Missions & Complexes

Wait, isn't the 90mil isk in nullsec coming directly from the bounties?

The isk quoted in this article is bounties + salvage + LP. Are you salvaging your anoms in nullsec?

it's a matter of faith. A bit like being a Apple fan versus a Windows fan or Ford versus Chevy or following a football team. Reason and logic, if relevant at all, is relevant only be coincidence.

The handful of people that can blitz incursions at 200 mill an hour, or the slightly larger but still small number that run incursions for similar money, actually need to be actively logged in to make that ISK so their overalll influence on the EVE economy compared to passive/multibox AFK income streams cannot be that significant however it is the principle of the matter - hisec EVE is evil.

This was intended as a legitimate question... I'm not sure nerfing high-sec income would force low-sec or null-sec players to focus more on their respective regions, nor do I think simply buffing low-sec or null-sec income would entice players to remain there either. I think the majority of players live in high-sec not because it's necessarily more interesting, but because it's somewhat stable and predictable. While there is an element of risk in being ganked, it's something that can also be mitigated to some extent.

If you removed L4 missions from high-sec it's highly unlikely you'd see anyone 'take the plunge' and relocate to low-sec to continue to blitz L4s or Burners (especially with some of the 'shinier' fits required to solo some). It's more likely that you'd see players come up with unique and creative ways to attempt to replace that income with L3s.

And from an economics standpoint, there's one thing every proponent of nerfing high-sec continues to overlook - there is simply no need or reason to fit Faction or Deadspace modules for running L3s. And there is a less than zero chance that players will fit these to fly into low-sec to run L4s. Anyone who runs DED sites, farms belts or participates in FW depends on demand from the high-sec market for these modules, so nerfing high-sec will also have the unintended effect of nerfing low-sec and null income.

And that's a fair point. However...

Don't a lot of null-sec players earn ISK through their corporate overlords, ie: ISK distributed from moon mining, space rental, etc. If not directly then indirectly through ship replacement programs and subsidized ships and equipment? DED spawns are so rare as to be almost non-existant in high-sec, and belt ratting does not see any Officer spawns, Faction loot, BPC or implant drops. High-sec anomalies almost never lead to escalations, and even when they do it's almost exclusively low-sec.

We're referencing ISK/hour, and it seems more than a little convenient that the very real potential for exotic loot is conveniently overlooked (I'm fairly certain high-sec Burner ISK/hour blitzing does in fact reflect this, as my own non-Burner attempts to include implant drops in the totals).

System upgrades and maintenance don't pay for themselves. And SRP is what keeps you being able to defend your ratting space (something people in high sec never have to worry about, no matter how much CODE huffs, they can't "own" high sec).



The potential is there, sometimes you hit the lottery.

These is not lottery involved with incursions, and the burner blitz guide doesn't rely on random number generator Gods smiling on you. That's why I'm training my alt to better execute the burner guide (instead of training it for a carrier to run low sec lvl 5s like I planned to, why accept risk when you don't have to?).

imo that is a whole different problem.


there are a lot of people already based in low/null, and pretty good logistical networks to move stuff out there. I think if they made more out there they would spend more time out there. Although then the whole OMG a red/neutral dock up!!! issue pops up. As for the most of the people in highsec, absolutely, they aren't going to leave to run low/null pve. Although I'm pretty sure there is a portion that would, as there are always some people that will follow the isk wherever it goes.

as for the markets, that is where things get complicated. I'm sure Highsec pvers pull up prices on a lot of faction/deadspace mods, but pvpers do use a bunch of them. and if they were cheaper perhaps pvpers would start using more of them (or certain ones more often). Also there on caps they make more sense to fit, WH ops, or even low/null isk making boats.


More complications. I'm not in a null block so I can't speak for specifics, but it seems to me the primary way to get isk back is via SRP, cant say how much of that is for fleet ops only, or any pvp. I don't know that there are any that give their pilots a salary or profit share.

