EVE General Discussion

No, income is not really a factor since it's so massively overshadowed by all the other concerns — security, logistics, availability, ease of use etc. If you pay attention, you'll notice that there's actually very little talk about increasing the income, but rather to make the income you already get be proportional to what you have to do to get it in relation to how much you earn elsewhere. It's not the income — it's the costs that matter.

It is also not a factor because you're confusing two different levels of complaint: one is the alliance level, where there is some good ISK to be made (but not through any faucets) and another is the individual level, where ISK is usually best made elsewhere (and only in some cases through faucets).

Yeah, no. The problem with the sites you're talking about is that they're full of low-value ore so you take quite a hit trying to clear them out (which you have to do — cherry-picking just increases the effort and lowers the yield even further) compared to mining in safety or just buying the stuff, not just in terms of ISK but in terms of convenience.

…just like saying that nullseccers are trying to convince anyone that the income sucks when the actual complaint is that the rewards you get for all the effort do not scale properly. Reducing all that to just “income” is to miss out on, oh, pretty much every last detail, making it a BS claim.

Same goes for the ignorant claim that they don't want to risk any sources of income and power. Again, if you had actually paid attention rather than dream up what you think people are saying, you'd notice that a lot of what's being asked for is a reason and an ability to put more assets at risk.

How much risk are the various alliances' super-capital construction facilities under?

I ask because I've never had anything to do with such things, and it seems to me that this would be an indication of the real risk industry in null-sec would be under if it was possible to have it fairly concentrated (and thus easy to protect). If industry has to be fairly dispersed (for example, because no POS can hold much of it), it will obviously be much more vulnerable, but there's been a lot of complaints about how one of the current problems with null-sec industry is how much transporting of materials it requires.

Thus, unless even centralised industry is at risk (so, that question - how many half-finished titans get blown up on their slips?), null-sec has the problem that either industry is efficient, safe, and centralised, or it is dispersed, vulnerable, and inefficient.

Maybe. The point is that the profits won't really change and that, at best, a bit more ISK will end up in the pockets of the miners, which will create an upwards pressure on those materials. Oh, and that for the individual, POSes don't set you back hundreds of millions of ISK a month.

…and yet the goal is for null to be 99% self-sufficient by volume. The problem with your idea is that it would require a complete revamp of pretty much every part of industry in the game, or there won't be any real need for it and thus no healthy trade. The examples we have already show this. It also still requires a massive buff to nullsec production since it's a barren wasteland of pointless tools and garbage mechanics.

So-so. Largely because POSes die so easily (and boringly) to a properly-sized fleet hell-bent on its destruction. The real trick lies in figuring out what's going on in the CSAA and if it's worth attacking…

…and that's why POSes are a distraction. Fixing nullsec industry starts with the outpost — the thing that has to compete with highsec stations in terms of usability. These are centralised, easy enough to disrupt or outright lose, obvious and valuable targets (already under the current sov rules), and — with some tweaks — efficient as well.

The lowsec part I agree with, that indy there should be unique. Nullsec however should be similar to High in that "Sov Empires" are the player equivalent of NPC Factions(Amarr, Gallente, etc).

I appreciate the honest and interesting reply, which on reading leads me to ask:

- If you believe some reports, many alliances, corporations and individuals in sov null are tremendously rich already. Would any sov null mechanic change produce anything that was worth fighting over in such circumstances?
- Isn't the owning/taking of sov an end in itself (bragging rights, e-peen and so on)? if not, what is sov null for?
-Is part of the sov null problem about super cap poliferation?

Gee guys, I guess we haven't been saying it loud enough...

So you only started playing this year, I take it?

Because you can't mine and rat in nigh complete safety (or make any real money from it if you did) and because the threat of ganks and wars is zero.

Only if you assume a reality based on forum rumours rather than what's actually happening. If you look at the reality behind those rumours, it's pretty intuitive.

Their goal to revamp sov and null industry says otherwise.

…except, of course, that the whole “everyone is blue” thing is a myth and that the tedium is caused by the mechanics involved.

That's why they are describing how to fix those things rather than rant and cry about wanting to impose PvP on highsec (another myth). Null has been left ruined for a long time, and they'd prefer not to have to play in highsec.

Here is one of those people now. None of the nullbears want to lose their hi-sec play ground. Null sec is player created so let the players change it if they are bored.

Don’t change hi-sec to counter what we created in null. We made our bed lets lay in it.

Well that's their fault for not adapting.

Actually wait no, all the industry is in highsec, clearly just as intended, production is spread over the different areas.

Everything but the below: ~~**Highsec**~~ (with added Blingee)
Capitals: Low sec
Supercapitals: Sov Nullsec.

if only we could magic away the limitations of nullsec through the powers of the Sandbox(TM)

(we can't)