EVE General Discussion

from experience. no. there have been countless threads on this topic, many with actual information, all with horrible Big Lie-believers saying 'it's because you're doing it wrong' or 'this is a conspiracy to improve your income/drive pveers out of the game'. this one was started as a troll, as many are, and will end with a lock, as all do. a week later there'll be another. some new faces, many old

dersen's there, but i reckon it's pointless speculating on whether market hubs, trade or whatever would form under certain circumstances when nullsec resources are objectively worse for industry, because it wouldn't happen anyway

zynlee has it completely wrong but also won't listen so what can you do

the nerf i think has to happen to highsec manufacturing is a mineral tax for manufacture. or the isk rental cost may need rebalancing. perfect refine should not be achievable anywhere, and both the base and highest attainable refine rate in highsec npc stations should be worse than every other option. the important thing is that this is done so that highsec npc stations are still viable options. no, i don't know how

this'd have to be done as part of a broader rebalancing effort ofc because there's a lot more broken. i doubt other nerfs to highsec are needed -for the industry bit-, though

i don't like to comment on the personal income issue's solutions. but the viability of most truesec space has to be improved and space needs to at least be able to support personal income for the number of people required to take it.

Well said. And that's the point, sure there is isk in null, but due to changes over the last few years, it's possible to make more isk than you need doing nothing but high sec cobat pve. So even though theortically you can make more in null, if you're making isk for the sole purpose of doing other things, High Sec is the place to be because you can make good isk quickly without being screwed with.

It's not even missions vs anomalies, it's missions vs missions. You CAN use a marauder or pirate BS to do low or null missions, but it would be stupid, so even though those places give more LP, you do missions slower because the HACs, T3s and T1 throaway Battleships you are doing them in are slower in general (which is only patrially mitigatable through blitzing).

CCP needs to really take a look at combat pve's risk/effort/reward balance (you can see they haven't, low sec lvl 4 missions don't pay NEAR enough, low and null incursions go undone while high sec gets farmed to death and the high sec incursions communities just sit around and ***** at each other when there are no high sec incursions instead of going to do the one in low sec, etc etc). They could start by un-nerfing the high end DED plexes (ie givning back the lower lvl OPEs they took away in 2009).

This is something that doesn't get *nearly* enough attention. Leaving aside the whole 'SOV should be changed' topic, Null should be about working together. Sadly, it seems a lot of players in Eve are pursuing ISK solo, regardless of region.

I would love to see a system in place where people get paid based on doing the thing they find fun. Why can't the Null Alliances, that are certainly drowning in ISK, sponsor payout for pvp activity? Corps can get 'certified' (meaning people trust them not to scam) to receive ISK rewards based on popping ships of those Corps/Alliances they are opposed to. Or on success in taking down enemy structures. Whatever. Instead of turning to the NPC's to provide you your income, utilize the huge incomes of the Alliances to pay you for PvP activity.

I think the Null Alliances are a little too greedy with their ISK. Share the wealth! Don't let the 'leaders' of the Alliances or corps hog all the money. Demand something for your taxes and rent.

This is why sandbox design is a hard problem, and it's not just a question of 'nerf this' or 'buff that'. Some fixes that seem obvious will fail completely, and some tweaks that seem irrelevant or tangential will prove crucial.

The crux of the problem with the calls to nerf high sec is that there are defining aspects of high sec (e.g., safety in numbers) that make it the best place for commerce, and where there's commerce, there's money. Nerfing it will not necessarily make null more attractive; it could just crash the whole economy instead. Buffing nullsec and lowsec income sources seems like an obvious alternative, but CCP has to be very careful with how they do it, because nullsec anoms are already the biggest ISK faucet in the game. The change to the ESS that makes it award LP is one potential step in the right direction. I expect to see a lot of similar moves by CCP. As far as high sec goes, I think the introduction of high sec POCOs indicates the direction CCP will take: getting people out of invincible NPC structures and into player-made, player-configured, destructible structures. That, plus wardecs, will not only make high sec corporations more meaningful, it will take away one of the premier advantages of high sec industry, namely its ability to use invincible and so-cheap-as-to-be-essentially-free NPC stations for manufacturing. No single one of these measures will be enough, and CCP will be careful introducing them because they don't want the game's vaunted economy to fall over. Cumulatively, though, I think they're on the right track.

I also think that anyone hoping for any major alliance to be 100% free of high sec is going to be disappointed. Even wormholers are dependent on high sec and particularly the high sec economy (more so, because sleepers don't pay bounties). CCP is insistent on there being dependencies between the various parts of space, so I don't see that changing any time soon. They can, and will, change the nature and extent of the dependencies, but not more than that.

Part of what makes the alliances so big is they sell the same "carebearing in safety" that highsec offers. The difference is that they have to be their own Concord. I've hunted in goon space and they have a lot of bears, but after a while they'll send a team with inties, dictors, vagabonds, etc.

Letting corporations and alliances have their own LP stores and mission agents, or some mechanic that let's a player be something like a mission agent for their corp/alliance, would be an outstanding change. But is this really based on the shortcoming of contracts, bounties, and mercenaries? For just about anything, anybody can say "there are already existing features for something like that". The problem with player-controlled entities under the existing system is that people WILL be scammed. So we end up asking for more douchebag-proof features.

Were it "up to me" I would have open-ended alliance interfaces and put in an escrow system but after years of "they way things are", there are too many who will cry now.

Go try it. You'll probably find out in short order.

I'm serious, fit up a navpoc or a domi or something, find a mission agent, and try it.

And pay for sov bills and fuel for moving/strategic ops etc.

Dear oh dear, how did anyone ever do missions before the domi sentry afk combo? Whatever shall we do? Woe be unto us, the end times are upon us!

The people who do want to live in null.

What always startles me is how people keep mentioning L4 missions and Incursions, as if these are the highest earning "professions" within EVE...

Which is not even close to being true...