EVE General Discussion

But the rewards are not the same, it's only that nullseccers refuse to take the risk to reap the rewards.
Stop refusing to take the risk and wanting security above all else, low risk and low reward are for highsec, high risk and high reward are for nullsec but only if nullseccers want to take that risk, and many do not, or else they would not be farming high sec.

The root of the problem does not lie in highsec vs nullsec incomes, it lies in the fact that nullseccers refuse to accept the risk of their environment and they blame highsec for that while it is simply not true, it's their own fault and not anyone else's.

Face it, if you do not want to take risks then your place is not in nullsec but in highsec, because you have a carebear mentality and do not truly want to lose the certainty of security, you only want to pretend that there is risk in what you do.

The donut is a lie.

One exception. If an entity cannot secure null sec well enough to benefit from null's advantages, then that entity would want high sec to be on par with null.

So if an entity actively campaigns for null's rewards to buffed in line with null's increased risks, then that entity believes that they can secure null well enough to take advantage of null's increased rewards.

No, the problem lies in the mechanical impossibility to make nullsec on par with highsec in many areas.

People would accept the risks just fine if there was something to balance them out. There isn't. In pretty much every way that nullsec could potentially offer some kind of improvement, highsec is already as good as it gets. With no margins for other parts of space to be better, there is no room for and no rationale to not operate in highsec. To fix that problem, those margins have to be created. Only then, if the problem actually persists, do you have a point… but at the moment, you're just trying to shift blame away from the real problem and trying to blame people who have actually done the maths (and the empirical testing) on what does and does not work.

Then it's a good thing no-one credible is trying to force anyone to go anywhere.

OK bubbles catch the incoming jump freighters and yes heavy dictors will last forever, because there wont just be 1, if any major alliance set up a trade hub to rival jita 4/4 (even if it was only 1/10th as active) all the other alliances and pvp groups and any day old noob who wants a kill would be sitting on the undock.

and cant be arsed to L2quote

No the root of the problem is that a few professions that deal with scarcity (namely complex running, and miniprof cherry picking), make good isk. That completely fails to map to strategic power. ie 50 goons per system come home from a war, and 49 of those characters per system are ratting anoms, because that is all that works for any serious population.



No, the inherent flipside of risk in EVE is not earning anything, and more than anyone else, people that PVP kinda lack time to deal with random number skinnerbox based income, with non availability of content and with the tendency of all PVPers to need to PVE at the same time.

In anycase, this is thread is not even about those people, its about the fact that nullsec industry is broken, and that CCP is making many decisions that will fix it, but they are also making sure that they kill more minerals in the process, because as I've pointed out in several threads before, excess gold won't kill a game, but excess resources certainly can and does.

This change does not really affect production.
At most, it affects logistics, but only for the better.

There nothing to suggest that there really will be any less minerals on the market though. The market is kind of fancy that way.

I suppose you're right in a way, though: it will affect production in that manufacturers will have much better access to production facilities. But I'd clump that in with the general logistical improvements.

Exactly the same amount of minerals will be mined in high sec after the changes as now.