save ammo (and not even mocu of that if the mission runner runs missions in amarr space and uses laser boats)and the the early cost to noob mission runners of replacing condors and rifters (lol).

That's an imbalance (as seen here) and while some growth is good, a extra Trillion a day because EVE doesn't have enough isk sinks isn't all that great in the long run. Missions are a part of this imbalance.


What if we made the LP store cost much more ISK to buy items? It would effectively slow the injection of ISK in the game by deleting more of the bounty/reward from the mission. Could it possibly be enough to reduce the injection of ISK enough?


Hell that would fix the mission part of the problem.

The null anom part could be fixed with something like tags instead of bounties, but I think "liquid isk" bounties are so entrenched in what EVE players expect that it's not ever going to really change till things get bad enough down the line.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#447 - 2013-09-03 16:20:11 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
CCP balance out all of the isk faucets to the isk sinks, so it's inevitable that missions will have to be balanced out eventually.

This may be the case. I don't know. And I have no data to confirm or deny this. Missions do pump isk into the economy. But they also pumps goods to counter inflation (hence "production" Smile).

Missions also play a (what I personally think is their greatest) role: Allowing players to dig themselves out of the hole... So they can continue PVP-ing, for example... Continue having their fun... And thus continue paying their subscription.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#448 - 2013-09-03 16:26:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
CCP balance out all of the isk faucets to the isk sinks, so it's inevitable that missions will have to be balanced out eventually.

This may be the case. I don't know. And I have no data to confirm or deny this. Missions do pump isk into the economy. But they also pumps goods to counter inflation (hence "production" Smile).

Missions also play a (what I personally think is their greatest) role: Allowing players to dig themselves out of the hole... So they can continue PVP-ing, for example... Continue having their fun... And thus continue paying their subscription.

Well the goods they pump in are also a form of injection, but are a material injection. They still get balanced out in the same way, but they are less directly impacting on the economy than an ISK source. CCP used to release a Quarterly Economic Newsletter thing where they talked a lot about balancing sinks and faucets, they've also discussed it in the economy briefs are the fanfest. If you think about the way an economy works, it has to be balanced though. That's why countries can't just print money. Printed money devalues the currency and eventually you end up paying millions of your currency for bread, but making billions a day in salary.

And yeah, missions are required, as are most of the faucets in the game, but they have to be balanced. missions are too easy for what they provide, and much like null anomolies were, they'll need a balancing.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#449 - 2013-09-03 16:51:14 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


Isk sinks (losing ships for example) balance out isk faucets. and promote a healthy circulation of currency, keeping the universe in balance. Levels 4's are pretty easy to grind at nearly 0 risk making them a dangerous faucet to leave as is.


Ship loss beside supercap are an isk faucet not sink. It's a cost to the guy who lost the ship but it inject ISK in the economy in the form of insurance payout. The only way it would be a faucet is if the transaction tax to buy the ship + isk cost for the production line removed more ISK than the insurance payout inject.

You can't solve the increased amount of ISK in the economy in the game by blapping ships. You will never succede.

It's impossible for the insurance to be a faucet. You get at most 100% payout, and to get that you have to have paid 30% of the ship cost to do that on a T1. So you lose 30%. That's if no modules explode and you had no rigs fitted.
T2's get you next to no insurance.

Try again.


Tell me where that other 70% of the payout comes from.

Insurance is one of the biggest isk faucets in game
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#450 - 2013-09-03 17:00:18 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
CCP balance out all of the isk faucets to the isk sinks, so it's inevitable that missions will have to be balanced out eventually.

This may be the case. I don't know. And I have no data to confirm or deny this. Missions do pump isk into the economy. But they also pumps goods to counter inflation (hence "production" Smile).

Missions also play a (what I personally think is their greatest) role: Allowing players to dig themselves out of the hole... So they can continue PVP-ing, for example... Continue having their fun... And thus continue paying their subscription.

