EVE General Discussion

Not when the ships are differnet sizes and costs and effectiveness ect. Look at the devblog I linked. At 1st blush it looked like high sec pve loses almost matched null sec pvp loses. Then you realize that the BULK of those high sec pve loses were tech1 frigs in starter areas lol.

just dividing the numbers of ships lost per mission runner is useless unless every single mission runner is running the same ship and fit.


Just quoting the rest of this to demonstrate how you always tend to get off track (usually with an assumption). I'm not making this stuff up, "big" ship losses rarely occur in pve and most PVE losses happen in high sec. Mission running is THE most common pve activity, which makes it a prime candidate for changes, although incursions rank up there as well because incursion runners are a small group shiving a HUGE amount of isk (per capita) into the game.

(Which is why everytime DIN or ISN kill an incursion early, they are actually helping the game no matter how many cursing fits they send me into because I was off for labor day with no damn high sec incursions.....but I digress).

I run missions everyday. EVE's pve is going backwards as it's now 100% perfectly safe if you fly a battleship (MJD means you can't die to npcs under any circumstance except letting your cap dip below MJD activation threshold). The new bastion module for marauders is going to make lvl4s safer still (even if the marauder pilot doesn't use it, he can mount a bastion mod to combat both full room aggro AND suicide ganking).

It doesn't. It's practically impossible for insurance to be a sink since payout is always bigger than the insurance cost, and since production fees and sales taxes are not caused by the insurance policy. Hell, production fees are such a minute sink that it's never even reported other than in terms of installed jobs — it is always gobbled up in a tiny “other” category. Even if we were to erroneously include sales and production fees, they're on the order of single-digit percent of the cost of the ship, which isn't nearly enough to overcome the 70 percentage point difference in insurance cost and payout.

Lucas has simply done the classic error of equating “ISK sink” with “ISK leaving the wallet” rather than what it actually means: ISK leaving the economy.

On top of that, it's actually a double-whammy in terms of ISK value change: not only does it increase the amount of ISK in relation to the amount of items in the economy by creating that net injection of ISK, it also increases the amount of ISK in relation to the amount of items by removing items. Both ends of the ISK-item gap move en opposite directions.

Like I said forum pissants such as yourself have no facts to present just hot air. Stop clogging the thread with this emotional faggotry you keep spewing. So either cough up some verifable facts or shut the "F" up.

Sure, but for that to happen everyone will have to habitually insure their ships and then never lose them. Human nature ensures that if the latter happen, then neither does the first. As it is, insurance payouts have been firmly planted at a 2:1 ratio against the insurance costs for the last four years.

Fair point.

We could always start insuring ship before suicide ganking but that really is like going full ******.

Ah so like I thought you're a forum pissant. You have no proof and no I won't be disproving your assertion. I think you misunderstand how this works. If you make the assertion it's on you to prove it true.

Lol, disprove your assertion. What a joke.

I assert you're a convicted pedophile/murderer/rapist. Disprove it.

Looking at the drop in commodities prices and at the ranging PLEX prices, EvE economy ATM looks steady.

There's some fluctuation in one ice price but that's because some guys including me are playing with that market and that's it.

I think the "EvE economy is dying" threads are second only to the "EvE is dying" threads and are as useless. The Doctor himself has not communicated anything in the last months to make believe there are issues with EvE economy either.

Running around in shiffit cruisers in nullsec is no more riskier than a multi billion dollar blingship in hisec. I don't see the issue. Assuming of course your statement is even close to true. Risk versus reward is not an absolute. You are not taking more risk just by the virtue of being in nullsec. Its all situation dependent.


What nullsec wants to do is convince CCP that they must be making 50-100 times the income of hisec just by virtue of the little red sec number. That's horse manure.

Baltec come back to reality. Nullsec has the same cure for stupid hisec does. Local chat. An alt account to scout the gate ensures you need not ever die non-consensually. Do me a favor. Go trick out a Deadspace fitted ship and sit in jita. Tell me how safe you feel. Perimeter gate. Go HAM. 5 bil or better.