We are proud to present selected stories from this magnificent internet spaceship blogger. If you would like to read more we invite you to visit his blog here.

Jester’s Trek: No problem

Warning: the following post could be based around a massive troll.

The discussion about technetium over the last few weeks raises an interesting question: how far would a sov-holding alliance get if they didn’t have tech moon income?

There’s a funny thing about being a recognized blogger.  People want to tell you stuff.  About three times a year, someone sends me the financial spreadsheets (or links to them, or screen-caps of them) for big, sov-holding, moon-holding alliances.  Make no mistake: running a big alliance’s financials is a business.  I’ve been in the business world for 25 years now, more or less, and I can tell you that there are multimillion dollar companies that run their finances with fewer spreadsheets, graphs, tables, and personnel then some big null-sec alliances.  And the more transparent an alliance’s finances are, the more likely it is that someone will feel the need to send me some of this stuff.

I don’t mind.  It’s interesting stuff!  I immediately have to tell the people involved that I can’t use the data right away.  “Never single source anything,” is a hard and fast rule of both spy-craft and source-based writing.  The easiest way to lose a source is to use that source’s data if it hasn’t been corroborated with other sources.  “This is really interesting!” I say, “I can’t use it now, but I’ll use it eventually.  I don’t want you to be identified as the source.”  I explain this, and virtually everyone involved understands.  If they don’t understand, I delete what they send me.

Hint for bloggers and prospective bloggers: if someone is desperate for you to use what they send you right now, you’re being trolled.

I’ve fallen victim or almost fallen victim to it a time or two.  Hell, I might be falling for it right now.  But still, the information I’ve gathered in this regard over the last couple of years is from multiple sources, internally consistent, and passes all the sniff tests I’ve been able to subject it to.  So let’s talk about it.  I’ll change the numbers very slightly to protect the guilty.  And let’s keep in mind that I’m talking about sov-holding, moon-holding alliances… CFC alliances, to be perfectly frank.

Let’s say that in a particular month in 2011, Goonswarm Federation brought in about 175 billion ISK from “moon-goo sales.”  It wasn’t that, but it was close to that.  If I were to compare that to their operating expenses, what do you think that would pay for?

Their ship reimbursement fund.

Their ship-building and outfitting subsidies.

Their sovereignty costs.

The fuel for all of their towers.

Their super-cap building program.

All of the above.

Think about it for a second.  Then read on.

The answer is the first, second, and third: moon-goo paid for their full reimbursement fund for both sub-caps and capital ships, their outfitting fund and subsidies for new super-caps and capital ships, and their sovereignty costs.  The first two were about 140 billion.  The third was about 25 billion.  There was even enough left over to pay about a quarter of their POS fuel bill, too.

And it turns out that if I make this comparison for other months in 2011 or 2012, or for other CFC-member finance spreadsheets I’ve been shown over the last couple of years, that’s very consistent.  TEST has one quarter the tech moons of Goons but they have other moons to make up the difference.  Their moon income combined pays for their ship reimbursements, subsidies, and sov costs, plus a small fraction of their POS fuel bill.  The smaller CFC alliances are a half or a quarter of these budgets, but the proportions remain the same.  Moon income pays for reimbursement, ship subsidies, and sovereignty.  Minor income sources pay for the rest.

Put another way, if moon income disappeared tomorrow, the budgets for CFC sovereignty and PvP would also disappear.  And of course without the sovereignty or the PvP budget, the need for
or the ability to do the rest — fuel POSes, build super-caps, et cetera
would also disappear.

Put yet a third way, members of these alliances don’t have to do any active PvE to pay these alliance-level costs because all of that is paid for by passive income.

In the immortal words of Jubal Early, that seem right to you?

Nope, no problem with tech at all.

Ripard Teg

Send us Intel/Corrections via dropbox or shoot us an e-mail

Send us Intel/Corrections via dropbox or shoot us an e-mail

  • http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com/ Poetic Stanziel

    You said it yourself. Tech doesn't pay for everything. They have to find income elsewhere.

    Seems like its working as intended, no?

    You expect that they should pay their bills with, what, 75% PvE? They'd never pay any bills.

    • http://evenews24.com riverini

      I remember back in the North Majesta Empire used to ask 5mil per char to their corps in alliance, am talking way back when Vale and Tribute were wasteland… not much different from now except for the moons…

      In case of emergencies a big entity say GSF or -A- could just ask for a 50mil levy every now and then which should yield a couple hundred of billion isk, all this theoretically speaking ofc.

      • http://blogspot.jestertrek.com/ RipardTeg

        Gentlemen's Club / Atlas / CoW had alliance per-member fees, too.

