These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

What would happen if CCP finally nerfed hisec?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave Stark
#1021 - 2014-01-19 08:49:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Kimmi Chan wrote:


Found that data.

Except that data only shows where bots were banned in 2011.
Not where they are currently active.
Nor what type of bots were banned.

Which was my point. CCP knows that in 2011 (Fanfest 2012 being early 2012, so primarily 2011 figures) they banned a whole lot of bots in certain places. Great. So... where is the breakdown of bots purpose. As well as the 2012 figures, and the 2013 figures.

After the trashing you tried to give my maths when it was based on a hell of a lot better data than you are claiming.

You are also claiming isk/hr is obviously the only factor mission bots take into account by deciding where to play. And that if isk/hr were higher in Nullsec they would take the vastly increased risk. Which, quite frankly is rubbish.


curiosity: do you believe the things you post or are you just a really awful troll?

oh and fyi, fanfest 2013 dr E's presentation had a breakdown of the types of bots, if i'm not mistaken... or one of the presentations did.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1022 - 2014-01-19 08:56:53 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


curiosity: do you believe the things you post or are you just a really awful troll?

Because every bot banned in Caldari Space was obviously a mission bot, and totally not a 0.01 isk bot, a scam bot, a message bot, an isk selling bot, or an ice mining bot.
The statistics have literally zero break down as to type of bot, so trying to use them to pretend that all mission running/ratting bots have moved to high sec is utterly insane.

Or you mean because I can do basic statistical maths that prove the Goons in this thread have been utterly lying about Null Sec not making more isk than High Sec? On which we do have some breakdown to look at.

So yes, I do believe what I post, because it's as accurate as we can do without CCP insider figures.
Dave Stark
#1023 - 2014-01-19 09:00:35 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Or you mean because I can do basic statistical maths that prove the Goons in this thread have been utterly lying about Null Sec not making more isk than High Sec?


people keep saying this yet nobody has actually provided proof that null sec makes more isk than high sec. until some one starts showing me 50m wallet ticks in anoms, it's quite evident that null sec simply isn't the place to be making isk if you do that by shooting red crosses.
Canthan Rogue
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1024 - 2014-01-19 09:04:06 UTC
The problem is that most activities where you can make a consistent, semi-reliable income involves fitting your ship for PvE. It is no wonder then that people who need income and therefore must fit for PvE choose to keep their PvE ships away from PvP. To get more people out of high sec, I think CCP should expand on ISK making opportunities in low sec that can be undertaken with a PvP fit ship. FW and the new clone rats are examples of this, but there could be more.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1025 - 2014-01-19 09:13:55 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


people keep saying this yet nobody has actually provided proof that null sec makes more isk than high sec. until some one starts showing me 50m wallet ticks in anoms, it's quite evident that null sec simply isn't the place to be making isk if you do that by shooting red crosses.

It's irrelevant what your perfect isk/hr is. Since you all love to discard any null isk/hr as 'Unsustainable'. The isk Faucets graph + the breakdown of NPC ships killed clearly shows that Null has made more isk over all. And Null also has better non isk faucet sources of income as well.

This with a vastly smaller population as you love to point at also, meaning per person you are making a heck of a lot more than happens in high sec.
Dave Stark
#1026 - 2014-01-19 09:16:49 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

It's irrelevant what your perfect isk/hr is.


spew nonsense.
disregard actual proof.

yeah and this is why everyone laughs at your posts.

the fact that people in null can't even provide evidence of a comparable isk/hour before we consider the interruptions means it's pretty obvious they can't make as much isk as high sec no matter how many times you want to say they can. repeating the same incorrect statements doesn't make them true.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1027 - 2014-01-19 09:22:55 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


spew nonsense.
disregard actual proof.

yeah and this is why everyone laughs at your posts.

the fact that people in null can't even provide evidence of a comparable isk/hour before we consider the interruptions means it's pretty obvious they can't make as much isk as high sec no matter how many times you want to say they can. repeating the same incorrect statements doesn't make them true.

