These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#601 - 2013-09-05 16:32:07 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Arguments are not evidence
…and no-one has claimed that they are.
The evidence is the evidence, and it points to an imblance as shown in those posts.

You asked for the evidence. There it is. If you want to demonstrate how it leads to a different conclusion than there being an imbalance, please do so and provide the arguments for why that is.

Quote:
Evidence based arguments have something tangible and clearly outlined, data sheets, reports, whatever have you
…just like Jenn's (and mine, and Malc's) posts.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#602 - 2013-09-05 16:33:02 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
It is a valid comparison because the point here is the overall EVE economy, not the economy of individual players.

The problem being discussed is that so many individuals are creating wealth from missions, but according to the devblog I linked, very few of them lose ships after a certain point. Given enough time this imbalance could have bad effects on the EVE online player driven economy.
i've suggested some potential fixes to the problem (which is largely driven by bounties from missions and other forms of pve as well as mission rewards and bonuses) ie a more LP driven mission scheme. No one seems to want to discuss that idea, rather they'd rather attack the idea that global warming mission and pve driven imbalances exist in the 1st place (lol).

Because bounties are at the heart of the problem, the standard high sec solution of "just buff null" would make the issues worse and would make the bad effects manifest sooner.

Quote:

If (and I don't know) your claim is that mission running is being exploited by large alliances to generate alliance wealth, then I would love to see (1) data that supports this claim and (2) what problems is this 'behavior' creating.


No one claims that.

I agree that on an individual basis a 'whole lot a' wealth is being created. But what I disagree with (and I could be wrong, no data has been provided yet) is that this generation of wealth is (or will be) causing problems. Are we talking about inflation? Accrual of wealth? Personally, I think it could be a problem if a significant amount of this individually generated wealth was being focused or funneled for alliance use, hence why I asked the question above, but again, there is no data showing this is the case either.


When your roof start leaking, do you wait till it caves in to fix it?
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#603 - 2013-09-05 16:34:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Tippia wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Arguments are not evidence
…and no-one has claimed that they are.
The evidence is the evidence, and it points to an imblance as shown in those posts.

You asked for the evidence. There it is. If you want to demonstrate how it leads to a different conclusion than there being an imbalance, please do so and provide the arguments for why that is.

Quote:
Evidence based arguments have something tangible and clearly outlined, data sheets, reports, whatever have you
…just like Jenn's (and mine, and Malc's) posts.


Again you are offering opinion based arguments and labeling it evidence. That's not evidence. I don't have to demonstrate the evidence leads to another conclusion because you haven't demonstrated it exists.

Please provide the CCP backed evidence that mission income is detrimental to the economy. Not that mission income exists and is in large quantity.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#604 - 2013-09-05 16:38:17 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Again you are offering opinion based arguments and labeling it evidence.
No. I'm pointing you towards the evidence and the conclusions it leads to, and asking you to address either of them.

If you want to demonstrate how it leads to a different conclusion than there being an imbalance, please do so and provide the arguments for why that is.

Quote:
I don't have to demonstrate the evidence leads to another conclusion because you haven't demonstrated it exists.
Incorrect. You are demonstrating that you are a liar, though, since you apparently haven't actually read Jenn's posts in spite of saying that you have.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#605 - 2013-09-05 16:40:46 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
It is a valid comparison because the point here is the overall EVE economy, not the economy of individual players.

The problem being discussed is that so many individuals are creating wealth from missions, but according to the devblog I linked, very few of them lose ships after a certain point. Given enough time this imbalance could have bad effects on the EVE online player driven economy.
i've suggested some potential fixes to the problem (which is largely driven by bounties from missions and other forms of pve as well as mission rewards and bonuses) ie a more LP driven mission scheme. No one seems to want to discuss that idea, rather they'd rather attack the idea that global warming mission and pve driven imbalances exist in the 1st place (lol).

Because bounties are at the heart of the problem, the standard high sec solution of "just buff null" would make the issues worse and would make the bad effects manifest sooner.

Quote:

If (and I don't know) your claim is that mission running is being exploited by large alliances to generate alliance wealth, then I would love to see (1) data that supports this claim and (2) what problems is this 'behavior' creating.


No one claims that.

I agree that on an individual basis a 'whole lot a' wealth is being created. But what I disagree with (and I could be wrong, no data has been provided yet) is that this generation of wealth is (or will be) causing problems. Are we talking about inflation? Accrual of wealth? Personally, I think it could be a problem if a significant amount of this individually generated wealth was being focused or funneled for alliance use, hence why I asked the question above, but again, there is no data showing this is the case either.


When your roof start leaking, do you wait till it caves in to fix it?