        • http://evenews24.com riverini

          Boy, Cult of War, you just strapped me into the wayback machine to the good ol' Great Wildland times xD – I still remember when Enterprise Estonia fucked up F0undation…

          • Bittervet

            F0undation in GW back in the day is a pretty good model of alliance warfare without moon income, because GW doesnt have important amounts of moon income.

            From memory, F0undation couldnt even think about running ship replacement.

      • meskia

        yeah was in majesta too and remember the 5mil also , i even remember dudes whine about that lol

    • some dude

      I've got little issue with alliances having to subsist on taxed PvE income, in principle. It'd require alliances to actually LIVE IN THEIR SPACE instead of just holding the moons.

      The problem is that the extent of PvE income that can be feasibly taxed right now is ratting and PI – refinery taxes can be trivially avoided by a motivated player, and put a damper on nullsec industry (which is reliant on mineral compression to function) as well. Before CCP tries to nuke alliance level incomes like moons, they really need to be adding in new sources of taxable personal income first, and maybe tweaking existing ones up a little.

      Basically, make nullsec attractive to live in, and you can build alliances on that attraction, instead of on moons.

      • _Bob

        More people PVEing would mean more options for casual pvp too, chasing ratters etc instead of just showing up for CTA's.

      • Random CFC Grunt

        Have you ever tried eve PvE? There is absolutely no chance that blocks like CFC can be funded with PvE money simply because this income faucet would dry up very quickly as the members got bored (ever tried ratting in gurista-land?). The only way would be to let renters in (just like the south does) but renters also aren't forever… http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads

        • dumbasrocks

          So youre saying that without the passive income, giant nullsec blob napfests wouldnt be able to survive? Oh the huge manatee!! So when can we look forward to the nerf?

        • War Observer

          WTF! You dumb, lazy, self intitled goontard most of alliances in EVE subsist on ratting and mining!

        • BZD

          I like guristas, they are easy to kill and easy to tank. The only problem is the jamming, but you can fit Mods to prevent that. With a proper ship + Fit, it should work.

      • Yuoi

        They should allow corps or alliances to set income tax, then look to nerf everything else.

    • Derp

      ITT – Poetic goes full retard!

      Seriously broetic, I am starting to think you are trying to make everyone hate you…including your own alliance mates.

      • http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com/ Poetic Stanziel

        If people were forced to spend most of their time PvEing they'd quit.

        There's nothing wrong with passive income.

        He framed his post such that tech pays for:

        a) Their ship reimbursement fund.

        b) Their ship-building and outfitting subsidies.

        c) Their sovereignty costs.

        And that the alliance has to find income elsewhere to pay for:

        d) The fuel for all of their towers.

        e) Their super-cap building program.

        He fails to mention what e costs. He may have left that out on purpose, so that he could frame his annoyance properly. Until we know what that number is, his stating that tech pays for some programs, but not others is flawed and suspect.

        Maybe tech pays for c, d and e, but the membership has to find other sources of income (PvE) to pay for a and b.

        Without knowing what e costs, his post and argument are flawed.

        • Trolls > Goblins

          Yeah, but Poetic, he didn't say D or E assumed ship-based income or player interactivity.

          D and E may not come from Tech, but other forms of mineral, taxation or likewise.

          That makes the ENTIRE budget passive, albeit not from Tech alone.

          • Trolls > Goblins

            ps. E tend to fund itself as SC sales have among the highest profit values in the game – many blocks just sell every other SC to sustain any SC-programs; it's rampant to the point where many blocks have SC-production alts in them that just build the stuff for vast profit and throw some chump-change the alliance way like a good renter.

        • _Bob

          I beg to differ. More people PVEing would mean more casual pvp in nullsec as people hunt ratters or miners. You would have people on and playing at all hours instead of 500 goons logging for a CTA then going back to World of Tanks

          • Random Guy

            You mean, more ganking, right? Hunting ratters/miners is not pvp, neither goodfights, it's just ganking of the underdog.

          • _Bob

            More small fleets of gankers moving around, more small fleet warfare, more PvP. win win

          • FormerCFCGrunt

            if there is more to hunt, then there are more home defense fleets needed, which should cause good fights and in particular the small gang fights we all love.

        • ~deal with it~

          As are everyone's. You can't put a price on every alliances supercap program because they are all different. You want to pretend that his argument is flawed simply because he has no way of knowing.

          If you can do better than do it. You have a blog don't be shy.

        • lkjh

          A large portion of the alliances in null don't run on tech moons. Tech money always finds a way of disappearing.

        • 0.o Grunt

          OMG the world will end if the CFC has to play2pay to replace their welp fleets! The passive income in this game is fine but it shouldn't cover most of their costs. Other alliances don't have that level of passive income and they still exist.

