These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

And you thought HI was too safe???? Welcome to Thunderdome™

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#381 - 2013-03-25 21:19:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Aha, you are looking at it personally.
No. I'm still looking at it at an alliance level, and at how many man-hours are required to maintain a given income level.

Quote:
I understand what passive means, and I am not confusing what it means. But I do know that while something is passive, and even works during downtime, it does in fact allow me the freedom to explore active sources of income as well.
…and there's no difference in that regard between the moon mining and the ice mining.

You're still operating under the belief that, just because moon mining is labelled “passive”, spending time to keep it up and running it will somehow leave you with more free time to pursue other activities than spending the same amount of time doing something else that earns you the same level of income.

Quote:
In short, if I'm in charge of a moon mining pos, I can still mine ice and make more money than the person who is only mining ice. Period.
…but to own that POS, you have to spend time on it — time you can't use to make more money than the ice-mining guy. Meanwhile, he spends that time to make the same money you do.

End result:

Alliance A requires N members to donate X amount of their time in order to earn Y ISK per month.
Alliance B requires N members to donate X amount of their time in order to earn Y ISK per month.
Members of alliance A can spend the rest of their time to earn more ISK for themselves or the alliance.
Members of alliance B can spend the rest of their time to earn more ISK for themselves or the alliance.

You are essentially claiming that the difference between these two cases is so huge that you can't compare them and that doing one is not competitive compared to the other.


But that's simply not true. You have to actively be logged in, as an ice miner, all the time you are making that isk. You simply cannot gain ice while offline. In order to make the same amount of isk as an ice miner, you need to be logged in for over 500 hours a month, as 1 person. You said that is only on an alliance level... so ok. Per alliance member (we will use your 250 people at 2 hrs per month) you are logged in, mining ice. You might have a defensive op for that pos at what, once a week? once a month? at around 2 hrs per op, right? or would it take 4?

So.... to use 4 hours per op, 4 ops a month, 250 members are dedicated to protecting that pos and are not allowed to move from there to do anything else (I'll ignore secondary accounts and multiboxing since that's immaterial), and you are saying that in order to match that with 250 ice miners, they all need to mine ice for only 2 hours a month each right?

What if they also donated their "not protecting the pos" time to mine ice? That would be exponentially more right?

So... obviously, not everyone mines ice, obviously not everyone wants to mine ice. But, they can when they are not on defensive duty right? Something tells me the picture you are trying to paint isn't that easy.

Now I get that the argument could stand that they could be mining alot more often and make tons more money, but then that would be a redundancy since alliance level activities are trying their hardest to get sov working, and/or own that sov, and want the tech moons, even to a level that there is a cartel specifically for that reason.

A cartel.

I don't see many alliances complaining about being forced to mine, which would have been the case I think had you been right in level of "competitiveness".

But we have a cartel to govern the prices of tech, for the production of specific ships.

I don't think you are treating moongoo with the respect that it deserves given the level of metagame activity based on it. Or you are giving ice mining way too much credit.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#382 - 2013-03-25 21:21:20 UTC
Has this devolved into bored nullsec gankers complaining about miners in high sec yet?

Just thought I'd pop in and check.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#383 - 2013-03-25 21:35:21 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
[But that's simply not true. You have to actively be logged in, as an ice miner, all the time you are making that isk.
…and you have to actively be logged in, as the moon miner, or you won't make that ISK either. Sure, the POS will be collecting goo all some of that time, but you won't be make a cent from it.

Quote:
So.... to use 4 hours per op, 4 ops a month, 250 members are dedicated to protecting that pos and are not allowed to move from there to do anything else (I'll ignore secondary accounts and multiboxing since that's immaterial), and you are saying that in order to match that with 250 ice miners, they all need to mine ice for only 2 hours a month each right?
Actually, at that point, the ice miners are already waaay ahead in the income department.

The moon miners have already spent 4,000 man-hours to earn their 5bn; the ice miners have only spent 500 to earn theirs…

Quote:
What if they also donated their "not protecting the pos" time to mine ice? That would be exponentially more right?
Not exponentially, no. They'd earn as much during their not-protecting-the-POS time as the ice miners would earn during their not-mining-ice time. If either party decides to put in extra effort to earn more for the alliance, the other party can do the same.

