These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

So it is true you can earn 120m per hour from Iskursions?

Author
Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2011-11-27 13:54:23 UTC
Tore Vest wrote:
Zagdul wrote:


I personally disagree. I feel lvl 4 missions pay out more than they should in comparison to what null sec does for it's anomalies.

I look at it from a grunt's perspective in null sec who plays to defend their empire. Those people should have advantages over people in high security space as they're taking more risks and generally spend more isk on a daily basis paying for ships to build their space castles. In my opinion, in order to help retention in EVE, the grunts in null need something that benefits them and not just having the resources such as moons which generally assist in paying sov bills. The bottom line is that in null sec, as an alliance, you can be successful. The amount of effort, time and risk put into that far out weighs what it's worth considering you can hang up your hat and go chill in empire and run incursions.

Basically, if I decided to drop all sov and run my alliance off incursion taxes and low sec moons, I could in essence be a much more wealthy alliance with less overhead. This is where I feel the imbalance is.


Im pretty shure most of you nullbears have an alt running highsec incursions Cool


No, this is a fact.

And if it's not an alt, it's a main. The problem with this is that the allure of an incursion in empire is so great, nullbears are abandoning their empires for greed.

This is the way of EVE where greed > all. Nullbears are now 50 jumps away when they're needed by their alliance and their JC's are on cooldown.

Holding space in null sec needs to have benefits which outweigh running empire incursions. There needs to be a reason for not just the alliance to be there, but the individual pilot as well. Pre-anom nerf there was. When CCP took the anoms away, they nerfed small gang PVP, they nerfed the grunt's ability to sustain an income IN NULL SEC and in essence made over 70% of null sec space worthless.


Prior to that nerf, more ships died. More roams happened and null sec was a scarier, more risky environment to be in. Now you can pass entire regions, barely seeing a soul.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

Kent Reeves
#42 - 2011-11-27 13:55:14 UTC
Incursions are isk faucets of the worst kind and do need to change before it's too late. Perhaps removing the isk and increasing the LP payout (as previously suggested). Either way, the real issue is that you can make more isk in empire than null-sec and that is just wrong.

Right now risk does not equal reward.
Pinaculus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2011-11-27 13:57:04 UTC
The reason the pay is go good is low player population. Try doing High Sec Incursions and hitting that 120M/hour figure. Now, try doing it during prime-time when the server count is nearing 50k.

There's only so many sites that spawn at a time. The payouts for those sites generally go to the 2 or 3 badass, well-run fleets. Everyone else rushes around to catch the crumbs the good fleets don't want, and loses the payout to a third of their sites to the good fleets.

Add in that you spend a lot of time waiting for people to get their crap together, or waiting for someone to warp 20 jumps because they logged in at the last Incursion, or waiting to replace a Logistics that had to log off last minute, or waiting while your FC scouts out a site that isn't already taken...

Yeah, that 120M/Hour is an "ideal" number. Most of the time the payouts are far far lower.

Unless you're in a decent corp/alliance that runs something other than Highsec Vanguards/Assaults. Then the money is even better (until something bad happens).

I know sometimes it's difficult to realize just how much you spend on incidental things each month or year, but seriously, EVE is very cheap entertainment compared to most things... If you are a smoker, smoke one less pack a week and pay for EVE, with money left over to pick up a cheap bundle of flowers for the EVE widow upstairs.

Tore Vest
#44 - 2011-11-27 13:58:22 UTC
Takseen wrote:


Yes, and if they are then that *doesn't make sense* from a game design perspective. If these people have all this space they're quite literally paying for, why are they drawn back to highsec? The risk/reward balance must be off somewhere.


Maby its have something to do with the leadership in your corp ?
Not caring about theyr corpmembers...?
Just letting them spinn ships all day long ?

No troll.

Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2011-11-27 14:01:43 UTC
Ammzi wrote:
Daedalus Arcova wrote:

Nullsec sov-holding is at the top end of group activity in EVE. It should be significantly more rewarding than highsec, including the temporary teamwork of incursions.