          TEST has recently had to remove most of their SRS due to the changes in tech prices and this is a good thing. I hope the rest of the CFC (AKA Goons) have to start paying for what they do and what they lose.

    • HR4ever

      omg you are such a retard.

    • nerf tech

      Then their empire would be smaller (or at least wouldn't cover regions they don't care about), their pets would have to fend for themselves. And our little lowsec alliance could move to null on it's own without having to be a pet or renter.

  • Gumpin

    Super cap construction tends to pay for itself after the first ship gets sold for profit…

    • nulli member

      Only if you sell the ships… If you want to keep them for your cor/alliance there is no profit

      • Anonymouse

        The profit is earned by using them, not selling them. Or keeping your space secure. Or getting more space to secure…

  • Random Miner

    I think moons are fine, when they are spread out more. If someone wants all the tech moons, or whatever moons, they would have to fight and over extend themselves even more then they do now.

    I do like the idea of moons only because I think those who do move to null need some kind of helping hand from alliances, because without it the great wars that fuel my, and many others', industry would taper off. And if you spread the tech about, these wars might just become more frequent…
    *rubs his greedy together*

    • Trolls > Goblins

      The problem with moons is not that they provide attainable alliance income or conflict drivers.

      The problem with moons is that they are based around structures that alienate large portions of the game.

      Shooting structures is retarded. The issue of "blobs being too good" is tied almost exclusively to structure-based PvP.

      Remove moons and introduce ship-based appeal for regions to drive conflict for that space.

      • Random Miner

        could you expand upon "ship-based appeal"? do you just mean pve/missions, because thats just another form of grindage

        • MANBEAR

          He has no answer. There IS no answer.

        • Trolls > Goblins

          Indeed, appeals that involve ships flying in space.

          It can be ratting, missions, mining whatever.

          It could even be new things like missions that are not based around NPC grind, but rather travelling around (a gurista agent giving you an assassination mission of an angel commander, sending you down south for a single NPC kill and back, or maybe PvP assassination missions based on corporate standings; if you're in Test, kill a member of a specific A-corp or similar). I'm not saying that's how it should be done, but the possibilities are endless if you find the current ship-based PvE to be dull and "grindy".

          As far as my comment went, it only meant to say things related to ships (ship-ship, ship-space) rather than structures.

          • Trolls > Goblins

            An even more typical variant would be existing small-volume courier missions. Go X jumps, deliver/pickup Y item in Z station and back. It gets you out flying in space, meeting other pilots in ships in space.

          • Trolls > Goblins

            There could even be a secondary market for such mission items, as they would enable you to complete missions on the fly, provided you've killed someone else for the loot or someone else have and sold it to you.

            It doesn't have to be hauler sized cargo either, you can easily find variations that include different combat ships and put different demands on your cargo. Tech III's would obviously be popular, but this is hardly the place to flesh out any such suggestions.

            Back on track, regions would then be coveted based on the old values such as NPC's (truesec), minerals or quality of deep-space agents.

  • ex 0.0 toon

    take tech, increase bounties in 0.0… increase corp tax, alliance gets fees of the corps… all is fair… right now CFC gets tech- gives newbs 1000's of drakes, takes more tech, repeat. If the newbs had to earn it (with higher bounties cos PVE is shit) they might not be so fail and CFC might grow the fuck up… ok they wouldn't but they might lose members due to no tech= be easier to beat= -A- and Solar fleet take over eve= still shit…. we need an end to MASSIVE null blocks…. SoCo are as bad as CFC in some ways… ok rant over… for now.

    • Random Guy

      Yeah, and we'll have even more inflation, because of the increased money inflow into the economy. moongoo circulates the isk within the game. good idea, yeah.

      • BZD

        remember if you earn your own isk then you have more isk then other ppl who dont PvE. So you buy stuff even if its has a higher price

      • ring mining

        replace moon goo with ring mining, now you still have tech and whatever else flowing into the game. But people get it through pve.

        Also people just do whatever gives them the most isk / hour doing pve anyway (look at incursions dying when you couldn't just deltole deltole deltole anymore) if ring mining gives more isk per hour than running havens then people will move from haven grinding to ring mining grinding, which will turn the isk faucet into a tech faucet.

        Your average alliance grunt can make more money, an isk faucet turns down, and Tech 2 ships get a little cheaper (and blow up in larger numbers)

    • HR4Ever

      Make nullsec possible for corporations. Put a limit to blue list (and make it VERY limited). E.g. put a limit on possibilities to form napfests. Also, change sov mechanics: unused systems cannot remain under a flag. Systems MUST be used to a certain extent or you will either lose sov or or the sov bills rises. Used systems = cheap sov, unused systems is very expensive sov. Details should ofcourse be worked out.