Quote:
I don't see many alliances complaining about being forced to mine, which would have been the case I think had you been right in level of "competitiveness".
How many do you see that complain how they can't possible compete with tech moons, when history has shown on numerous occasions that you can actually do that just fine…?

Quote:
But we have a cartel to govern the prices of tech, for the production of specific ships.
Of course. If they can put an upwards pressure on price to make their effort worth more, without instantly losing all their sales to competitors, why on earth wouldn't they? That is just a matter of economic sense and doesn't really say anything about how well other income sources can compete with that kind of income.
Takseen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#384 - 2013-03-25 21:37:54 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Has this devolved into bored nullsec gankers complaining about miners in high sec yet?

Just thought I'd pop in and check.


Perhaps TiDi has slowed down the epic Thunderdome battle so much that they can make forum posts inbetween gun cycles?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#385 - 2013-03-25 21:38:52 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Murk Paradox wrote:
But that's simply not true. You have to actively be logged in, as an ice miner, all the time you are making that isk. You simply cannot gain ice while offline. In order to make the same amount of isk as an ice miner, you need to be logged in for over 500 hours a month, as 1 person. You said that is only on an alliance level... so ok. Per alliance member (we will use your 250 people at 2 hrs per month) you are logged in, mining ice. You might have a defensive op for that pos at what, once a week? once a month? at around 2 hrs per op, right? or would it take 4?

So.... to use 4 hours per op, 4 ops a month, 250 members are dedicated to protecting that pos and are not allowed to move from there to do anything else (I'll ignore secondary accounts and multiboxing since that's immaterial), and you are saying that in order to match that with 250 ice miners, they all need to mine ice for only 2 hours a month each right?


Yes. 250 Ice Miners for 2 hrs a month is 500 hrs of Ice Mining, earning the alliance about 5b.
And, to use your assumptions:
250 People on 4 defense ops per month, each lasting 4 hours, is 4,000 hrs of defensive operations, earning the alliance about 5b.

500 pilot-hours is less than 4,000 pilot-hours, and the income that each grants the alliance is the same.

Quote:
What if they also donated their "not protecting the pos" time to mine ice? That would be exponentially more right?


So could the Ice mining tribe. In fact, using your assumptions, the Ice mining tribe has more time left available after their 2hrs/month compete-with-tech contribution to make money than the Tech moon tribe does after their 16 hours of defend-Tech.

Quote:
I don't see many alliances complaining about being forced to mine, which would have been the case I think had you been right in level of "competitiveness".


What do you think "rent" is?

Quote:
But we have a cartel to govern the prices of tech, for the production of specific ships.

I don't think you are treating moongoo with the respect that it deserves given the level of metagame activity based on it. Or you are giving ice mining way too much credit.


Not really. The cartel's ability to set monopolistic prices has been largely (if not entirely) broken by the introduction of PT Alchemy. That's why Tech moons are worth 5b a month (@75k/unit) each and no longer worth 13.5b a month (@200k/unit) each. All that's really left of OTEC is a defensive pact.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#386 - 2013-03-25 21:54:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Quote:
I don't see many alliances complaining about being forced to mine, which would have been the case I think had you been right in level of "competitiveness".
How many do you see that complain how they can't possible compete with tech moons, when history has shown on numerous occasions that you can actually do that just fine…?

Quote:
But we have a cartel to govern the prices of tech, for the production of specific ships.
Of course. If they can put an upwards pressure on price to make their effort worth more, without instantly losing all their sales to competitors, why on earth wouldn't they? That is just a matter of economic sense and doesn't really say anything about how well other income sources can compete with that kind of income.[/quote]


Atleast 1.

So what's the #1 source of alliance income then? Why would a cartel even bother being a cartel, helping to govern and use economic sense when timewise you could, with the right numbers (which most alliances have) just strip everything on a daily basis, even using escort fleets to encourage safety? You can see quite simply how many threads there are (realistic or not in their accuracy) about the misnomers of tech income. You can also see a huge number of sov/null arguments about blue donuts and all that.

If mining was really as lucrative as you make it out to be, that would be the simplest largest conflict driver into non-sov bashing fights in Eve's history since belts grow and reset and change daily. You wouldn't need to see Thunderdomes. Null would be EXTREMELY active with mining, and pvp.