Other than all those people who do produce isk/hr in Nullsec, that you all claim are lying or can't sustain it. While you take the perfect High Sec Isk/hr and pretend it's sustainable and replicable by thousands.

Also known as cherry picking your statistics without thought of true context or wider application.
Dave Stark
#1028 - 2014-01-19 09:24:46 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


spew nonsense.
disregard actual proof.

yeah and this is why everyone laughs at your posts.

the fact that people in null can't even provide evidence of a comparable isk/hour before we consider the interruptions means it's pretty obvious they can't make as much isk as high sec no matter how many times you want to say they can. repeating the same incorrect statements doesn't make them true.

Other than all those people who do produce isk/hr in Nullsec, that you all claim are lying or can't sustain it. While you take the perfect High Sec Isk/hr and pretend it's sustainable and replicable by thousands.

Also known as cherry picking your statistics without thought of true context or wider application.


considering i haven't cherry picked my statistics at all, once again disregarding actual proof because it doesn't conform to your incorrect spewing.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1029 - 2014-01-19 09:33:54 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


considering i haven't cherry picked my statistics at all, once again disregarding actual proof because it doesn't conform to your incorrect spewing.

Mhmmm. See, insults, accusations, but no hard figures for a large number of people doing true averages. Rather than single perfect incomes. Overall income in Null is higher. It's that simple. You can argue the individual isk/hr all you want, but the month by month income breaks down and shows Null has the isk. As it should, and as anyone with a brain knows is true.
Dave Stark
#1030 - 2014-01-19 09:36:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


considering i haven't cherry picked my statistics at all, once again disregarding actual proof because it doesn't conform to your incorrect spewing.

Mhmmm. See, insults, accusations, but no hard figures for a large number of people doing true averages. Rather than single perfect incomes. Overall income in Null is higher. It's that simple. You can argue the individual isk/hr all you want, but the month by month income breaks down and shows Null has the isk. As it should, and as anyone with a brain knows is true.


there wasn't a single insult there.

what are you talking about?

think we can safely confirm when confronted with the truth you change the subject and come out with irrelevant and random comments. A conversation with you is literally impossible.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1031 - 2014-01-19 10:11:55 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


considering i haven't cherry picked my statistics at all, once again disregarding actual proof because it doesn't conform to your incorrect spewing.

Mhmmm. See, insults, accusations, but no hard figures for a large number of people doing true averages. Rather than single perfect incomes. Overall income in Null is higher. It's that simple. You can argue the individual isk/hr all you want, but the month by month income breaks down and shows Null has the isk. As it should, and as anyone with a brain knows is true.


Amoms = 90 mil/hr on average

High sec level 4 missions = 100-120 mil/hr (Missions go up to 180 mil/hr)

Incursions 150 mil+/hr
Dave Stark
#1032 - 2014-01-19 10:13:42 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


considering i haven't cherry picked my statistics at all, once again disregarding actual proof because it doesn't conform to your incorrect spewing.

Mhmmm. See, insults, accusations, but no hard figures for a large number of people doing true averages. Rather than single perfect incomes. Overall income in Null is higher. It's that simple. You can argue the individual isk/hr all you want, but the month by month income breaks down and shows Null has the isk. As it should, and as anyone with a brain knows is true.


Amoms = 90 mil/hr on average

High sec level 4 missions = 100-120 mil/hr

Incursions 150 mil+/hr




don't insult him!
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#1033 - 2014-01-19 10:14:56 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:

Most of the income from bots is nullsec mission bots and low sec courier mission bots.


80% of bots are in high sec with most of that residing in caldari space.

Citation needed from both of you as to where the 'active' bots are.
Yes, CCP's bot bans have hit The Forge hard.... Almost like they include Spam Bots as 'Bots'.
Neither of you have any evidence where mission bots & ratting bots happen to live.

