The analogy you are using for an argument might be committing a base rate fallacy (you are ignoring important specific characteristics that the two compared examples do not share)

** The imicus does not require Omega status to fly, The Rorqual does
** The imicus requires minimal skill training time (or injector use) compared to the rorqual

** Does the pilot (of either ship) intend to generate both positive cash flow and profits without making a credit card investment? If the answer is yes (and the other two issues are accounted for), the comparison might have some merit.

There are three major reports a corporation uses to demonstrate its current financial well-being:

Profit and Loss
Balance Sheet
Cash Flow

It is fully possibly to look incredibly good on some of these but horrible on others. There is a correlation between Ignoring the ISK value of skill-points, monthly subscriptions costs and the “Minerals I mine are free” mentality. They all deal with transactions that frequently exist solely on the Balance sheet report.

You might be able to make tons of ISK with an activity you do in this game. However, if that income generating plan requires the monthly investment of a credit card or sacrificing potential future growth (ie sacrificing skill point gains), I would argue that your business model is not truly successful.

No sorry. I’ve already paid for this game as a subscription.

If I decide whether a ship is worth flying or not, it’s based on the ship’s risk vs profit. Plexing has nothing to do with it.

But if you think it should be part of it, you should look at the complete picture and look at how you can have a sustainable Omega character with skill extractors.

You’re clearly trying to look at profitability of the entire extra account, when you insist that plexing is part of it, which means you are missing the fact that extra SP on your rorqual account is useless once the character is flying a rorqual, and can pay for sustaining that account for a lot less value than your 1.4 billion a month.

My bad, I was assuming this was about flying any ship on my second account to be worth it. Imicus, Rorqual, I’d need omega for either to multibox. For a single account, yes, an Imicus can be flown as Alpha.

That’s fine.
The balance sheet (when done correctly) always balances out assets vs Liabilities.

In your case, you are paying for a monthly liability expense (Omega status) using a credit card and receiving an asset (“fun”) in exchange. Financial in-game self-sufficiency is not an important objective to you (like it is for me and some others).


Try to read what I wrote multiple times now. If you insist that your extra omega character should be self-sufficient, it is ridiculous to include plexing yet ignore the fact that you can sell excess SP to sustain your Rorqual character for much less than 1.4b ISK a month.

Yes, I enjoy paying for a subscription so I’m not forced to grind my money each month, but in case I did care about account self-sustainability (which I plan on doing for my secondary account in the future), I would include skill extraction for a fair comparison.

small nitpick, I am looking at second account as financially self-sufficient entity.

The monthly fixed expenses can be distributed amongst multiple projects (income lines). However, if an income line (designed purely to generate profits) requires supplemental donations from another area (ie selling injectors) I am going to question its viability. I might still choose to operate something at a loss due to the subjective thing called “fun”. “fun” is one of the biggest factors that seperates eve business from the real world.

Your “point” requires mingling two different revenue streams together for an assessment of an operation built around only one of them.

Once upon a time, skill farms were profitable. These ‘supplemental donations from another area’ actually made you money if you logged in once a month to buy extractors, extract the SP and sell the injectors.

These days I’m not sure about the profitability of skill farms. However, even if they are making a huge loss (for example, let’s say they are paying for only half your subscription a month), you’re suddenly looking at a 0.7b figure to make in your Rorqual instead of 1.4b. That’s huge.

So it would be ridiculous not to include this ‘supplemental donation’ in your calculations for self-sufficiency of a secondary account.

And you’re bringing up ‘subscription cost’ as a factor to determine whether Rorqual mining is worth it or not. :stuck_out_tongue:

Anyway, we’re talking in circles and not getting anywhere. I’m out!

No… Rorqual usage requires the monthly expense of purchasing a current asset “Omega status”.
Not every business operation requires that purchase.

Selling the injectors also requires that asset. Because they both need that asset (and can share it) you gain some efficiency. However that expense does need to be distrubuted.

I’ve assigned the whole expense to the mining operation. You appear to be assigning to the skill extraction model. Where you assign it will significantly affect that activities profits. That is why you need to look at the products comprehensively and seperately.

Intentionally not being careful with this sort of thing is what gets real people and businesses accused of “cooking the books”.


Yeah, this discussion has gotten the thread massively off topic. I’m out too, apologies to the OP.