Yes, absolutely yes.
Every activity is an economic transaction of some sort. You exchange a sunk or wagered cost (e.g. your ship), an amount of time, and labor for a certain amount of income.
When you select a job, do you only care about the income, and nothing else? Would you be willing to get paid the same amount of money for shoveling manure that you would for stocking shelves in a grocery?
no.
So, no.
Ah, I see. Indeed that is a very moving and powerful logical argument that I cannot argue against. I apologize for my foolishness.
What is asserted without a proof, is dismissed without a proof.
Here you use notions from economy in a video game. The use of RL economics in a different field requires very rigorous work, which you did not bring here.
Okay.
Missions are split up into multiple levels. As you progress through those levels, the difficulty increases, and so does the pay per time invested. Same with Abyssal sites. Same with DED complexes. As you progress through the tiers of content, you don’t just need a bigger ship with more expensive gear (i.e. the wagered cost I brought up), but also more attentiveness, as the lower tiers can be completed without much if any micromanagement, while the upper tiers need close to 100% of your attention and constant input.
Just… no.
Just because you can find activities that have increasing rewards with increasing cost, does not mean that this is an absolute rule.
Example you can find some ded that have higer level but lower reward. Same, some L3 are better than some L4 in term of BOTH reward and time.
So you can not say that harder activities pay more. It’s just wrong.
And what’s more, that’s only in the PVE case. In PVP, it’s much more complex.
Exceptions don’t make the rules. No game will have perfect balancing 100% of the time. The generally-accepted trend is that more difficult activities pay more. If not, then our game has some serious issues that need to be discussed.
So, my conclusion is solid. You don’t have to like it, or even agree with it (you don’t have to agree that fire is hot or that water is wet either, I don’t care either way), but if you want to establish a different order or causality, you’ll have to do better than “you’re wrong I’m right.”
If your claim is that more difficult activities aren’t intended to pay more, you’re arguing with way more than one person here anyway. In fact, it will be the majority of the player base, plus the game’s developers. So, good luck!
That’s an irrelevant non sequitur.
Uedama, a saturday? it’s like swimming with tiger sharks with bloody tuna meat strapped on your legs. Bad, bad decision bro.
exceptions prevent the rules.
You just need one exception to prove your rule is false.
Appeal to popularity.
ergo this post.
Actually, it cost 160m plus some fraction of the monthly plex cost for all those accounts. Besides, I dispute the I dispute the notion that the fleet required to kill a target should cost about the same as the target. I can see how that might seem logical at first glance, but Eve doesn’t actually work that way. The law of diminishing returns when it comes to ships and bling means that (unless there is some restrictions to fleet size or mass) you’ll always get a better isk to power ratio by bringing more dudes. For example, say you have a T2 fit cruiser, and are looking to increase your tank and DPS. You could spend 350+mil on a HAC and a little bling and increase your tank and DPS by like 50%. Or, you could buy a second copy of the T2 fit cruiser for like 35mil, give it to a friend, and effectively double your DPS and Tank.
So, yeah, Eve doesn’t work that way. Nor do I want it to. I don’t want ship cost to determine outcomes, because then outcomes will effectively be determined by who did the most grinding or spent the most money.
Nope.
The cost of the gank, was x M plus criminal timer (during which you can use another alt on the same account).
If you gank twice, then you won’t have to pay twice the plex.
Don’t care!
Trying to employ logic against someone against ganking is a futile endeavor. Remember, their goal isn’t to have a rational discussion in order to determine the merits of arguments and seek solutions where and if necessary, but to remove ganking. They’ll do it by any means necessary if they can get away with it.
And yet you make personal attack.
So, yes you care. And you know you are wrong.
Nope! I’ve said what I wanted to say, and there’s nothing else to add with regard to my argument since I’ve made my point and presented my evidence. At this point I’m simply informing you that I don’t care about any further correspondence on this matter, unless you have additional actually tangible input or evidence to add, in which case I might address it if I so desire. Otherwise, I genuinely don’t care! Just being polite and letting you know.
making personal attacks.
Choose one.
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
You stopped being on topic once you where explained why you are wrong, and then you started making rude statement about the person instead of addressing the arguments.
That’s a personal attack.
So no, there is no rule of what pays more in Eve. There SHOULD be a global rule of what pays more requires more investment, but it’s not the case as many activities that require a lot of investment don’t pay at all (spinning your titan or doing drone ded3 for example)
You can even talk about CCP opinion on the topic, because IIRC that’s one of their explanation “more reward require more risk”. But this is not the same as “more intensive pays more”…
Still have no idea what you’re talking about.
And since this isn’t going anywhere, I’m going to go gank some miners and enjoy myself. Wish you all the best!
Yes, it’s going to “suicide ganking in HS is imbalanced because the cost is too low”.
It’s not like it was a secret.