The only thing we know is that they do exist.


That citation you were looking for was related to the statement in bold above.

I simply provided that most recent data that was readily available. I make no assertions about that data except to support Baltec's claim.

Furthermore, there will never be any data as to where "active bots" are. When CCP finds a bot they do NOT let it remain active and then add it to a report. They ban the ******* thing and go looking for other bots.

Again, I do not present the data available in support of nerfing High Sec. I do not believe nerfing high sec makes null sec "better".

I present the data as you requested a source of said data.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Josef Djugashvilis
#1034 - 2014-01-19 10:27:56 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


considering i haven't cherry picked my statistics at all, once again disregarding actual proof because it doesn't conform to your incorrect spewing.

Mhmmm. See, insults, accusations, but no hard figures for a large number of people doing true averages. Rather than single perfect incomes. Overall income in Null is higher. It's that simple. You can argue the individual isk/hr all you want, but the month by month income breaks down and shows Null has the isk. As it should, and as anyone with a brain knows is true.


Amoms = 90 mil/hr on average

High sec level 4 missions = 100-120 mil/hr (Missions go up to 180 mil/hr)

Incursions 150 mil+/hr


Your hi-sec level 4 isk per hour is a bit like the fisherman and, 'it was this big'

This is not a signature.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1035 - 2014-01-19 10:45:44 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


considering i haven't cherry picked my statistics at all, once again disregarding actual proof because it doesn't conform to your incorrect spewing.

Mhmmm. See, insults, accusations, but no hard figures for a large number of people doing true averages. Rather than single perfect incomes. Overall income in Null is higher. It's that simple. You can argue the individual isk/hr all you want, but the month by month income breaks down and shows Null has the isk. As it should, and as anyone with a brain knows is true.


Amoms = 90 mil/hr on average

High sec level 4 missions = 100-120 mil/hr (Missions go up to 180 mil/hr)

Incursions 150 mil+/hr


Your hi-sec level 4 isk per hour is a bit like the fisherman and, 'it was this big'

yes. It needs:
- lvl4 SOE missions only (because of LP)
- blitzing, no killing, no salvaging, etc
- only happens when you get the best missions from all set

the same is about incursions.

Compare it to 0.0 sec anomalies: no conditions except quite local. Officer spawns is a bonus

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#1036 - 2014-01-19 10:49:51 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


considering i haven't cherry picked my statistics at all, once again disregarding actual proof because it doesn't conform to your incorrect spewing.

Mhmmm. See, insults, accusations, but no hard figures for a large number of people doing true averages. Rather than single perfect incomes. Overall income in Null is higher. It's that simple. You can argue the individual isk/hr all you want, but the month by month income breaks down and shows Null has the isk. As it should, and as anyone with a brain knows is true.


Amoms = 90 mil/hr on average

High sec level 4 missions = 100-120 mil/hr (Missions go up to 180 mil/hr)

Incursions 150 mil+/hr


Your hi-sec level 4 isk per hour is a bit like the fisherman and, 'it was this big'


I'm sorry but I also have to agree with this. I am not making anywhere near that kind of ISK running L4 missions. Of course, I am also not min/maxing every detail of my fitting into minutia. I often will tab out once a mission is completed to post here and read new posts. But even on my most focused day I just never see that kind of income.

I guess I'm doing it wrong.

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#1037 - 2014-01-19 10:55:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Skeln Thargensen
the average mission runner makes nothing like what people are quoting. if it were true, no one would bother with the risk and hassle of getting into incursion fleets.

forums.  serious business.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1038 - 2014-01-19 10:56:26 UTC
Haha risk.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#1039 - 2014-01-19 10:59:11 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Haha risk.


tell me about how team killing isn't a thing in eve that even has a special name.

forums.  serious business.
Josef Djugashvilis
#1040 - 2014-01-19 11:00:35 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Haha risk.


Null-sec ratting, ha ha risk Smile

This is not a signature.