No. But I also don't go spending thousands of dollars on a roof that's working just fine.
But we're not talking about a leaky roof. You're claiming there's a problem (or there will be a problem).

From what I gather, you think the problem is that a lot of wealth is being generated by missions. And that's all I have so far, in terms of what the problem is :\.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#606 - 2013-09-05 16:41:44 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
OK Jenn, right now provide tangible evidence that EVEs economy is in bad shape and provide tangible evidence hisec missioning is the reason.


Provide me tangible evidence that I ever said anyhting of the sort.

That's really your problem. You tried to put words into my mouth, someone decided that I was making a claim I wasn't then when I don't back up a claim I never made, you declare victory. It simply means you are a liar at heart.

Go back, read what I said, then lets talk about that.


We aren't asking you to tell us that you can provide data, we are asking you to back up your statements with actual evidence.

Thats not putting words into your mouth, that is asking you if you can prove what you say is true.

If you can't provide evidence with data from CCP, then well we have no logical reason to believe you.



Ok, link the statement. Both of you are too biased to see your own mistakes in the discussion. That Caliph guy is claiming that I said missions are somehow killing the EVE economy, he litterally blamed me for his own cognitive shortcomings lol. And I'm saying that this is very common amongst the high sec poster crowd.

The smarter thing to do is say "I don't get what you are saying, please clarify". It is the mark of a lazy mind to just to conclusions as you two seem to do.



Ok. Then are you saying if Hi-sec mission running is not breaking the economy?

If that is true, then why make suggestions to change it other than personal opinion?

I'm fine if you say, "I think they should change things, but only because of personal opinion."

Otherwise you are saying "I think we we should change it because I have evidence."

Either you want to change it because its your personal opinion or you have evidence... And if you have evidence please support it.

Also, by claiming that hi-sec people complain about null sec by pointing out indvidual cases then yes, you are saying that all high-sec complains about null sec. If you were to say "I know a few people that complain about null sec." then that is a fine statment. When you say "High-sec people complain about null sec" you imply that it is everyone in high-sec.

So if you don't want to have words put back in your mouth, you must clarify your statements and put qualifiers to what you mean to say.

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
#607 - 2013-09-05 16:41:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Your posts are not ccp backed evidence. Your defense relies on convincing people im illiterate, a liar and haven't read the thread through.

But as of yet you still can not link the evidence you claim to have that shows mission income is detrimental to the economy.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#608 - 2013-09-05 16:43:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Your posts are not ccp backed evidence.
Incorrect. It's all from CCP.

Quote:
But as of yet you still can not link the evidence yopu claim to have that shows mission income is detrimental to the economy.
It was linked twice on the previous two pages.

Quote:
your entire argument rests on convincing people im illiterate, a liar and haven't read the thread through.
You're doing that just fine without my help, and it is not in any way related to my argument.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#609 - 2013-09-05 16:45:04 UTC
Page 31 and 32 have two links both to the same post of Jenn giving opinion. That is not evidence.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#610 - 2013-09-05 16:46:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Page 31 and 32 have two links both to the same post of Jenn giving opion. That is not evidence.
Incorrect. Try again, and this time, read what's in the post.

Now, with this evidence in hand, if you want to demonstrate how it leads to a different conclusion than there being an imbalance, please do so and provide the arguments for why that is.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#611 - 2013-09-05 16:50:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
THIS is a list of various sources of ISK errata in EVE. It details nicely the various sinks and sources. It is NOT evidence of a problem or an imbalance. It is evidence of a dev linking various statistics. It does not show evidence of an imbalance.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#612 - 2013-09-05 16:51:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
Tippia wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
I don't have to demonstrate anything
So your claims don't need to be supported, but everyone else's are. Gotcha. Roll

Quote:
I think at this point you'd be better off summarizing his points that you clearly understand
I never claimed to clearly understand his points. Don't put words in my mouth.

This is exactly the kind of mess you keep getting yourself into.


I'm not saying that high sec is balanced (it could might not be), I'm am simply stating you need to provide the citations to prove that it is if you are going to make the statement that it is imbalanced.

If you can't do that, then well you haven't proven anything and for all we know is that it could be balanced or imbalaned, but we have no proof either way so we must assume that we cannot make decisions to balance something that we have no proof is imbalanced in the first place.

Its like saying "You should stop driving your car because it causes global cooling."

For all we know it could very well do this, but it might actually be causing global warming.

You need proof to back up these claims.

Tippia. I have seemed to have missed your links to statistical data comparing the income of high sec mission runners and null sec isk earning activies with the comparison of how much worth of ships was lost doing each. Would it be that hard to copy and paste the links again?

