EVE General Discussion

I never said either of those things. Straw man less, it doesn't become you.

1. Trying flying a JF and then tell me it is not dangerous. Also a JF is worth about 6bil where as a freighter is worth about a bil.
I have flown both JF's and freighters many times and I was nowhere near as worried about flying my freighters as I was my JF because I knew my JF was on the watch list of a lot of cyno pilots where I lived.

2. Your right, it isnt, thing is in HS you never need to leave that station, in null you do need to undock, a lot, and you know when you do, anybody can kill you.

3. PoS are more at risk, correct. They are also harder to defend and fuel.

Too much defensive circling. Here is what I have taken from the thread so far:

The refining efficiency % is less in null than highsec. You can get perfect refining percentages in highsec, but not in Null.

The number of manufacturing slots in high *could* be exceeded in Null if stations were set up to do so. Amarr stations are the equal to highsec in some/all ways for manufacturing. There is a massive buff to hull production in Null that Highsec does not have.

Null has all the ore in game, in higher percentages and density. Highsec does not have all ore, and it is in lower density.

Highsec miners can mine for long stretches at a time and if ATK, should take few losses. Null miners would need a guard to mine for any length of time, and ATK would likely still take losses from time to time, even with guards.

Each Null system where mining is going on would need a fairly strong fleet available for defense at all times. Scouting, scanning, and intel would need to be ramped up in the industrial and connecting systems.

Goods produced under these conditions may be competitive to highsec, if the risk and cost of travelling to and from highsec is accounted for.

Alternately, an actively defended JF route could be used to import. This is pretty much the status quo option. I consider the first option to be the one with the most potential fun PGC.

Refining

75% refining yield.....

Am I missing something completely?

People farm relics and data sites regardless of the risk in nullsec because it is profitable to do so.

The farm you get from them can directly be used to manufacture goods in nullsec without bringing in any additional materials (well - besides blueprints, but that's a one time deal)

Just an example.

Which is at risk from a simple bubble + Interceptor camp unless you are flying T3 in which case you have multiplied the cost to avoid the risk.

Unless you use an interceptor as a scanner, then you are losing cargo capacity

Plus you are inherently at risk while doing your site.


How does this not equate to more attrition?

Also., its a onetime deal if you are using BPOs.

You're confusing me.

Do you think it's superior, from a risk/reward viewpoint, to run relic/datas in highsec?

I can tell you from extensive personal experience that it isn't.

Or are you implying that nobody does relics/datas in null because they are "too risky" - because that isn't true either.

No, I said that thanks to attrition, ALL tasks take longer and are often more expensive and riskier in null

You didnt want to talking about mining, and ratting didnt come up, so I let you choose Scanning, which is probably the single Null-Sec friendliest task you can have.

I was simply pointing out that even at that, the risks are even greater, its very easy to lost a 90m cargo of stuff to a single stealth bomber waiting at a site (thats how I make my money, so I knwo what Im talking about).

Once that Scannign ship is gone, you have to get another, and good luck finding it and the fits in Null

So even when you choose a task that is weighted in your argument's favour, it still stands that you will be operating much more slowly in Nullsec than in high or low. Im not about to argue the merits of the sites themselves as obviously null sitres are inherently better, but ny extention they take longer to do and are more heavily farmed.

I understand. And in essence, you are confirming that asking hi sec miners to get protection or hire protection is misguided advice, since, as you put it, it's about the alpha, and if gankers are set in ganking you they will. But you are also, albeit inadvertently, admitting that acquiring or hiring protection for miners is more feasible in null as alpha is less important and PVPers have a better chance in getting into fights.

But this is what doesn't sit well with me; this hypocrisy (and I don't mean necessarily from you but instead) from null sec players.

I don't want to make this about hi sec suicide-ganking because this is not what this thread is about. However, I find it quite amusing that the advice that has been provided ad nauseum to hi sec miners doesn't apply to null, when in fact it is MORE relevant.

What I've noticed is, and this deserves emphasis, that these few vocal null sec players refuse to explore the root cause of the 'null sec industry problem'. On a few occasions it has been admitted by them on this very thread that low end miners are needed in null sec. But they refuse to accept that those they have spent years loathing and ridiculing are the solution to their problems. The mechanics to at least alleviate a portion of their issue is already there!

Of course, it is easier to whine and beg CCP to fix their mess rather than to make amends with the players they have been marginalizing for years, so I can't say I don't understand the motivation on why they do what they do.

It's not more relevant.

It's much, much less feasible.

A mining fleet with guards in nullsec space is nothing except more killmails than a mining fleet by itself.