EVE General Discussion

Tippia,

Coincidentally, you've posted on this very thread that missions carry ZERO risk while claiming in another thread (and in defense of suicide ganking) that there is no such thing as ZERO risk. Could you explain how this is not contradictory? I'm trying to understand your logic.

The disruption can be just as momentary as it applies to mega alliances. Also, your issue seems to be on the level of large alliances using mission running as a form to make isk in large scales. But could you show actual data indicating that not only this is indeed the case, but that it is hurting the economy as well? In other words, what problem is it you are trying to solve?

Of course it isn't. That's because you're trying to compare a source of income meant to be tapped by the community in general (mission running) to a source of income meant to be tapped by organizations (RXX moons). Apples and oranges. Not only are you trying to compare them, but you think regulating them by the same mechanics and standards used to regulate mechanics meant for alliance gameplay is a good idea. It simply isn't going to work. Of course, you will not only claim it is fact that it will work, but that it is fact that is the way it should be.


Yeah, no. That is not what you said in that specific post. Good try though. Here, allow me to help you remember what it is you said exactly:


From here. You said "nothing ever has probability of 1 (or 0)", as in absolute. So to say something has ZERO risk is quite the stretch, to say the least.


From here. Pretty clear what you're saying here as well.

On the one hand you come in the defense of suicide ganking claiming there is no such thing as zero risk. Yet, on the thread against mission running, you claim EXACTLY that. So, the million isk question is: What post is it you're lying in?

You're right, it should be

Level 1 mission... 2 million per hour.

Level 2 mission... 4 million per hour.

Level 3 mission... 8 million per hour.

Level 4 Mission... 10 million per hour

Yes it can. If an alliance chooses to have its timers consistently re-enforced due to its own negligence or simply because it has so much territory it couldn't possibly defend it all, well, that sounds like a self-inflicted wound and should not be used in any way to compare on how things should work. No such timers should have to exist in hi sec that emulate null sec behavior. There is no reason for this. Unless of course, as I have pointed out, you can show the problem it is you are trying to fix. Emulation of null sec behavior is neither a problem or a solution to hi sec.


You explicitly said level 4's have zero risk. And yes, you threw in the stipulation "the only way to create some [risk] is to have no tank at all". And you are being disingenuous. You can lose your ship for numerous reasons while doing level 4's. Now if you're going to claim that there is ZERO risk in level 4 missions unless you forget to do "X" or "Y", then be prepared to defend against a ZERO risk stance for everything else in Eve. At that point nothing in Eve carries risk... unless you [forget to] do "X" or "Y".


So then I'll ask you what in Eve carries risk unless you [forget to] do "X" or "Y"? The answer is nothing. So this argument in support of nerfing missions is silly.


This is simply not true. There are numerous ways to lose your ship while running level 4 missions, and I have to say that you yourself have willfully ignored some of the risks involved.

Listen to yourself. Your own words (above): If you fit your ship properly "you have no chance of losing your ship". That simply is NOT true and dishonest.

But let us assume for a brief moment that what you are saying is fact and true and indeed the only way to lose a ship in a level 4 mission is if you didn't fit a proper tank and that's it. I'm curious in seeing what tank is it that can protect you against triggering an entire room (with warp disrupting frigs) and that still allows you to make the numbers in isk that some claim in this thread. Because I'm inclined to believe that fitting for efficient isk farming to claim these numbers (which you should agree carries risk by your own definition) is quite different than fitting for tank, in which case your per hour rate should be lower. Could you share it so I can take a closer look?

Also, as I mentioned above, I am the owner of a few non-RXX moons (they produce no valuable moon materials) and I net billions per month by simply logging in a few minutes a week. In fact, once it hit me that the income from these moons is significantly more than what I can make by dedicating my time to level 4's I stopped running missions for profit, and rather do it just for fun now when I have some time. But you are down-playing the value of RXX moons! Tens of times more valuable than my own moons! This would boggle my mind if I didn't think you were being dishonest here as well.

I like Tippia's posts. My favorite poster actually. He doesn't give up his position easily but in all fairness seldom is he wrong. I like your posts as well VV. You have a very honest demeanor. Matrix has impressed me as well. Really putting the screws to Tippia's arguments is refreshing. Not because Tippia isn't a joy to read but because it's nice to see someone capable of holding their own go on the aggressive against such an intellect.

My point VV is it's a game at the end of the day and well, just remember none of this is that serious.

Ill take 15 pages of nuanced Tippia wordcraft over most of the rest any day of the week.

Yes. Again, if said alliance chooses to allow its POSes to consistently be put into re-enforcement time after time after time again then it sounds like serious alliance incompetence to me and it will need to re-evaluate its territorial control and what it's doing with its resources. But this is NOT a hi sec problem nor should hi sec have to emulate this behavior with its stations. I'm sorry, but that is just silly.

Your issue with the inability to track and stalk NPC alts is just that, an issue with NPC alts. Changing the way mission running works to affect everyone in hi sec alike simply because you take up issue with how NPC alts work sounds to me like nuking your home because you think you have a termite problem; nevermind that you have yet to show in a verifiable way that NPC alts running missions in hi sec is indeed a problem in need of fixing.


Ah! Finally We're making progress :).


I'm curious, is human error not an "unavoidable unlimited random element"? Could you give some examples on what you consider to be "unavoidable unlimited random element"? Caution on how you answer this because I have a follow-up question :).