That's right. That is why you have nullsec incursions Big smile.
The thing is, different professions pay differently depending on the skillset of that pilot, but nullsec will always pay you more.

Trading stuff in nullsec vs. highsec.
Freighting stuff in nullsec vs. highsec.
Exploring in nullsec. vs. highsec.
Mining in nullsec vs. highsec.
Running incursions in nullsec vs. highsec.




See, here's where you're just being silly.

We have incursions in null sec sure.. however, think of how much space that is null. Now, imagine that an incursion is in your enemy's space, where their allies control. You'd literally need to fight another empire to run said incursion.

It's not worth the risk when I can just go to empire and run them under the safety of concord.

What you and so many people seem to miss is that null sec space needs to hold value for the solo, casual player to log in, make some isk and log out. The space itself needs to have that value OVER empire space not because we want more of you out here, simply because it's the basic principle of what EVE was built off of.

A solar system in null sec, no matter the security status should never be worth less for a solo, casual player to make an income than that of a .5 system that has the protection of Concord.

Ever.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2011-11-27 14:02:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
NERF Incursions reward in Hi-sec


I agree with this message and/or service...but not really.

Not everyone in HS can make that kind of isk. Typically, it's highly skilled characters with faction/complex fit ships for max DPS. So, on the scale of things, assuming lower skilled characters are actually newer players and not alts of the the 25K people that play this game on a daily basis, then the percentage of hisec dwellers that can make +100mil/hr is quite small.

Sooooo.......stop yer bitchin?

Look, if highly skilled characters aren't coming out of HS then it's for a reason. No sense shooting CCP or the rest of us in the foot by forcing them out of the game solely for playing it the way they want to play it. Honestly, I'd have to say that the people that always complain about risk vs rewards and HS having too much isk are prolly doingitwrong where ever they are....misery loves company.

Don't ban me, bro!

Daedalus Arcova
The Scope
#47 - 2011-11-27 14:05:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Daedalus Arcova
Ammzi wrote:
Daedalus Arcova wrote:

Nullsec sov-holding is at the top end of group activity in EVE. It should be significantly more rewarding than highsec, including the temporary teamwork of incursions.


That's right. That is why you have nullsec incursions Big smile.
The thing is, different professions pay differently depending on the skillset of that pilot, but nullsec will always pay you more.

Trading stuff in nullsec vs. highsec.
Freighting stuff in nullsec vs. highsec.
Exploring in nullsec. vs. highsec.
Mining in nullsec vs. highsec.
Running incursions in nullsec vs. highsec.



But you can go anywhere in highsec (faction standings notwithstanding), and go there without risk. Players who want to run incursions in highsec can run one, then go and do the next one as soon as it appears. Highsec incursions also get completed, so all the pilots who participated get massive LP payouts.

In nullsec, there's only one or two incursions going on at once, and nullsec is a big place when you can't just autopilot your faction battleships around with impunity. If an incursion does appear nearby, you can sometimes rustle up a small gang to go and run the Vanguard sites for an hour or so. But you have to get the right numbers and fleet composition before you all set off, which takes a good 20 minutes, then the time it takes to fly the 20 jumps out to the incursion itself, run it for an hour or so before someone has to leave, and then fly 20 jumps home again. Because you have to travel - often through hostile territory - you can't just have a waiting list of people to join your fleet when someone has to go.

NBSI rules of engagement apply, so you can't just get together with some randoms from a hostile alliance to run the bigger sites with you - they'd rather just fight you. And because it's only a few of you running low-end sites sporadically, those nullsec incursions are very rarely completed. So no shiny BPCs, and no LP.

Incursions in nullsec are more lucrative than belt or anomaly ratting, hour-for-hour, but preparing for them is also a lot of hassle, and they're certainly nowhere near the cash cow of their highsec equivalents.
Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2011-11-27 14:08:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Zagdul
Tore Vest wrote:
Takseen wrote:


Yes, and if they are then that *doesn't make sense* from a game design perspective. If these people have all this space they're quite literally paying for, why are they drawn back to highsec? The risk/reward balance must be off somewhere.


