EVE General Discussion

No, I'm not the one being pedantic, I'm also the one who provided proof and support my arguments with data. The data supports that highsec violates risk : reward and is need of a nerf to fix the imbalance. You keep moving goalposts, blowing up strawmen, and spewing non-sequitur I'll keep bringing the thread back to the topic at hand.

Then you're not doing anything that is relevant to the discussion at hand.
Oh, and if you're going to argue against mechanics that prohibit large number of people from making a living off of null, pointing to large numbers of people that keep you from doing what you want isn't the best way, since that just shows that there isn't room for you… which was exactly the point.

If it's inconsequential, then that's your imbalance right there. And it's still just people making unsupported claims about how much a single individual can earn if not contested.

[citation needed] And how do you go from there to missions?
Either way, calling something that injects 20% of the ISK in the game “irrelevant” remains ridiculous and shows such a complete ignorance about the economy that it almost disqualifies you from discussing the topic altogether.

…except that it wasn't resolved. It just further reinforced that there is an imbalance. If all the trade happens in high, it means high-volume transports is not a problem since all that traded volume must be transported elsewhere for consumption. If high-volume transports is not a problem, then you should be able to manufacture anywhere and everywhere. This does not happen.

The reason it doesn't happen is because there are no advantages and a huge amount of disadvantages to doing it outside of highsec. This is because highsec offers far too high a baseline in terms of availability (functionally infinite), cost (essentially free), security (free and mechanically ensured), and logistical ease to afford other areas with some kind of competitive advantage. Had it just been one of those — say, the logistical ease that is connected with the proximity to trade hubs — then we'd have balance and people could engage in it competitively across the entire galaxy by trading one benefit for another. But since we unquestionably have an imbalance, it is not the case.

If you think null sec doesnt have more income potential over hi-sec then your not being honest.

CCP nerfed low-sec because of it.

As far as being grown up??...keep being the internet tuff guy and hide behind the vale of the internet. I am a french model...BONJOUR

Thank you. I saw the 2013 Fanfest presentation from Dr. EyojG but I'll watch it again and check the two sets of data you're providing. Thanks again. ^^

There is no break-down for bounties. However, they only come from three sources: missions (run in the millions), belt rats (not a huge draw except in veeeery remote lowsec pockets and of minute value everywhere else), and combat sites (rare and not really run for the bounties). Incursions are their own category in the breakdowns and don't pay out bounties.

I wouldn't be surprised if the mission portion is even larger, tbh.

I'll happily confirm that combat sites not in nullsec are just blitzed for the chance at the faction drop. I don't even remember when the last time was I did a full clear on a 3/10 or a 4/10.

Blast the named spawn, warp off, stow the loot (if any), scan down a new one.

[Edit: I can actually speak authoritatively on this, btw. This is PVE that I actually do, I used to blitz DED sites in highsec for my primary income for a long, long time.

Anyway CCP aren't going to nerf hi-sec so the discussion is moot.

Sorry, I meant to mention this ~130 pages ago but it slipped my mind. I've been busy and all that.





Now those assholes in lowsec, they're going to get a kick in the meat & 2 veg. And not before time, I think we can all agree.

It's still a good discussion so long as people are civil and not just spewing vitriol.

By other activity you mean Incursions or maybe FW (where I guess there are people making 600m ISK/hr )?

I wonder if there may be a misconceived generalization among non-highsec players about highsec players in that if some people are making 110m ISK/hr running high sec missions then all people are making 110m ISK/hr running high sec missions.

The point being that while there is certainly evidence of an imbalance between null sec PVE income/hr vs high sec PVE income/hr, it is not necessarily the rule. Does there need to be an adjustment made? I think the data supports that however, a blanket nerf of highsec income targets everyone that PVEs in highsec and not just the people making 110m ISK/hr. If the objective is to get the people that want to be in NullSec to be able to go back to NullSec to make their ISK, a blanket nerf of highsec income may accomplish that but at the cost of nerfing those highsec residents who are not making 110m ISK/hr.

That is why I have supported and continue to support more LP in NullSec. I also agree with La Nariz that it should be CONCORD LP and should be awarded with or without ESS (ESS can give a bonus to the LP but should not be a requirement for LP). This way, you are buffing NullSec directly, indirectly placing a nerf on LP and income in HighSec, but not necessarily increasing faucets (with more injected ISK) and actually increasing the sink of the LP store.

I really appreciate that you talked with me Tippia. You've always been a sensical and civil person to discuss matters with. If you have any thoughts on the above, I would be delighted to read them.