EVE General Discussion

passive and offline income does not equal active online income

apples and oranges

Just wondering as I am quite new to EVE.

Who held those regions in the North-west (which is where most moons are located, from what I understand) when tech-moons were introduced to EVE? Has it always been Goons or did someone else hold the space at the time? How long ago were tech-moons added?

Especially when taken into account how many people can mine while their pos is hard at work.

Comparing the mack to the pos is going to make the miner lose because the person who owns the pos can do more than 1 thing with that 1 pilot. The mack pilot can only mine while he is mining. Regardless of whether he is afk or not.

That pos owner can be doing missions, defending that pos, mine, be on an alt, whatever.

I don't see how that has anything to do with the topic at hand, namely Frying's claim that nobody can compete with the income from Tech moons. Which claim has been shown to be false.

I just gathered that the fact of it being a passive income makes it very powerful as an income stream. When you take into account that active income gaining CAN be comparable, it in fact cannot be comparable when that passive in come stream can be added to the same wallet as an active income stream.

That's where the inbalance comes from. If you want to compare active mining (active? hah!) to passive tech moon PI, then the comparison has to match. Apples to apples, oranges to oranges and all that.

When you can make half as much NOT logging in but twice a week versus a miner who has to mine 4 hours a day 5-7 days a week.... there's a bit of comparitive disparity.

So passively, nothing CAN compete with tech moon mining, which makes his statement true. Because when you look at the time it takes from player interaction and "work" (work? hah again with bot aspirant behavior but i digress), moon mining has a way higher rate than mining. ALOT more.

Or we can try to put it into an "equal" formula... Tippia I think, raised the isk per hour ratio, or maybe you did I'm unsure; moot point anyways, because it's not a ratio of activity equally applied.

Basically, in order to compete with someone who logs in for roughly 2 hours a week to maintain the PI facility, I have to mine for what, 20? 28? per week to compete (ore/ice) financially?

So to top that off, that person who is in control of the PI facility, can ALSO mine that same # of hours. That kind of makes the example.... invalid.

That seems like you're word twisting the situation to compare a tank fit mack versus a yield fit mack. It might be my comprehension skills, or lack thereof, but I still do not see how you can equate passive versus active in regards to income streams.

What if that undefended pos was NOT attacked? Would that change your argument? You are using the term "known-to-be" which just seems a bit too one sided to honestly reply to =)

Because what if that pos did not need to be defended? How much we talkin then?

Oh, and nothin is saying I can't find a remote npc null ice belt to mine in without having to depend on concord either. Just to keep things simple of course.

Sounds like you're trying to quantify the overall effort of all the players in an alliance in defending a moon mining operation. This is similar to the type of work I'm in. And in comparison of value of one activity versus another certain assumptions are made while ignoring unquantifiable data even while knowing that data would otherwise influence value. If you can't quantify it, you can't use it. In the end of such an analysis everything does equate because it's assumed such data being true for one item and not being true for another cannot be quantified when no other comparative evidence is available. Such analysis are imperfect. As one making such an analysis it is up to that person to adequately explain the differences, what was done to try to quantify those differences, why those differences were not considered and finally why the analysis is as accurate as possible in light of such differences. With that said.....

All you really need to do is compare amount of income minus investment (infrastructure) to acquire the resource minus a value given to a player's time and you can come to some comparative numbers. Now, what you consider investment is up to you but you can't just say player A invests a mackinaw and player B is investing an entire alliance. If you do, then you can't really compare the two since they're sufficiently different to be considered completely separate activities that have no quantifiable comparison. It would be like me comparing the value of a cruise ship for a corporation to a bicycle for an individual. Sure you could do it, but it won't exactly have anything meaningful in the analysis.

If I were going to go through the hassle of comparing moon mining to ice mining I would leave the analysis considering only the income from the activities minus time required for the individual player to acquire those resources. Everything else, I'm not comparing since there is no comparison.

An AFK, Tank fit Mack earns more per hour than a Tech Moon.



Then find me a Tech moon owned by someone unable to defend it, or an empty one to indicate that that situation is even remotely reasonable.

It does, so your hypothetical is not relevant.



Ok. How long can you mine there safely once you're known to be there alone?

I do not know how long ago they were introduced, but prior to CFC (goons and allies) controlling the north there was the northern coalition which controlled the tech flow.

The topic is whether active income can compete with less active income. Not whether it can replicate it.