EVE General Discussion

That is what CCP says and they think it is a bad thing hence the push to get people in social groups. CCP Rise went over that last Fanfest: http://www.themittani.com/news/fanfest-new-player-experience-1 or you can watch the whole thing online on Youtube.


Proving definitively this point would require statistics that CCP hasn't released. Anecdotally though, I have heard of many a lowsec, wormhole or even nullsec players who have an "Incursion alt" that they use to make thier ISK in highsec. CCP themselves acknowledges this may be a problem (CSM 9 Summer Minutes, page 125). If players are preferring to run incursions in highsec to earn ISK rather than stay in lowsec or the wormhole where they live to make an income, there is clearly a problem with the risk vs. reward balance of the game. If someone from CCP says the statistics don't match my experiences, then I will stand corrected.

I will never understand the thinking behind this kind of perspective. I've heard it before, especially people talking about how 'safe' null is because of intel channels. They fail to consider that intel channels mean squat for people coming out of wormholes or passing through empty systems. In high sec you don't even need to watch local, all you need to do is tank enough to let concord arrive.

High Sec is the safest part of EVE hands down. It is mechanically so. magical space police materialize out of thin air-less space to blap people who just look at you wrong. Meanwhile the ONLY safety a person has outside of high sec is safety provided by human effort.

Actually that would work too. Buffing the hell out of the rest of the spaces might play havoc with the economy, but would be a way to fix the imbalance without touching highsec.

I think a slight toning down of ISK in highsec (especially incursions), and a good buff of income elsewhere would go a long way to draw people away from highsec again. Throw in a slight increase in risk perhaps from NPCs (sleepers podding players ) and removing the faction police (Empires losing control ), and fix wardecs (and add a social corp to keep the new/casual players safe), and you might even have things back on track.

High sec people, in their zeal to preserve their advantages under an unbalanced system, always suggest this same thing (don't nerf my high sec, buff everything else). It seems their greed blinds them to elementary school level economics: buffing everything else has the same net effect as nerfing the one thing that is the problem.

All of which is moot. A few years ago, CCP buffed null sec anomalies using an 'EHP per isk' formula that resulted in a specific class of anomalies (Forsaken Hubs) being able to generate 500 million isk per hour if you use a Titan paired with a Scimitar (or even just a single super carrier). The results on the economy were swift and vicious. CCP had to quick-nerf everything about it to prevent New Eden becoming "Space Zimbabwe". Faction Warfare pve rewards damn near did the same thing.

And yet the high sec people (in their selfishness) think that repeating this terrible mistake that would screw ALL of us is preferable to simply bringing high sec pve (incursions, mission blitzing, burner mission blitzing, COSMOS farming etc) into proper line. Goes to show that greed and selfishness overpower reason every single time.

Well I tend to avoid most player sites for news but may check out the conference on youtube if someone has a timestamp for that particular bit.

If their solution to the issue is to incorporate anew tool to positively reinforce and place incentives on behavior they feel is more desireable that's fine. It is more of a constuctive solution than strong arming a player into playing a particular way of playing by instead offering an attractive new option.



Playing the game is all the game a while is all the proof you need, as well as the "lawyering up" nature of this statement. I'd be hard pressed to find someone say that it isn't true,or even probably true.

Suffice to say it doesn't really matter since I know CCP is fully aware of player habits and trends; it is just curious as to why there is usually such uproar when they make changes having these unknowable quantities at their disposal, and having a vested interest in improving their product, so many claim these same maneuvers are to the detriment of EVE. Based on things that they can't prove definitely that would require statistics CCP hasn't released ironically.



And I say that is a byproduct and consequence of null renting out their space, forming huge alliances preventing fights and the possibility to get more resources and content for their own members. So naturally they flock to High to find just about anything to do or make any money at all because there are only so many rats and anomalies to go around. Of course I can't definitely prove this since I don't have access to CCP's data. They don't return my calls. But let's just pretend it's true.

The solution then is to not so much nerf incursions to force them to scurry back to bear it up in Null, the solution is to examine how SOV works; maybe power projection, how difficult it is to hold space....and maybe the other stuff sorts itself out. Which I expect is exactly what they are doing.

Burner missions are blitzed the exact same way lvl 5 (and really all level missions) are. get super high standings, have alt in fleet (and make sure you are set to share rewards, so as you compelte missions the alt gets standings but never any penalties for declining missions), decline missions you don't want, do missions that can be done in a matter of minutes.

Where burners are different is the faction loot drop chance plus the fact that every single one of them can be done in less than 2 minutes with a single frig sized ship.

You can do 250-300 mil per hour doing burner missions for a corp like Sister of EVE playing the "yo-yo standings" game with an alt. Why would anyone win their right mind risk 2 bil worth of carrier ratting in nul when you can risk less than 100 mil in a Jaguar or Daredevil and make better isk. The actual answer is "ignorance and lazyness", null ratters are usually unaware of how to make better isk or simply can't be arsed because undocking a carrier and warping to an anom is easy even if it does pay less.

such as?

No, the solution is to nerf Incusion income so rational players are not forced to come back to highsec to make ISK as it is the most efficient way.

I suspect you are right though. From the minutes it is clear CCP knows this is a problem, but is probably holding out until the sov rework and the player-built stargates thing goes online. These are massive changes to the game and will significantly influence where players choose to live and earn ISK.

Just so we are clear though, I am not saying we should remove Incursions from the game - in fact I think the collaborative and competitive aspects make them better PvE content than most. They just pay far too much in highsec for the small (no?) amount of risk and are drawing players back from the other spaces because of that.

In addition, the things that poster claims have 'greater rewards' actually don't.

Incursions are a great example. Low and null incursion pay more per site. BUT no one in their right mind would take a fleet of 5 billion isk vindicators and nightmares to low sec to do them like they do in high.

So the fact that you HAVE to use lesser ships in low and null means that it's actually High Sec incursions that (for all practical purposes) pay better, because you have the safety to do them in uber-kill boats.

They dont get run in null anywhere near to the scale and efficiency as in highsec. Most are abandoned.



Missions don't exist in the vast bulk of null.


cant be blitzed due to things such as Sebo sabers and nasty little things called bubbles.


They die to local dreads rather than PL's.