EVE General Discussion

I have removed a rule breaking post.

The Rules:
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

I don't get that same impression from the discussion here.

From the bulk of the thread I don't think anyone has expressed a view that they want to force anyone to leave highsec that doesn't want to. It's more a case of creating the environment that not only supports the people that already live in nullsec, but that also provides incentive for others that would like to live there if they could sustain themselves.

There's just different views on how to make null more attractive. Clearly from this thread, one option is to nerf the high paying income sources that pose little risk, so that higher incomes are the reward for taking higher risk.

But there's no need to use a stick method - come to null so we can kill you - when a carrot is a better option - come to null because the rewards for taking the risks are worth it.

That's exactly the point. There is no incentive to leave Hi Sec. The amount of income you should be able to make out in low, NPC null, and Sov Null, with the average losses you will incur factored in, should exceed what you are able to do In Hi Sec by a healthy margin. It doesn't. I'm actually thrilled that some of the ore changes may eventually/may be having an effect on Hi Sec mining - even after replacing a few barges, it should be more profitable per hour to mine in null than it should be in Hi. Risk should be rewarded - it is not, but maybe we are headed there.

Let's do a hypothetical. Let's say an Ishtar running anomalies makes about 60m/hr optimally. However, lets say, oh, on average, every 14 hours of ratting, the Ishtar is ganked and destroyed, and for every 3 hours of ratting, one hour is spent either in system defense, or docked up. so over a 24 hour period of ratting 18 hours can be actually run, and the ishtar will be killed 1.28 times. So over those 24 ratting hours, 1.08 billion was made, and ~320m worth of ships was lost, making the entire take 760m/24 hours, or as low as 32m isk/hour.

Hi Sec Incursions make, lets say, 90m isk/hr running in an optimal setting. While there is set up time per incursion, this is mitigated by them lasting so long and farming continuing after the influence bar is maxed. Out of 24 hours of available incursion running time, lets say fully 1/3 of the time is wasted on form ups and moving - this is probably no where near where a disciplined group can get it, so if anything this hypothetical is under reporting the true profits here. So 16 hours out of 24 times 90m/hr is 1.44 billion isk take home over 24 hours, no lost ships, and we get ~60m/hr, even when we waste fully 1/3 of the time.

To make null viable, either the Hi Sec number has to be lowered, or the Null Sec number be made competitive and exceed the Hi Sec one. One could make the same hypothetical with miners and ore, which is why miners traditionally stayed in Hi Sec - the rewards were not great enough elsewhere to justify the risks. The Ishtar pilot is creating or participating in player made content as well, as a priceless intangible benefit. Personally, i'd rather see a sneaky and brave miner be able to vastly out compete his or her competitors out in null, and have a game which rewards that. It would also be nice to reward those who make content by exposing themselves to risk. It would also be nice to have Null Sec worth taking for line members. Previously, the issue with null empires is that you both A)Couldn't take the space if you wanted it and B)The people who owned the space didnt really want it either. A has been addressed by the previous few patches and the incoming patches more and more, but B hasn't really been talked about at all. If you want people to build new empires to challenge the old, you have to make those empires valuable enough so the resources are there to do so.

And again, I'm curious. If you won't leave Hi Sec, if you realize how much better the near absolute safety is versus how the rewards, how can you expect the new null to work, given the stifling income disparity?

Yet thousands upon thousands of pilots actually do leave high sec. Explain that for me.

Mr Epeen

So high sec for ISK and null sec for stories. Seems like a fair trade to me. Be a rich nobody or a poor but cool somebody with a rich nobody alt.

Mr Epeen

and what stops you from adding risk to incursions? a couple of catas should have enough to blow up incursion logis, then watch as they either scramble to wrap away/attack you or the NPC shred them

Think you'd need more than a couple of catalysts, but the general idea should work, and quite cheaply too. E-war as well.

Some time ago, Gallente ships were a joke. You see the range on them that utilized their bonuses pretty much had you being webbed so bad it felt like you anchored it and then you get picked off by snipers. There were a lot of "Why you no like Gallente, CCP?" threads and around that time the term "Winmatar" was common in FW.

The first buff had nothing to do with any direct improvement to Gallente ships. It was the micro jump drive. A module that puts the blasters into face melting range.

You see, indirect buff is the key here.

Nullsec has had indirect nerfs. Mainly in the form of making it way too easy to catch people. Nobody said "nerf nullsec" and the devs never said "we're nerfing nullsec". But the changes to warp speed, bubble immune inties, removal of deep safes, and now d-scan immune recons. Also, the Ishtar "scourge" to consider. And now the 1000 DPS gecko (though that's arguable).

So yeah. But I have seen this argument in countless "CCP move level 4 to lowsec why you no like gankers" threads. You see if the cost factor is affected by PVP, even someone who tries to like losing a ship once a day simply cannot keep at it. The cost factors you bring up are valid.

Were it up to me there would be more rewards for securing nullsec space with almost no cap on player resource and effort investment. But it's possible the game is worked into a corner with the interaction around having a central production and market spot like Jita. The "need" for this must be replaced with something before it's removed.

I think you'll find that Incursions grew through the era of people trolling their fleets regularly, though some of the new fat cats who do nothing else rather than use incursions to fund other fun might panic about it. The real 'issue' is that despite all the trolling, incursion communities actually did HTFU & Adapted, and now the gankers have found they can't kill them so are trying to get CCP to do it for them.

This has been answered several times in the thread, however once more...
A)Null incursions last less than a day due to the need to remove them from space because they cyno jam, as opposed to a full week.
B)Getting ships to a null incursion, even in the now passing days of sprawling empires, is a challenge, as opposed to trivial.
C)Getting one to spawn in your neighborhood is erratic and unreliable, as opposed to always having one(s) up in Hi.
D)A concentration of ratters attracts antagonists, and without CONCORD protection, dealing with them is not easy.

I've run incursions in null. It's not nearly as lucrative as you make it out to be, due to a lack of consistency, whereas Hi Sec ones are very consistent.



This has also been answered a few times in the thread.

Ganking people in gated sites, in Hi Sec, where the rats turn on you is entirely different than traditional miner ganking or freighter ganking. If it was actually doable en-mass as suggested, a ganking entity would have done it already.

Unlike nullsec incursions...where players represent real risk, and have a FAR bigger toolbox of ways to ruin your day.