Well the goods they pump in are also a form of injection, but are a material injection. They still get balanced out in the same way, but they are less directly impacting on the economy than an ISK source. CCP used to release a Quarterly Economic Newsletter thing where they talked a lot about balancing sinks and faucets, they've also discussed it in the economy briefs are the fanfest. If you think about the way an economy works, it has to be balanced though. That's why countries can't just print money. Printed money devalues the currency and eventually you end up paying millions of your currency for bread, but making billions a day in salary.

And yeah, missions are required, as are most of the faucets in the game, but they have to be balanced. missions are too easy for what they provide, and much like null anomolies were, they'll need a balancing.


That last sentence is the entire point. Lvl4 missions that were interesting and occasionally deadly would be a much better fit for EVE online than the ridiculously rote " warp here, save damsel for 15,345,098th time is absolute safety, spend a small amount of isk replacing the ammo you used, repeat" that we have now.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#451 - 2013-09-03 17:15:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
Ok. Everyone calm down.

I have thought of a way that we can prove that High-sec mission running has more income than people doing stuff in null-sec.

First we must have the data on the average isk per hour of all level 4 missions runners combined for a one month period. Then we must have the average amount of ships lost by the mission runners during this one month time while running missions (you can't count when they do PVP stuff for example). Then we come up with the ratio of how how much isk per hour made per ship lost.

Say the average high sec income is 50 million and on average you lose .5 ships per hour then you would get an answer of 100 million.

Then we compare this say people running sites in null sec and the take the month's average of their income per hour, then get the number of average ships lost in that one months time span. Preferably we get an average ships lost per hour. Keep in mind you do not count PVP activities other than getting your site running ship ganked. If you go on a roam or go to a fleet fight and lose your ship, that doesn't count. Then hopefully you get a ratio of average isk per hour and average ships lost.

Again the example would be 100 million with say 1 ship lost per hour then the answer would be 100 million and in my case the income from null and high would be relatively equal.

If say the average of high-sec was 50 million per hour and then .25 ship lost per hour that would get you an answer of of 200 million ratio and compared to the 100 million ratio of null sec, then you can say with scientific evidence that high is better than null.

BUT the key facts of this issue is that you must not only have the true average isk per hour of all level 4 missions runners and the average isk per hour of people doing null sec ratting and sites AND you must know how many ships they lost over a period of time doing said activities and not actively seeking pvp.

And in order to do this CCP must have a way to tell when you are PVPing and when you are actually earning money. There are ways I suppose. They could actually watch the players.

However, until they actually do this and publish the numbers anyone saying that that one or the other makes more for the risk reward is just citing non-scientific anecdotes and pulling numbers out of their butt because they have a gut feeling that the game is this way.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#452 - 2013-09-03 17:46:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


Isk sinks (losing ships for example) balance out isk faucets. and promote a healthy circulation of currency, keeping the universe in balance. Levels 4's are pretty easy to grind at nearly 0 risk making them a dangerous faucet to leave as is.


Ship loss beside supercap are an isk faucet not sink. It's a cost to the guy who lost the ship but it inject ISK in the economy in the form of insurance payout. The only way it would be a faucet is if the transaction tax to buy the ship + isk cost for the production line removed more ISK than the insurance payout inject.

You can't solve the increased amount of ISK in the economy in the game by blapping ships. You will never succede.

It's impossible for the insurance to be a faucet. You get at most 100% payout, and to get that you have to have paid 30% of the ship cost to do that on a T1. So you lose 30%. That's if no modules explode and you had no rigs fitted.
T2's get you next to no insurance.

Try again.


Tell me where that other 70% of the payout comes from.

Insurance is one of the biggest isk faucets in game

70% worth of ISK come in, but 100% + rigs + destroyed modules of material goes out.
ISK then goes out later on things like sov, brokers fees, sales taxes, and gets converted back in to materials from NPC orders and LP stores (the ISK priced stuff).
It balances out that way.