Maby its have something to do with the leadership in your corp ?
Not caring about theyr corpmembers...?
Just letting them spinn ships all day long ?


No, it's because people in general are risk averse.

Also, there's a lot of inflation happening in EVE right now. The cost of PLEX has doubled in the past few months which is something many null sec people have survived off of. Now, in the past they'd run their anoms a few hours a day and have enough isk to pay for their accounts, pvp and enjoy time with friends.

However, in the past year, null sec has seen the greatest isk faucet nerf in the whole of EVE with the anom nerf. The income these pilots depended on has been taken from them. Now, they have to work 3-4 times harder to maintain their accounts. The game has become a grind, it's lost it's fun and people are dis-interested with EVE in general because of the frustrations which has happened with CCP's mistakes.

When you empire bears cheered that CCP nerf'd anoms in null sec, you basically cheered for what in essence became the great inflation of EVE and one of the main reasons the economy is so ****.

All those null bears who used to run anoms, in null sec... are safely running incursions.

They're not PVP'ing and blowing up ships and isk is just being put into their wallets without being spent.

Null combat isn't happening because as a whole, nobody wants to structure grind.

in all... it f***ked the game. CCP took the fun away from pilots with the anom nerf.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

Mirima Thurander
#49 - 2011-11-27 14:12:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirima Thurander
its 1.2+ bill a day if you put in a 9 hour day and have a good fleet run



let me say this, that's before you convert LPs to isk,

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.

Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2011-11-27 14:13:43 UTC
Oh, and for the record.

I'm against nerfing Incursions. Any moron knows if they do that it will drive people away.

It's a BAD IDEA to nerf the incursions.


However, Null Sec needs a SERIOUS isk faucet increase to draw the pilots back out there and feel they aren't grinding EVE just to get a few hours of pvp in.

Last year, few hours anoms = days of pvp.

These days, Days of anoms = hours of pvp.

This needs to change FAST.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

XY Zed
#51 - 2011-11-27 14:16:23 UTC
I like to think of all the "bears" who make isk as inadvertent PVPers who are fighting null sec with inflation.

Economic warfare is a valid war tactic and should not be nerfed.

Examples include:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_overprint_note
Account for Japanese invasion of Hawaii and prevent the use of any captured US legal tender by issuing special tender

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bernhard
secret Nazi plan devised during the Second World War by the RSHA and the SS to destabilise the British economy by flooding the country with forged Bank of England
Rico Minali
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2011-11-27 14:18:48 UTC
Zagdul wrote:
Oh, and for the record.

I'm against nerfing Incursions. Any moron knows if they do that it will drive people away.

It's a BAD IDEA to nerf the incursions.


However, Null Sec needs a SERIOUS isk faucet increase to draw the pilots back out there and feel they aren't grinding EVE just to get a few hours of pvp in.

Last year, few hours anoms = days of pvp.

These days, Days of anoms = hours of pvp.

This needs to change FAST.



This is exactly the truth of it. I pay for Eve with isk, I will never pay to play with real money. As it is I am consolidating down to one account after Xmas as I dont have time to grind a billion isk a month just to pay to play, if it ever got to the point I need to pve more than I pvp I will simply stop.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.

Daedalus Arcova
The Scope
#53 - 2011-11-27 14:20:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Daedalus Arcova
Zagdul wrote:
Oh, and for the record.

I'm against nerfing Incursions. Any moron knows if they do that it will drive people away.

It's a BAD IDEA to nerf the incursions.


However, Null Sec needs a SERIOUS isk faucet increase to draw the pilots back out there and feel they aren't grinding EVE just to get a few hours of pvp in.

Last year, few hours anoms = days of pvp.

These days, Days of anoms = hours of pvp.

This needs to change FAST.


