EVE General Discussion

I haven't made any claims about any hulls, you have, yet whenever I ask you back up your claims you cant, it's all hyperbole from you, if I was you i'd stop posting as you are making yourself look like an idiot.

The published data is the best CCP has to offer.

If you don't trust CCP, then that's really your problem and not something we can do anything about. By the way, they have kept providing data after the QENs — you just choose not to stay up to date for some reason.

Why don't you trust CCP?

it's just as worthless as you claim my study is. you know the one that didn't fit your world view, as in principle it's no different.

I've never refused to go anywhere, all I'm questioning is your unfounded belief that the ships and mods forum somehow is the presentation of a statistic we can measure.

Well then lets look at our goonwiki on these ships then.

Raven

The Caldari missile battleship. Most likely the most common battleship in the game. Less useful in fleet ops than the other races' battleships due to the travel time of missiles, unless the Raven is in close proximity to its targets. For mission running and PvE, the Raven is the best Tech 1 battleship in the game thanks to being able to devote its entire mid rack to a shield tank and deal bonused damage of any type across considerable range.

Navy Raven

The beloved ride of stupid ******* empire mission runners everywhere and the most common faction battleship in the game by a ridiculous amount. Costs about 450m in empire as of 6/24/12. Often referred to as a "Caldari Navy Raven" or CNR.

Again this is observation, not a statistic, it doesn't confirm that everyone uses one of these when mission running, only that it's the goons observation that they are common. It's hardly a reliable base from which draw conclusions.

No. Missions are fine.

This is basically like saying, a peasant is not allowed to own a single cow, he must only own a single chicken.

You're making the poor poorer.

I have done none of the above, you however have. My study whilst short is reproducible, because anyone can run a series of back to back missions and record the results themselves, I posted the isk earned, the salvage earned, the loyalty points earned and the mission running times (summarised for brevity) and is no different in method to the study you linked .

I suggest you run a couple of missions and delight us with your findings, also as far as I am aware the only stats you've provided that have been generated by CCP is the shopping list of how much money is paid into the eve economy by faucets and how much is lost in sinks. Unfortunately it fails to break down the bounty payments and mission rewards into distinct categories as to the mission Level or where the missions originated in high or low sec. Hence it's reliable as it's CCP produced the stats, but not detailed enough for our needs.

However your repeated attempts at building those stats into something that they are not, has repeatedly discredited any semblance of dignity or authority on this subject you may have once had.

That's kind of the problem, you know… you didn't present any data that was open to useful study because you skipped all the steps that would have made it such.

…aside from not explaining what ships you used, what missions you ran, how much you earned from them from the different reward categories, or what you were trying to represent. All of it making it impossible to reproduce for comparison or validation.

…and the activity and population statistics, and Jenn has provided the ship loss statistics, and updated faucet/sink stats. I don't fly missions any more, and even when I did, I didn't fly high-end ships so any data I collected would be pretty useless as it offered little in the way of representativeness. If it's any help, I'll point you back to my posts from 2008 where I earned an easy 15M/h in a T1-blaster Myrmidon.

15mill/h in a t1 blasterfit Myrm lol. How is that even related to the claim of 60mill per hour or that L4 mission runners are earning too much in high sec. The trouble is that you are trying to defend the indefensible and that's just sad.