ISK generation from missions with no destruction is raw isk generation.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#453 - 2013-09-03 17:57:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Jenn aSide wrote:

People like yoiu like to believe that other people "want you to do something" because then you can lie to yourself and say your existence is actually relevant lol. No one cares how or where you play.

Some of us do care about the health of our game, however. I didn't like the anom or incursion or FW nerfs as it dried up some of my isk making, but I accepted them as needed for the game, the same way I'm going to cry when ccp nerfs my mach and cynabal soon lol. See, some of us can be unselfish when it comes to a communal activity like a video game.

You should try it.


You'd make a good preacher. You love to hear yourself talk.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#454 - 2013-09-03 17:58:50 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:


Isk sinks (losing ships for example) balance out isk faucets. and promote a healthy circulation of currency, keeping the universe in balance. Levels 4's are pretty easy to grind at nearly 0 risk making them a dangerous faucet to leave as is.


Ship loss beside supercap are an isk faucet not sink. It's a cost to the guy who lost the ship but it inject ISK in the economy in the form of insurance payout. The only way it would be a faucet is if the transaction tax to buy the ship + isk cost for the production line removed more ISK than the insurance payout inject.

You can't solve the increased amount of ISK in the economy in the game by blapping ships. You will never succede.

It's impossible for the insurance to be a faucet. You get at most 100% payout, and to get that you have to have paid 30% of the ship cost to do that on a T1. So you lose 30%. That's if no modules explode and you had no rigs fitted.
T2's get you next to no insurance.

Try again.


Tell me where that other 70% of the payout comes from.

Insurance is one of the biggest isk faucets in game

70% worth of ISK come in, but 100% + rigs + destroyed modules of material goes out.
ISK then goes out later on things like sov, brokers fees, sales taxes, and gets converted back in to materials from NPC orders and LP stores (the ISK priced stuff).
It balances out that way.

ISK generation from missions with no destruction is raw isk generation.

Wrong. The isk goes into the pockets of whoever you bought the items from. Very little of it will be taken out of the system.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#455 - 2013-09-03 18:08:26 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

People like yoiu like to believe that other people "want you to do something" because then you can lie to yourself and say your existence is actually relevant lol. No one cares how or where you play.

Some of us do care about the health of our game, however. I didn't like the anom or incursion or FW nerfs as it dried up some of my isk making, but I accepted them as needed for the game, the same way I'm going to cry when ccp nerfs my mach and cynabal soon lol. See, some of us can be unselfish when it comes to a communal activity like a video game.

You should try it.


You'd make a good preacher. You love to hear yourself talk.


Then come hear the word brother, while I baptize you with fire.

I'm sorry if you don't like hearing the truth, but there it is. No one cares where you play or wants you to be a target, hiding behind that false idea just isn't very smart.

No one wants to hurt mission runners, simply commenting on some glaring imbalances the game has. I'm a mission runner myself (when I'm not ratting inn null or DIN kills another damn mom damn them) and would never claim that missioning is in high sec is great isk for an individual except for certain situations.

That's why I say missions don't need less isk, they need more risk, and if ccp added enough risk that could even justify rewards buffing (preferably LP wise).
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#456 - 2013-09-03 18:17:47 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Ok. Everyone calm down.

I have thought of a way that we can prove that High-sec mission running has more income than people doing stuff in null-sec.

First we must have the data on the average isk per hour of all level 4 missions runners combined for a one month period. Then we must have the average amount of ships lost by the mission runners during this one month time while running missions (you can't count when they do PVP stuff for example). Then we come up with the ratio of how how much isk per hour made per ship lost.

Say the average high sec income is 50 million and on average you lose .5 ships per hour then you would get an answer of 100 million.

Then we compare this say people running sites in null sec and the take the month's average of their income per hour, then get the number of average ships lost in that one months time span. Preferably we get an average ships lost per hour. Keep in mind you do not count PVP activities other than getting your site running ship ganked. If you go on a roam or go to a fleet fight and lose your ship, that doesn't count. Then hopefully you get a ratio of average isk per hour and average ships lost.

