EVE General Discussion

Before we begin, I would like to mention a few disclaimers:
1) The percentage values used here are strictly arbitrary and used for simplicity. We are not discussing what is the adjustment value needed (if any).
2) For the sake of this example, let's assume people will never move to a different area of security, regardless of potential income change.
3) Being rich in EVE is relative. What was 250 mil 5 years ago is not what it is today. Prices go up and down based on the average income of EVE players.

Question 1:
In the long run, what is the difference between cutting highsec incomes by 50% (halved) versus increasing incomes by 100% (doubled) outside of highsec?

Once you have answered this question, here is the next one:

Question 2:
In which scenario would today's highsec players end up being richest (again, in the long run) with their accumulated wealth?


My take on the issue: no matter what values you decide to plug-in, you always end up realizing that nerfing highsec income will actually make today's highsec people wealthier in the long run, especially if the distribution of players remains unchanged. However, if the distribution of players actually shifts towards riskier areas, then mission successful. This is a win-win scenario.


---
EDIT: My replies can be found here, I will keep this updated with the most constructive quotes and ideas:
Page 1 - Posts #4, #9, #12
Page 2 - Post #26
Page 5 - Post #97

outside high sec your income can be already 200 to 300 % your question is therefore rethorical
only 2 thoings you need to do , take more risk and put some effort in
people can earn more in running anomolies in null sec in a day than a lvl 4 missionrunner in a week ; complexes even more
and if you got a good people in yourt corp even mining and pi is way more profitable in null than in high sec , but all of this only works if you put effort into it and you help your alliance to keep its space relative safe , meaning that you have to fight for it when your alliance call upon its members

1. One difference is that cutting hisec income would make it harder to obtain the isk needed for things that are not affected by inflation (skillbooks, BPOs and other seeded items). Increasing incomes outside hisec would not affect that.
2. Although today's players who already have accumulated wealth would profit from such changes, it would make it even harder for newer players to get to the same level of wealth.

I'm taking it from your comments that as a basis for this discussion you are assuming that all of today's highsec dwellers are isk generation focussed and are already massively isk-rich so this is just a fantasy question for some new la-la land theory.

Question 1:
Halving highsec incomes would lead to quite a few miffed players
Doubling non-highsec incomes (presumably still no worthwhile income for lowsec dwellers but a massive boost to nullsec incomes in safe systems) would lead to those nullsec dwellers that put the effort into isk generation getting even more isk-rich relative to everyone else.

Question 2:
In both scenarios those that are currently highly isk-rich would stay that way.
Halving highsec incomes would make it very difficult for new highsec dwellers to acquire wealth.
Doubling nullsec incomes would make the isk-rich nullsec dwellers even more isk-rich.

At first glance both these scenarios would appear to exaggerate the current status of the currently wealthy.
Both options would make it even harder for casual / time-limited players to enjoy the game (e.g. the highsec alt earning the isk for the lowsec/nullsec PVP toon's ships would take much longer for the same reward in PVP time either due to a reduction in buying power or an increase in cost of fits; the new player group getting the resources together to move into null would take much longer for the same reasons).

"It would make it harder for new players to farm ISK"

In either scenario, this is only true if new players never leave highsec (treat it as a rookie area). From what I understand of human nature, once a player settles into a comfort zone, it is harder to get out of it. Given a bigger contrast in potential incomes between EVE's security areas, I expect new players moving out of highsec sooner in either scenario.

You hard-baked the outcome of your question into the assumptions.

Here's a better question for you: what would be the impact on income distribution hisec/lowsec/nullsec if all refineries (NPC and POS alike) were to be modified into activity lines, with certain rates of efficiency (e.g.: 25, 35, 45%) processing (in m3/hr), with associated job fees, time fees, delays to output and limited availability of lines?

There is no adjustment to bounties, mission rewards, or any other ISK faucets or sinks. We're only looking at NPC and player controlled refineries.

What happens when hisec NPC station refineries are backed up for months, overloaded by the sheer volume of ore being processed (or in the case of Jita, the volume of "minerals I mined myself are free" ships being smelted to liberate the minerals contained within)?

PS: buffing incomes in nullsec will simply lead to a bunch of rich people getting richer, and a bunch of poor people losing even more expensively fitted ships.

Just because the majority of the players are in high-sec that does not mean high-sec has the biggest ISK faucet.
In other words you like everyone else is completely guessing.
And creating a issue out of thin air.

Sorry but I have lived in both null and high-sec.

In null it is easy to make 10 bill a month and that is without doing any moon mining.
Same amount of time in high-sec 2 bill a month maybe.

And that is not playing the markets or doing anything incredable.

What I do see in Null is alliances robbing there members blind.
People really have no concept of how much ISK some alliances have.

And lets not talk about players who complain they have no ISK because they have to plex for there accounts.

How so? Alliances spend tons of isk upgrading their systems so that their members can make ISK, in turn these members provide numbers for fleets to defend the alliance's source of income (moons), which in turn goes towards these upgrades and ship replacement programs.
Not sure what part of that means alliances are robbing their members.

I think the idea is that the CFC's reimbursement programs aren't real.

We're just flying our delusions out there to get blown up on a POS because Boat told us to warp to the wrong thing.