I've seen faction loot and pirate implants in highsec belts a few times. As for exploration, it seems too random and low value to really try and run anoms to get escalations, where in null you are running them anyways for income. however there are low end complexes that spawn rather often in high.

Personally I don't count my faction loot from burners it is just too random for my sample sizes. Maybe on a month long trial it would work, but I just don't have the energy to do that.

Your thinking process about what's good for Eve always results in a nerf to hi-sec. It would be bad for the Eve player base if such thoughts ever infest their way into the minds of the Devs. You've been playing Eve too long baltec to be able to view Eve from the perspective of new Eve players or casual players who wishes to play only in hi-sec.

You're only thinking of yourself. I know this may shock you, but believe me when I say that not everyone thinks the way you do. How many others do you think would agree with you for wanting to get rid of afking anoms in null sec? Eve is all about adapting to the current meta and it seems you are having trouble with this part. So instead of YOU adapting to Eve, YOU want Eve to adapt to YOU. I suggest you grab a dictionary and look up the words selfishness and self-centered.

the whole point is that it's not supposed to be fair. Risk vs Reward is a basic fundamental of Eve design, and that the "unfairness" should put nullsec income as the best income. As long as I've played I've very rarely been enticed to move to 0.0 for the rewards, the biggest reward was ratting up my sec status. [/quote]

2nd best, wormholes exist now. But yea, nothing one can say will convince certain folk of the rightness of good game design if that game design doesn't serve high sec. The fact that the status quo actually serves something other than high sec is lost on them.




There ar eplenty of good players in high sec. The most vocal ones do fit your description though. Do notice how they can't fathom my personal critiques =of null sec, the idea of criticizing something one favors and benefits from (because it's less optimal for the overall game than it could be) is completely foreign to some.




I always do. I believe in radical "screw your panzy little feelings" truth (not just on forums either). NOTHING makes enemies more than observable and verifiable truth. And I mean nothing.

Maybe the ratting afking Ishtars in null was a bad point to defend. The point I was trying to make was that Jenn seems to lack the ability (or is not even trying) to view from other players perspective. Everyone plays Eve from their own perspective and it differs from one player to another. Before I make any opinion on questionable game design mechanics, I always put my self in the shoes of the people who uses the game mechanics in question. This way I'd have a pretty good affinity with the players who uses the questionable mechanics and will be able to implement an improve feature without losing their interest in the game altogether.

Baltec and Jenn (mostly baltec) have made remarks about their improvisions on how to change the PVE landscape that will have the greatest impact on hi-sec players ability to produce isk with total disregard to the players. In their eyes these changes should be made whether they like it or not which I believe would only lead into a decrease in player base. I get extremely irritated when reading their post for this reason because it reveals that deep down, they are either highly conceited, very selfish or severely lacking in foresight.

Baltec wants to remove faction missions from hi-sec to low-sec without another form of compensation for producing that level of income in hi-sec. Lack of foresight in full display here. Most players play in hi-sec today because they are relatively new to the experience of Eve and are not ready to take on the challenge of low sec or players who prefer casual gameplay due to lack of dedicated time. The only activity there is to do in hi-sec is mostly PVE, BUT do you think even this activity would be conducted if all you could make was a lousy 30 mill an hour? Hi-Sec players doing lev 4 missions should be capable of making 50-80 mill an hour per char. Anything less than this then it would start to feel like a 2nd part time job that doesn't pay enough. These players would either try low sec, join the blue box gang in null or quit eve altogether. Either way the player base would definitely shrink as hi-sec would become a poor mans land only inhabited by total noobs.

Jenn wants to eliminate the ability to blitz missions which I'm in agreement with. Missions weren't intended to be blitzed and I for one wish CCP redesign them so that they are no longer blitzable and only completed by killing all the mission rats or by defeating a powerful rat boss (also would make blitzing guides worthless which would make me very happy)

As for burners I don't want their LP payout reduce because they would no longer be worth running. Instead I'd rather CCP buff the stats of the burners themselves so that they'd be no longer possible to solo. They should require at least 2 ships to run them or you get "BURNED",lol.