No. We see all the crying about highsec industry instead, while all those empty systems we pass through travelling on a roam, full of ore and ice, just sitting there.

If you could make that much money, even for 1 week, by mining ore and ice, it would stand to reason you could effectively crash highsecs industry and market profitability in the following week by flooding all those materials and just dominating the game.

Screw highsec's mining. Take NO's Knights' game 1 step further. Screw bumping and ganking freighters. Grab 200 pilots and mine 20 belts dry, use that capital to fit 2 million gank ships and just strip highsec's belts out (in 1 region).

Turn highsec upside down.

Make Burn Jita look like a passing car accident. That would get CCP's attention. Nevermind worrying about passive or active incomes.

But no.... diplomacy and politics and moongoo right? Way more important. Hell, if the people that be decided, they could force someone to do it with threat of ejection. Mittani's post about trimming the fact from Test could be a springboard.

But we know it isn't that easy. We know it's simply "take 500 mackinaws and mine ice" to be the same as moongoo mining and all the hub bub of null =P.

EDIT- I screwed up the quotes and can't be bothered to fix them; getting off work. Sorry.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#387 - 2013-03-25 21:57:22 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Quote:
I don't see many alliances complaining about being forced to mine, which would have been the case I think had you been right in level of "competitiveness".


What do you think "rent" is?




I dunno, the money you pay that you get from anomalies?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#388 - 2013-03-25 22:11:24 UTC
How many pages has it been two people arguing with each other?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#389 - 2013-03-25 22:15:01 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Quote:
I don't see many alliances complaining about being forced to mine, which would have been the case I think had you been right in level of "competitiveness".


What do you think "rent" is?




I dunno, the money you pay that you get from anomalies?


You're pretty dense, huh?

I never said that Ice mining was the only way to compete with Tech income. There are tons of others that do so with a lot less time invested. Ice mining is just handy because it's infinitely extensible and has an income per hour that's roughly the same as a Tech moon.

Rent is a way to harness a bunch of people (aka Renters) to produce income for the alliance. Tech is a way to harness a bunch of people (aka Offensive/Defensive fleets) to produce income for the alliance.

Nobody in the landlord alliance cares how you make the ISK to pay your rent.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
#390 - 2013-03-25 22:18:22 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
How many pages has it been two people arguing with each other?


too many Ugh

wumbo
Tesal
#391 - 2013-03-25 22:27:45 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
How many pages has it been two people arguing with each other?


Its important to rehash everything that's already been said so people live it over and over and over and over. If you repeat stuff enough times it becomes true. That's how the forums work. Right now we are lead to believe that ice mining = tech moons.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#392 - 2013-03-25 23:17:56 UTC
Tesal wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
How many pages has it been two people arguing with each other?


Its important to rehash everything that's already been said so people live it over and over and over and over. If you repeat stuff enough times it becomes true. That's how the forums work. Right now we are lead to believe that ice mining = tech moons.


Sure. If you don't actually read the posts that you think are leading you to believe that.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#393 - 2013-03-26 04:41:35 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Tesal wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
How many pages has it been two people arguing with each other?


Its important to rehash everything that's already been said so people live it over and over and over and over. If you repeat stuff enough times it becomes true. That's how the forums work. Right now we are lead to believe that ice mining = tech moons.


Sure. If you don't actually read the posts that you think are leading you to believe that.


To you and Tippia:

I understand what you're saying about the 250 players having to defend the moon goo pos. I do. But you still can't say it equates to ice mining and being competitive. It's not, not until you want to analyze opportunity costs, the number moon goo pos's in a select alliance, how many times they have to defend those pos's and sov, plus all the additional income they generate doing other things. Only then will you be able to compare the two. I'm done with this discussion. You will not accept it because you don't want to accept it because just below the surface you know it to be true and to be a source of income that far exceeds anything else in the game as a 23/7/30 passive income stream. You know this, I know this, the reader know this. Anyone who reads this thread and the points I've outlined ad nauseam will know this.

