I dont care how you make the isk… its the cost of the plex that is the matter if issue. The lv 3 lv 4 missions are greatly undervalued as well imo… should be raised significatly.
That’s not how people work, though. Being technically correct doesn’t help .
There are plenty of general rules which would be confirmed by exceptions. This has nothing to do with rules in the sense of allowing, prohibiting people from doing things.
The saying is about things being done by many, with those who aren’t doing it agreeing with it, despite being unwilling or unable to do it. It’s not about logic, it’s about being able to talk about things being done in general.
So, while you’re technically correct, you’re not talking about the same thing.
1 Like
I’d say basic income should be anything an alpha can do reasonably well. Which is certainly out of HS.
I’d havent cracked the C-6yet. Because I have no pve combat experience to know what or how to take on C6 hostile. Those may be fantastically out of scope of an Alpha. Or maybe theres a trick to do them that an Alpha can pull off…
This is irrelevant. Unfortunately economic laws will continue to drive Plex costs because Eve is all about somewhat of a player market economy.
Bringing basic income to parity with end-game income will drive plex prices higher because the demand will be met with inflation in income.
The ONLY solution that makes sense for your objective is to reduce demand by eliminating a class of demand…say botters.
Increased income with Demand curves the same drives inflation
I thought maybe this will gets someone with better skills or understanding a good start if you are interested in mapping anything out.
High Sec
missions
lv 1
lv 2
lv 3
lv 4
ratting
belts
anoms
Low Sec
missions
lv 1
lv 2
lv 3
lv 4
lv 5
ratting
belts
anoms
Null Sec
missions
lv 1
lv 2
lv 3
lv 4
lv 5
ratting
belts
anoms
Wormhole
ratting
anoms
c1
c2
c3 - 43 mil avg per site
c4 - 85 mil avg per site
c5
c6
no. Those general rules are invalidated by exceptions. An exception to an observed natural rule makes this rule FALSE. Theories are based on observed natural rule and create relations between events. If the natural rules the theories are based on find exceptions, those theories become as wrong as the natural rule (from false, you can prove anything).
Theories are much more than rules. A theory can be invalidated without the underlying observations finding exceptions.
No it’s a bout laws. That’s why you misuse it.
Yes you are talking crap. Making a saying say something it does not say.
A general rule is an inference of how a system works. It becomes invalidated as soon as the exceptions become noticeable and thus, must take them into account.
The guy said “general rule is more value in non-isk assets”. In THREE cases out of four of “high end” content, this is completely wrong.
Those three exceptions don’t make it a rule. It’s just completely dumb.
You really need to work on your social skills…
It’s a saying, not a science.
I’m not going on with this any further, as it’s off topic anyway.
I’ve tried, though.
1 Like
yes it is LAW science.
Yes, but it’s of no use when people don’t talk in LAW science. 
Oh whatever. 
1 Like
Indeed, so you should not bring it at all in the first place.
It makes no sense to use a saying specifically true in the context of law science, out of law science.
Your affirmation based on this saying was wrong, becasue you…
…
MISUSED this saying.
I think y’all need to focus on the fact that the objective is to make Plex more accessible and it cant be done by increasing base wages.
“The exception proves the rule” is a modern mistranslation of the first part of a latin legal phrase (exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, where the modern misunderstanding comes from misinterpreting the second word).
There are no rules that are confirmed by exceptions (using the current meaning of “confirmed” in this context) - but exceptions, if integrated into the rule, do not disprove the rule.
Using the modern mistranslation as if it was true is a sure sign of someone who can’t think straight.
For such people, the best translation is something like this: “If an exception to a rule exists, the rule must also exist” - hence the standard “no parking sign” example.
…
…
It would certainly be interesting to know what someone in a battleship can earn in highSec L4s, but the wild variation in this thread suggests that the usual EVE spin is being applied to the numbers.
I’ve always found that the amount that most EVE players base their numbers on their very best day ever at the activity in question while using a wildly over-powered ship. The they ignore preparation time, travel time, and the time it takes to covert loot into ISK.
Halving the consensus earning rate after the in-topic fighting dies down usually provides a good estimate a good estimate.
Depends on a lot of parameter.
Let’s take the mission “dread pirate scarlet”. You can warp in a fast BS, kill scarlett twice, loot the implant, and dock back in something like 5 min in a 1jump system. including one minute to drop the item, complete mission, etc. Killing it twice this way brings 10M in bounty, plus the implant(8M worth), plus the reward(3M), plus the LPs(8M). total is 37M for let’s say 6min, so 370M/h for this specific mission.