Again the example would be 100 million with say 1 ship lost per hour then the answer would be 100 million and in my case the income from null and high would be relatively equal.

If say the average of high-sec was 50 million per hour and then .25 ship lost per hour that would get you an answer of of 200 million ratio and compared to the 100 million ratio of null sec, then you can say with scientific evidence that high is better than null.

BUT the key facts of this issue is that you must not only have the true average isk per hour of all level 4 missions runners and the average isk per hour of people doing null sec ratting and sites AND you must know how many ships they lost over a period of time doing said activities and not actively seeking pvp.

And in order to do this CCP must have a way to tell when you are PVPing and when you are actually earning money. There are ways I suppose. They could actually watch the players.

However, until they actually do this and publish the numbers anyone saying that that one or the other makes more for the risk reward is just citing non-scientific anecdotes and pulling numbers out of their butt because they have a gut feeling that the game is this way.


As usual, you're looking at it the wrong way. i don't see many people claiming mission runners as individuals make too much isk. The problem is that there are so many of them and not much risk or consumption. Their is SOME consumption such as when they sink isk and materials into the LP store, lose drones, consume ammo and others, but a huge portion of that trillion isk a day added to EVE's economy after the sinks are accounted for is from missions.

There are lots of ways to fix it if ccp would like it fixed. Bounty cuts + lp rewards gains maybe. Removing bounties for tags maybe. leaving things as is and increasing risk in all activities that generate bounties (including null sec anoms and complexes, DED 10/10s are really really to damn easy) thus theoretically increasing consumption may be a way.

It just doesn't sound like some of you are willing to even consider that there may be imbalances in the 1st place. That's how issues are able to fester, because people become unwilling to observe things rationally (usually when they think they stand to lose out if things get fixed).
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#457 - 2013-09-03 18:22:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Tell me where that other 70% of the payout comes from.

Insurance is one of the biggest isk faucets in game

70% worth of ISK come in, but 100% + rigs + destroyed modules of material goes out.
ISK then goes out later on things like sov, brokers fees, sales taxes, and gets converted back in to materials from NPC orders and LP stores (the ISK priced stuff).
It balances out that way.

ISK generation from missions with no destruction is raw isk generation.

Wrong. The isk goes into the pockets of whoever you bought the items from. Very little of it will be taken out of the system.

I honestly CBA to sit in a thread about missions arguing about insurance. Sure, it's still a faucet of sorts, but at the end of the day though it balances out. Material goes out of the system and 70% of the hulls material cost comes back as insurance. rigs and destroyed mods are not covered. It's more like an NPC buy order where the NPC is buying your ships for a crappy price than an ISK printer like mission income and bounties.

EDIT: Oh, and if you look at the QEN from the end of 2010, insurance was the 5th faucet behind:
Bounties ~28T
Commodities ~7T
Mission Rewards ~2T
Mission Bonuses ~2T

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#458 - 2013-09-03 18:29:27 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Ok. Everyone calm down.

I have thought of a way that we can prove that High-sec mission running has more income than people doing stuff in null-sec.

First we must have the data on the average isk per hour of all level 4 missions runners combined for a one month period. Then we must have the average amount of ships lost by the mission runners during this one month time while running missions (you can't count when they do PVP stuff for example). Then we come up with the ratio of how how much isk per hour made per ship lost.

Say the average high sec income is 50 million and on average you lose .5 ships per hour then you would get an answer of 100 million.

Then we compare this say people running sites in null sec and the take the month's average of their income per hour, then get the number of average ships lost in that one months time span. Preferably we get an average ships lost per hour. Keep in mind you do not count PVP activities other than getting your site running ship ganked. If you go on a roam or go to a fleet fight and lose your ship, that doesn't count. Then hopefully you get a ratio of average isk per hour and average ships lost.

Again the example would be 100 million with say 1 ship lost per hour then the answer would be 100 million and in my case the income from null and high would be relatively equal.