Don't ban me, bro!
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#394 - 2013-03-26 05:24:31 UTC
"They're not the same!"
"Well no, but you can demonstrate how moon mining requires more effort and collaboration on the part of more players in order to achieve the same net income as a much smaller collaboration with much less effort when ice mining."
"BUT THEY'RE NOT THE SAME YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE TWO"

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#395 - 2013-03-26 05:39:45 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
How many pages has it been two people arguing with each other?

not enough yet obviously P
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Fey Ivory
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#396 - 2013-03-26 05:52:42 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Acac Sunflyier wrote:
It's hard when you're not big. Some of the null people who are talking about how hard things are aren't goonswarm. the small businesses of eve do fail within a year.


You basically have to be sponsored by a large, well funded alliance to survive in nullsec these days. Or rent from one of them. A TMC guy pointed this out not long ago but all the highsec people shot him down because "Abloobloobloo Tech moons". Even those of us whose alliances are space rich (for the most part) realise the bad state that nullsec is in & would like to see it fixed.

CCP made a crappy sov system then made it worse by not listening to the playerbase, but we'd be stupid to not take advantage of it while it's still available. It was the same deal with highsec incursion payouts. It was far too profitable, but we still took advantage of it. DarthNefarius likes to overlook that.


Everything comes down to choise, ibet most would reason like this... on the other hand, if you really cared and wanted a change forced, the big owners off null could simply say, no one gets any goo, we control it, nothing gets out and nothing will be built... thats also a choise that dont abuse the game and will ripple through all layers of EVE and point to things on a bigger scale... taking advantage of it, only lets something that should been fixed to stay alive longer then it should... choises, responsibility
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#397 - 2013-03-26 07:55:25 UTC
Well I gues we'll be seeing on June 4th if Odyssey addresses the near monopoly TECH bottleneck or they cave in to the big blue doughnut & address it Soon™ 
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#398 - 2013-03-26 08:17:06 UTC
Takseen wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Has this devolved into bored nullsec gankers complaining about miners in high sec yet?

Just thought I'd pop in and check.


Perhaps TiDi has slowed down the epic Thunderdome battle so much that they can make forum posts inbetween gun cycles?


What makes you believe they ever log in and activate a gun?

Forum PvP, THAT's the 250 man hours a month activity they love so much. Blink

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#399 - 2013-03-26 10:20:34 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
To you and Tippia:

I understand what you're saying about the 250 players having to defend the moon goo pos. I do. But you still can't say it equates to ice mining and being competitive. It's not, not until you want to analyze opportunity costs, the number moon goo pos's in a select alliance, how many times they have to defend those pos's and sov, plus all the additional income they generate doing other things. Only then will you be able to compare the two. I'm done with this discussion. You will not accept it because you don't want to accept it because just below the surface you know it to be true and to be a source of income that far exceeds anything else in the game as a 23/7/30 passive income stream. You know this, I know this, the reader know this. Anyone who reads this thread and the points I've outlined ad nauseam will know this.


Is the income from holding Stocks competitive with the Income from holding Bonds?

They're not comparable, clearly, because holding stocks incurs risks and obligations far different from the risks and obligations incurred by holding bonds; for instance, stocks represent holding an equity stake in the company while bonds just represent a lien on the company's assets. Another example: Stocks come with risks

I would say that the income from those sources is still Competitive.

Similarly, the income from other sources (example used was Ice mining, but you can sub in any income that can make use of large numbers of characters) can be competitive with income from Tech moons, even if it's not easily comparable.

There are about 500 Tech Moons in the game. Assuming Goonswarm holds all of them (they don't), that's an income of 2.5T ISK/month divided by their membership of 9884 for 253 mil per month per member.

To compete with [this vast overestimation of] Goonswarm's income, all you need to do is to get a similar number of people to contribute 253m/month. Whether they earn that Mining, Mission running, whatever, doesn't matter. That's all you need to have your alliance income be competitive with the sum of all the Tech income in the game. Mining, that's an hour per night, Mission running would be 5 hours per month, and neither would significantly affect your alliance's ability to be combat ready (as both activities can easily be interrupted without consequence).

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#400 - 2013-03-26 10:57:07 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Well I gues we'll be seeing on June 4th if Odyssey addresses the near monopoly TECH bottleneck or they cave in to the big blue doughnut & address it Soon™


We have yet to find someone in favor of keeping tech as it is right now.