You also can take your whole time killing everything. But then people will do much less.
Another mission : zazzmataz. It’s ±10% loot of an implant that goes 150M now (actually more like 200M but that may be a local peak), and an item that goes 15M on contract, so average is 30M , maybe a bit more for LP/reward can’t remember. same time as scarlet (actually a bit faster). Total 35M/6min, so 350M/h. But the same, people will have suboptimal fit, will want to loot and salvage everything, etc. (make the estiamtion again with more correct drop %, I may be off)
Now “recon 1”. 1M5 isk in rewards, 4k LP so 8M isk ie total is almost 10M, doable in a <3 min-run(including leaving station, etc.). net worth 200M/h . some people will rather kill everything, loot everything, salvage everything…
Depending on the position of the mission, the size of the systems, the truesec of the system, the agent LP conversion rate, those values can change a lot.
And of course depending on the missions you accept to do. If you accept EVERYTHING (eg the mission "vengeance " IIRC is very bad) you will reduce your isk/h a LOT.
No, we rather have CCP have a game with customers actually valueing not only it, but also their lifetime.
Considering that PLEX are and always should be a luxury, instead of a quasi-semi-right as perceived by people who don’t value - at least - their lifetime, combined with the fact that CCP actively wants PLEX to be more expensive due to it requiring to be perceived as actually valueable …
… man, you’re out of touch with reality and instead substitute it with your own wants. Increasing mission income does not serve the game at all. It only serves farmers, those who don’t value their life time and those who don’t value the game.
Being easily able to plex for game time furthermore creates the expectation that everyone is, and should be, entitled to paying isk for game time, which can not actually be a thing that would allow for a stable economy in the long run due to the fact that - at some point - the influx of new PLEX will be overwhelmed by the demand.
You are rather selfish with this request for an increase,
and I hope that you will feel deeply ashamed about yourself once you realize.
■■■■ Farmers.
PS: Reading and typing on a phone is uncomfortable and distracting. -.-
1 Like
Solstice you and I agree on that Plex should probably be “higher value”.
My point was to those who want a more accessible Plex, increasing base wages by improving isk/hr on Lv4 sites won’t really be the answer due to driving inflation.
1 Like
Level 4s are fine. I run then once and awhile and find them to give decent profit for there difficulty.
Buying plex is not for the average player. Never was. If you want to make that kind of isk you need to invest more time. Add other activities that can earn you profit while offline like industry. Step up your pirate killing with carrier ratting.
As others have said raising level 4s is not the answer as it will cause more inflation.
In real life, I advocate that wages keeping up with inflation… but I do not find this line of thinking applicable to EVE when it comes to certain payouts (missions, bounties, etc) being fixed. In fact, I’d argue that fixed payouts help keep the inflation in check; otherwise what was a penny today will be one hundred ISK tomorrow.
PLEX is a non-essential good, so complaining about it being too pricey isn’t sufficient justification to changing a mechanic to make it more affordable. Besides… making it easier for farmers to buy PLEX is a disservice to those who spend $$$ to buy them, and I’m pretty sure CCP values them more than ISK farmers…
Also, while PLEX suffers minor but stable inflation over time, it’s worth noticing that most other (non-service) items suffer deflation over time, often deflating at a faster rate than PLEX inflates. Do you remember when T1 BSes used to cost half a billion? Or when T3 hulls (just the hulls) cost 1 billion? Or when anything T2 was a big deal because they were so expensive? I do. Dark times, they were. Now these items are, comparatively speaking (and in relation to “basic income” in particular) a dime a dozen. I mean, come on… T2 mining drones used to cost over 7m, now it’s not hard to find them at under half a million. In this regard, the inflation of PLEX with regards to the decreased “cost of living” probably means that PLEX is actually cheaper in terms of available income after expenditures. I don’t have any specific numbers to back this claim but but it is certainly worth looking into. If it terms out there is a discrepancy, I’d imagine it wouldn’t be half as bad as players think it is.
1 Like
In the end every discussion with Anderson ends with a hissyfit about ■■■■■■■■ semantics. It is too autistic to realize not everything that is said or written is to be taken literally. It really thinks the entire world can be poured into definitions wich have no exceptions.
1 Like
I’m not making a comment. I am merely quoting something that happened. I hope I don’t get reported for this.
2 Likes
Every time you say something that is proven wrong “but it was not to be taken literally”.
If you don’t mean something. Don’t say it.
Or you prove yourself as an idiot.