      Death to all napfests.

      • smallscale dude

        than aliances would plain and simple only claim "important" systems (good ratting grounds and systems they want for moons (supercap poses and moonharvest), and the unclaimed systems will still belong to them in someway …. even though the left uper corner doest show that (that has happened before so its not even unlikely)

      • Yuoi

        You can't put a limit on how many blues because of the meta game.

        • Trolls > Goblins

          Of course you can, you just restrict the infinity of the blue mechanic or completely remove it.

          What you can't do is stopping people from collaborating politically. Not many people would like to stop that on the other hand though, and collaboration is not a problem within itself.

          The problem is imbalanced and overblown political tools and mechanics, like the inifinite blue list.

          Having friends, that are more difficult to distinguish on a heavy grid, is well different from friends that you can simply blue and remove from overview.

          It's a perfect example of the "cumber in number" perspective. Today you can have 500 friends sitting on a gate, and as soon as one neutral player slip through everyone will know to shoot him, because he is the only visible target. He can't hide in your mass so your numbers have no cumber. That is a game mechanic, not a player ideal.

          The problem isn't that large alliances, politics or blobs exist – the problem is that the game mechanics are not balanced in regard to them. They are serving them.

          • M1k3y

            Remove the ability to blue?

            Imagine the rage/tears.

          • Youi

            You can't because CCP would rather spend time on stuff to improve the game than artificially trying to stop people being friends. Whatever mechanic CCP put it place to reduce the blue list players would find a away around it. You only have to look at OTEC to see how groups that are red to each other agreed out of game not to attack each other in some scenarios.

          • Trolls > Goblins

            That is a problem how?

            OTEC and other true meta is awesome.

            It's not stopping people from being friends, it's limiting the power of the ingame mechanics that makes being friends too easy and powerful.

            EVE wants conflict and diversity.

    • smallscale dude

      why would you want to put an end to big power blocs? (besides thatll never happen) imho it should be rewarding to invest time into this game , you can use your time and create a comparably small group with alot of good pvp player , or you can use your time and create a huge group with comparably bad pvp player both will be able to stand their ground in some way, as the current war and all the wars that have been in eve have shown . And even if techmoons would disapear (or even moonmining entirely) theyd find different ways to make their money , and guess what ppl will than again start to complain about this big group menaging to stay alive ,instead of accepting the challenge.

  • Hykke

    I think holding and defending structures in 0.0 should be a source of income, since it is a good conflict driver.

    I would only make ONE change to the current Tech moons:
    The Tech deposits on a moon would deplete 6-12 months after the first time it was harvested.
    Technically the Tech source would not disappear from the game, it would simply change places with the best goo found on another moon (The other moon would be a completely random moon anywhere in 0.0).

    6-12 months is enough for Tech moons to still be a conflict driver, but now a 0.0 alliance would need to re-scan its moons at regular intervals to see if any of them has turned into a Tech moon.
    It would stop the big alliances from just sitting back and enjoying their easy income. It would also mean that holding any part of 0.0 (even a part with no tech moons) could.

    • MANBEAR

      I like this.
      I like cake, too.

  • buggrit

    Income from the alliance should depend from player's actions. This would mean:

    The leadership would actually give a shit.
    Economic warfare could happen – constantly roaming an enemy would hit his finances
    Other stuff

    Sov bills need to stay, though, as they are a real isk sink and there's way too few of those. It forces null to deal with high, and materiel to flow back and forth (and get blown on the way)

  • whatever

    I don't get why Jester makes such a big fuzz about the financials (and why he uses 2011 numbers…)

    This information is public:
    Goons: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlII
    TEST: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Alny

  • The Judge

    If you remove tech and replace that income source with NPC bounties the QQ'ing about afk cloaking will finally get that idiotic mechanic nerfed. It's the only zero risk pvp in EVE and all the people that support it argue that everything is about risk vs reward while doing something that involves zero risk and has infinite rewards when it comes to the meta gaming result. Oh well, typical EVE hypocrites.

  • asdf

    Under 200b in month from tech to goons says to me that shittani is taking pretty big cut for himself

  • BrokenSanity

    wait…goons only makes 175 bill a month? That isn't that much more than I make lol

    • techcounter

      Counting their moon numbers they should make atleast 500b, but I guess their leadership has to make money somehow, as the way NC used to do. It's just amusing that grunts don't realize it.

  • IRC dude

    IRC has no moon income and functions just fine as a large nul-sec sov holding alliance. They don't give a crap about tech, and have held space for a long time just fine.