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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#613 - 2013-09-05 16:52:22 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
THIS is a list of various sources of wealth in EVE. It details nicely the various sinks and sources. It is NOT evidence of a problem or an imbalance.
…and your argument for why you draw a different conclusion based on that and the other evidence provided is… what, exactly?
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#614 - 2013-09-05 16:52:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
That EVE is working just fine as it is? That I don't have any problems in the market. That my "stuff" gains value. That I get my moneys worth for plex. That no matter how many trillions you have I still want more.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#615 - 2013-09-05 16:53:46 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:



Ok. Then are you saying if Hi-sec mission running is not breaking the economy?

If that is true, then why make suggestions to change it other than personal opinion?


Do you understand the difference between "missions are breakign the economy" and "MISSIONS AND OTHER FORMS OF BOUNTY BASED PVE ARE CONTRIBUTING TO AN ONGOING ECONOMIC IMBALANCE THAT DOWN THE ROAD COULD CAUSE PROBLEMS AND IF BETTER FIXED NOW".

Sorry for the caps, but it just done'st seem to penetrate otherwise.
'
Quote:


I'm fine if you say, "I think they should change things, but only because of personal opinion."

Otherwise you are saying "I think we we should change it because I have evidence."

Either you want to change it because its your personal opinion or you have evidence... And if you have evidence please support it.


This is where you always fall short. You try to make distinctions based on things you misunderstood. It is not either or in this case, it's a matter of preventitive change of an unsustainable system.

Quote:

Also, by claiming that hi-sec people complain about null sec by pointing out individual cases then yes, you are saying that all high-sec complains about null sec. If you were to say "I know a few people that complain about null sec." then that is a fine statment. When you say "High-sec people complain about null sec" you imply that it is everyone in high-sec.

So if you don't want to have words put back in your mouth, you must clarify your statements and put qualifiers to what you mean to say.


No I must not. Because all you (and your type) do is establish unreasonable communications "standards" and then claim some sort of victory when those unreasonable standards aren't met.

Other posters in this same thread understand exactly what I'm saying, even if they disagree. The fact that you and the other guy doesn't should indicate to you an issue on your (and his) part.

Answer me this question (if you can honestly): Do you deal with communications issues outside of this forum? I'm serious, because in my experience, people who have a hard time absorbing others opinions online display that tendency irl. They tend to be the folks who think "the whole world has gone mad except for me".
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#616 - 2013-09-05 16:58:28 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
That EVE is working just fine as it is?
That's just an empty claim without anything backing it up.

So again, what is your argument for drawing a different conclusion based on the available evidence?
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#617 - 2013-09-05 17:01:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Tippia wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
That EVE is working just fine as it is?
That's just an empty claim without anything backing it up.

So again, what is your argument for drawing a different conclusion based on the available evidence?


My argument is that the numbers you linked do not show me any substantiated reason to believe EVE's economy is in trouble or that there is too much money in the economy. It does show me more money is made than destroyed which makes sense as if it weren't that way money would eventually go null.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#618 - 2013-09-05 17:02:12 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:


Tippia. I have seemed to have missed your links to statistical data comparing the income of high sec mission runners and null sec isk earning activies with the comparison of how much worth of ships was lost doing each. Would it be that hard to copy and paste the links again?


The bolded part isn't relevant, because some of those null sec pve activites reward bounties and are thus a part of the problem I've described. That's why I say "Missions and other PVE" and all you types see is "missions". This isn't really about how much income each pays, it's about the cumulative effect of all that income on the game economy in the long term

Missions are the biggest slice of the pie because missions are the most used pve content AND missions don't account for very many ship loses (see the dev blog I linked) The pve ships that die in null tend to be battleships and battlecrusiers with some capitals sprinked in. The pve ships that die to pve in high sec tend to be frigates. see the dev blog I linked.

So there is a case to be made that while all bounty isk infusion should be looked at, it is mission bounties and rewards that should get the closest look because at least null (and I'd guess WH an dlow sec) pve kills a good "weight" of ships'

Incursions and Null amons got nerfed because it allowed small groups of people to inject massive amounts of isk. Missions inject massive amounts of isk but is spread across more people so any "nerf" should not be as severe, but it should happen. I don't recommend a nerf, I recommend a different way to get paid that lessens the amount of isk piling into the game
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#619 - 2013-09-05 17:02:53 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
My argument is that the numbers you linked do not show me any substantiated reason to believe EVE's economy is in trouble or that there is too much money in the economy.

You're being taken on a spin. My advice is just to let him have the last word.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#620 - 2013-09-05 17:04:45 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
My argument is that the numbers you linked do not show me any substantiated reason to believe EVE's economy is in trouble or that there is too much money in the economy.
So you've gone back to the strawman argument again. Goodie.

So once again, what is your argument for drawing a different conclusion than there being an imbalance based on the available evidence?