These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#581 - 2013-09-05 15:35:36 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
You first.
I've never made any such claim, so there is nothing for me to prove.

You claim that you understand his position perfectly. Prove it. What is this “biased, factless, unproven outlook” is this, and when was he forced to back down from it?
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#582 - 2013-09-05 15:35:58 UTC
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.



That's funny. You don't claim to undertand his points perfectly but your first line of argument is to prove others don't either. If you yourself do not understand his arguments how can you discern whether someone else does?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#583 - 2013-09-05 15:36:50 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Can you please provide evidence an "imbalance" exists?

And while you're doing that define precisely what you mean by "imbalance".



You're childish.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#584 - 2013-09-05 15:37:01 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
You first.
I've never made any such claim, so there is nothing for me to prove.

You claim that you understand his position perfectly. Prove it. What is this “biased, factless, unproven outlook” is this, and when was he forced to back down from it?


His position is there is an "imbalance."
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#585 - 2013-09-05 15:37:27 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Can you please provide evidence an "imbalance" exists?

And while you're doing that define precisely what you mean by "imbalance".


Using stuff like that is ******** and always will be. Everybody will have it's own view of what is balanced or not because one of the largest factor in the equation is highly suggestive. That part is the risk. As long as people don't have a valid definition and evaluation of the risk difference in each security level, we will never really be able to prove an imbalance/balance. It's the status quo that will stay OR CCP will apply it's own version of RISK in the calculation and nerf/buff as needed. I herby congradulate all of you on making it to page X of the Yth useless thread because discussion the ratio is ******** until we find an actual value for the RISK variable in each sec system.

Hope you all had fun.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#586 - 2013-09-05 15:38:34 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Can you please provide evidence an "imbalance" exists?

And while you're doing that define precisely what you mean by "imbalance".


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3566594#post3566594

See how easy it is to post a link to what I really say about the matter?



Just pointing out how the Caliph guy is ignoring this post...
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#587 - 2013-09-05 15:39:00 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Can you please provide evidence an "imbalance" exists?

And while you're doing that define precisely what you mean by "imbalance".



You're childish.


Asking for evidence to support your claim is childish?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#588 - 2013-09-05 15:42:49 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Can you please provide evidence an "imbalance" exists?

And while you're doing that define precisely what you mean by "imbalance".



You're childish.


Asking for evidence to support your claim is childish?


Constantly repeating your own posts while ignoring posts with the information you asked for is childish, yes. Blaming others for your own faults is childish, yes.

You know you lost the argument, and like all like you, you think refusing to concede is the same as winning. I suggest you man up, but I know that's not likely with you, your type is to frail for that.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#589 - 2013-09-05 15:43:24 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
That's funny. You don't claim to undertand his points perfectly but your first line of argument is to prove others don't either.
No. My argument is that you haven't demonstrated any kind of understanding — much less a perfect one — and that you kept asking him to support an position he never took.

If you want to show that he did indeed take that position, then please do, but then you need to actually produce something to back that claim up.

Quote:
His position is there is an "imbalance."
So it is not actually the position you were asking him to defend.
Now, do you understand what this imbalance consists of? What makes you label his outlook as “biased, factless, and unproven”?
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#590 - 2013-09-05 15:46:10 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
... the simple fact that a single high population mission hub generates more wealth than all the high end moons combined.


Why is this a problem? You're comparing an income source that is meant to be tapped by alliances and large corporations (high end moons) to a source of income that is meant to be tapped by individuals (mission running). I don't feel this is a valid comparison.

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.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#591 - 2013-09-05 15:48:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Well Tippia just now he took a position of "there is an imbalance". So can we address with evidence "this imbalance"? Or do you feel the discussion be better served by pointing out that in your view I misunderstood what he said?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#592 - 2013-09-05 15:52:25 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
... the simple fact that a single high population mission hub generates more wealth than all the high end moons combined.


Why is this a problem? You're comparing an income source that is meant to be tapped by alliances and large corporations (high end moons) to a source of income that is meant to be tapped by individuals (mission running). I don't feel this is a valid comparison.


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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#593 - 2013-09-05 15:53:08 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Well Tippia just now he took a position of "there is an imbalance".
…and the evidence for it has been amply provided. It is also not the position you asked him to defend. This seems to suggest that you did not perfectly understand his position.

Quote:
So can we address with evidence "this imbalance"?
Good question. Can you?

Quote:
Or do you feel the discussion be better served by pointing out that in your view I misunderstood what he said?
I feel that you should get into the habit of proving your claims and not put words in other people's mouths.

So, do you understand what this imbalance consists of? What makes you label Jenn's outlook as “biased, factless, and unproven”?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#594 - 2013-09-05 15:54:21 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Well Tippia just now he took a position of "there is an imbalance". So can we address with evidence "this imbalance"? Or do you feel the discussion be better served by pointing out that in your view I misunderstood what he said?


aka "I'm losing the fight, better change the subject" forum tactic.

You did misunderstand, their is a bounty and mission rewards driven economic imbalance, and I've provided the information you asked for. You're just making yourself look foolish now.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#595 - 2013-09-05 15:58:47 UTC
Can we see the evidence that there is an imbalance?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#596 - 2013-09-05 16:00:19 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Can we see the evidence that there is an imbalance?

Yes. Read Jenn's posts (and mine, and Malc's) earlier in the thread.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#597 - 2013-09-05 16:11:42 UTC
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.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#598 - 2013-09-05 16:18:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Tippia wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Can we see the evidence that there is an imbalance?

Yes. Read Jenn's posts (and mine, and Malc's) earlier in the thread.


I read the posts and what I see is opinion being substituted as proof. Perhaps I missed where evidence was produced that shows what the "imbalance" is and how it's producing a negative effect.

I'll keep rereading though to be extra sure i'm not missing something.

So far this springs to mind.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#599 - 2013-09-05 16:25:49 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
I read the posts and what I see is opinion being substituted as proof.
No. You saw evidence-based reasoning offered up as arguments. That is, unless you judge CCP's statistics to be mere opinion, which would be… interesting to hear you explain.

Quote:
Perhaps I missed where evidence was produced that shows what the "imbalance" is and how it's producing a negative effect.
Yes. Try reading Jenn's (and mine and Malc's) posts.

Ignoring the evidence that CCP has provided just makes you look ignorant — it doesn't actually make the evidence go away. If you want to argue that this evidence does not actually lead to any kind of imbalance, then by all means, provide the argument and show why that is.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#600 - 2013-09-05 16:27:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
"Arguments" are not evidence and do not become "evidence based arguments" because you wish it so. Evidence based arguments have something tangible and clearly outlined, data sheets, reports, whatever have you, not opinion and gut feelings.

Link this CCP documented evidence that supports missions pay out to much and that this is detrimental to the economy, not CCP giving a post of what missions bring in and using it to imply it means something else.

If this evidence is available surely they must have the solution in preparation as we speak. Im curious as to why we need a thread to point it out to them.