You're finally (some what) coming clean. But what I really wanted to see was the "magic bullet" fitting that you claim can protect you, say from an all-out room agro from any of the tougher missions and compare how it fares in making that crazy insanely amount of isk that is being thrown around here. In any case, this is now moot, because you've admitted that "risk does indeed come creeping in" and that the isk per hour is lowered. So you've essentially closed the door you had initially left open behind you with your original claim.


I can't speak on what E-2 claimed because, shamefully and admittedly, I haven't read all posts on this thread. What I can say, as a moon owner, I have made multiple times more from my moons than I ever made running missions. My time has always been better spent maintaining my moons. I still run missions for fun when I get around to them, but profit is not my goal with them.

The moral of the story is there are way more lucrative ways to make isk in Eve. MIssion running has its perks. It is a safer way to make isk. But it is not the way to make the isk. Nor is it absolutely safe and without risks.

…except that it's enforced by game mechanics, not player choice. So still no: one is mechanically enforced; the other is not. One can be avoided; the other can not. The only edge case is if the POS owner does not fuel it up, in which case it's still not momentary, but permanent.

If by “progress” you mean staying exactly where we've been all along, yes.

No. Human error is neither a random element, nor unavoidable (and definitely not unlimited). The loot fairy, on the other hand, is.

Finally? You haven't been paying attention have you. This is what has been said all along. Maybe you should go back and real all posts…

…and the point is still that no, moon goo is not the unassailable resource people like to claim. E-2 brought it up because he felt this was a good counter-argument to missions providing too much income, and everything down this path ever since has been a demonstration that, no, it really isn't, especially not compared to L4s. All you're doing is showing that there are things that pay better than L4s, and that's no surprise, but it also only further supports the argument that, no, moon goo isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

Except that players do have a choice in re-enforcing or avoiding re-enforcement of such a timer. You keep repeating yourself as if repetition will make you right or win the argument. I can't do this. I'm letting this rest.


No, I mean progress as in you do what you do best by moving the goalposts around, except that this time you've actually moved it to a location that makes sense! Thus, progress!

So with this definition in mind, I'm curious in knowing what it is you consider high risk professions in Eve which preclude events generated by human error.


Ouch. And no, that is not what you have been saying all along. The problem with debating with you is that you rely on highly biased and opinionated myths which you then wrap with paper labeled all over as "fact" and "true". And when you're called out on it, as you have here, then you simply pick up your goalposts, move them around and convolute your responses until they no longer make sense. You get lost in the forest, but are so proud and stubborn that you rather continue walking in deeper to prove that you're right. It's why you always have to have the last word. But your agenda is still crystal clear :P.


And you keep mentioning E-2 like he's relevant here and the cause of this debate, when in fact, since page one of this thread you came out swinging against mission running. You went as far as to say that:

"Yes, L4s are far better — especially for the individual — since a single person can trivially produce the same income as a single moon."

(from here)

This of course, I've shown you is false and a very dishonest reponse. But your argument now is that they [high prized moons] are not the source that E-2 makes them out to be. Which is fine, I agree (if it's true). Nonetheless, you should realize (but you won't) that you are moving the goalposts around again. What makes debating with you difficult is this dishonesty. Not that you're presenting "facts" and "truths".

Coincidentally,

What usually discredits these threads is the technique used in trying to gain the attention and support for them. Obviously there are heavily opinionated players that want to see hi sec nerfed (usually for self-serving purposes). But the way they go about it is by flinging as much **** to the wall and hope that something sticks. I realize this is why there is so much goalpost moving going around. There necessarily needs to be to keep the thread in motion! It has to continue going around in circles to stay alive. But at the same time it's what ends up discrediting them rather quickly.

Reinforcing = mechanically enforced disruption. Not reinforcing = permanent disruption. And yes, given the speed with which this can happen, the defenders have little to say in the matter (which is why the reinforcement timer exists to begin with).

…if by moving the goalposts you mean staying exactly where I've been all along, yes.

Ganking comes to mind.

Sure it is. You just haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying or what I've been responding to, and instead built up this fantasy world where you imagine a position that I'm holding and then proceed to argue that when it doesn't match up with reality, I've changed my mind. The fact that risk is introduced at the high end of earning was never in question. In fact, I said as much myself on page one. This does not change the fact that L4s offer zero risk unless you don't fit a proper tank. The fact is also that you can make ridiculous amounts of ISK while still being comfortably in that zero-risk zone.

If you want to suggest that I've moved the goalposts, cough up some proof or stop lying.

…because you picked up a thread he started and tried to provide counters to the arguments I made in opposition to his uninformed nonsense. So he's very much relevant here because his unsupported claims are still what's being discussed.

"Yes, L4s are far better — especially for the individual — since a single person can trivially produce the same income as a single moon" is a a true and entirely honest response to his nonsensical claim that moon goo offer a better source of income than L4s. This has been proven on numerous occasions in this and other threads — hell, you even provided proof for it yourself. If you have any data to prove otherwise (thus contradicting your previous statement), please present it because you certainly haven't so far. Otherwise, stop lying.

Yes I agree, being born into a family with great wealth is quite the hardship.

I'm also failry sure you were implying levels 4s should net 16m not 60m.

Upon a second read maybe you were leaning towards buffing the lowers, but what's more likely to happen? Increasing a day 1 players income into the hundreds of millions or reducing the more advanced players mission net from 60m to 16m? Level 1s require but a fraction of the time required to complete a 4.