If say the average of high-sec was 50 million per hour and then .25 ship lost per hour that would get you an answer of of 200 million ratio and compared to the 100 million ratio of null sec, then you can say with scientific evidence that high is better than null.

BUT the key facts of this issue is that you must not only have the true average isk per hour of all level 4 missions runners and the average isk per hour of people doing null sec ratting and sites AND you must know how many ships they lost over a period of time doing said activities and not actively seeking pvp.

And in order to do this CCP must have a way to tell when you are PVPing and when you are actually earning money. There are ways I suppose. They could actually watch the players.

However, until they actually do this and publish the numbers anyone saying that that one or the other makes more for the risk reward is just citing non-scientific anecdotes and pulling numbers out of their butt because they have a gut feeling that the game is this way.


As usual, you're looking at it the wrong way. i don't see many people claiming mission runners as individuals make too much isk. The problem is that there are so many of them and not much risk or consumption. Their is SOME consumption such as when they sink isk and materials into the LP store, lose drones, consume ammo and others, but a huge portion of that trillion isk a day added to EVE's economy after the sinks are accounted for is from missions.

There are lots of ways to fix it if ccp would like it fixed. Bounty cuts + lp rewards gains maybe. Removing bounties for tags maybe. leaving things as is and increasing risk in all activities that generate bounties (including null sec anoms and complexes, DED 10/10s are really really to damn easy) thus theoretically increasing consumption may be a way.

It just doesn't sound like some of you are willing to even consider that there may be imbalances in the 1st place. That's how issues are able to fester, because people become unwilling to observe things rationally (usually when they think they stand to lose out if things get fixed).




Did you read what I said? The calculations use averages of ship losses. Is that not the best way to calculate risk?

How else would you calculate risk? Do you play something your self and say "Well this seems more or less risky than another activity..." If ship losses per hour average can't calculate risk, then I don't know how else you can to make a scientific judgement.

The problem with personal observation (rational or not) is that it is anecdotal which is that it is not scientific and may not even give the true figures. What you see personally may not be the same case for everyone.

I am willing to conceed, but you must prove it with data. Otherwise you are someone who just assumes that what they see is correct for all scenarios. It like pulling numbers out of your butt or go with your gut feeling. It is not the correct way to be making major changes.

To understand what anecdotal evidence is read this and you'll see what is wrong with making statements without enough data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#459 - 2013-09-03 18:30:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Jenn aSide wrote:
Hot air


You can spew forth mountains of hot air and rhetoric, you have no facts to back up any claim you make, just opinion. And that's it. So save the "i'm here to save the game" speech Martin Luther. No one is buying it.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#460 - 2013-09-03 18:41:00 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Tell me where that other 70% of the payout comes from.

Insurance is one of the biggest isk faucets in game

70% worth of ISK come in, but 100% + rigs + destroyed modules of material goes out.
ISK then goes out later on things like sov, brokers fees, sales taxes, and gets converted back in to materials from NPC orders and LP stores (the ISK priced stuff).
It balances out that way.

ISK generation from missions with no destruction is raw isk generation.

Wrong. The isk goes into the pockets of whoever you bought the items from. Very little of it will be taken out of the system.

I honestly CBA to sit in a thread about missions arguing about insurance. Sure, it's still a faucet of sorts, but at the end of the day though it balances out. Material goes out of the system and 70% of the hulls material cost comes back as insurance. rigs and destroyed mods are not covered. It's more like an NPC buy order where the NPC is buying your ships for a crappy price than an ISK printer like mission income and bounties.


It would only balance out of most sell order for raw mats were from NPC but since most of the amts in game come from player, the insurance is an ISK faucet. Sales tax and production lines cost are the only real sink caused by shiploss and I am pretty sure it's far from covering even the base free insurance payout on all the T1 ship lost. T2 and T3 I never lost yet so I dunno what the payout are to see if it cover or not.