Certainly agree about a nullsec ISK/hr buff. But highsec bears (and the nullsec players that have now joined them) were here before Incursions, and they'll be here if they're nerfed. Sure, there will be whining, but when isn't there when something is changed (other than eye candy)?

If you don't nerf incursion income, then there needs to be far more ISK sinks. The PVP ISK sink of getting more players back into null is a start, but nowhere near enough, especially when you're drawing them into null by buffing yet another ISK faucet!
Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2011-11-27 14:21:00 UTC
Rico Minali wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
Oh, and for the record.

I'm against nerfing Incursions. Any moron knows if they do that it will drive people away.

It's a BAD IDEA to nerf the incursions.


However, Null Sec needs a SERIOUS isk faucet increase to draw the pilots back out there and feel they aren't grinding EVE just to get a few hours of pvp in.

Last year, few hours anoms = days of pvp.

These days, Days of anoms = hours of pvp.

This needs to change FAST.



This is exactly the truth of it. I pay for Eve with isk, I will never pay to play with real money. As it is I am consolidating down to one account after Xmas as I dont have time to grind a billion isk a month just to pay to play, if it ever got to the point I need to pve more than I pvp I will simply stop.



In the end CCP loses.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2011-11-27 14:22:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Zagdul
Daedalus Arcova wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
Oh, and for the record.

I'm against nerfing Incursions. Any moron knows if they do that it will drive people away.

It's a BAD IDEA to nerf the incursions.


However, Null Sec needs a SERIOUS isk faucet increase to draw the pilots back out there and feel they aren't grinding EVE just to get a few hours of pvp in.

Last year, few hours anoms = days of pvp.

These days, Days of anoms = hours of pvp.

This needs to change FAST.


Certainly agree about a nullsec ISK/hr buff. But highsec bears (and the nullsec players that have now joined them) were here before Incursions, and they'll be here if they're nerfed. Sure, there will be whining, but when isn't there when something is changed (other than eye candy)?

If you don't nerf incursion income, then there needs to be far more ISK sinks. The PVP ISK sink of getting more players back into null is a start, but nowhere near enough, especially when you're drawing them into null with yet another ISK faucet!


It's a bad idea to nerf the income of the game right now as too much inflation has already happened.

Economics 101 will tell you that in order to counter the current inflation, more money needs to be printed.

Where that money is injected will determine the face of EVE though. People by nature go where the resources which are available to them are.

EDIT: And if null continues the way it is, inflation will continue, accounts will continue to un-sub and null sec will continue to stagnate.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

Daedalus Arcova
The Scope
#56 - 2011-11-27 14:31:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Daedalus Arcova
Zagdul wrote:
It's a bad idea to nerf the income of the game right now as too much inflation has already happened.

Economics 101 will tell you that in order to counter the current inflation, more money needs to be printed.

Where that money is injected will determine the face of EVE though. People by nature go where the resources which are available to them are.


I think you need to consult your economics textbook. Printing money to keep pace with inflation only makes inflation worse. It does nothing to deal with the underlying causes. Look at Germany in the 1930s, or the UK in the 1970s.

EVE's inflation is driven by an excess in money supply. The only way to stop it is to take more money permanently out of the economy, through ISK-sinks. It will hurt players in the short-term, but it will allow prices to stabilise, which is in everyone's interest in the long-term.
Tore Vest
#57 - 2011-11-27 14:42:46 UTC
Daedalus Arcova wrote:


I think you need to consult your economics textbook. Printing money to keep pace with inflation only makes inflation worse. It does nothing to deal with the underlying causes. Look at Germany in the 1930s, or the UK in the 1970s.

EVE's inflation is driven by an excess in money supply. The only way to stop it is to take more money permanently out of the economy, through ISK-sinks. It will hurt players in the short-term, but it will allow prices to stabilise, which is in everyone's interest in the long-term.

Words from a nullbear that hate everything highsec Roll

No troll.

Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2011-11-27 14:52:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Zagdul
Daedalus Arcova wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
It's a bad idea to nerf the income of the game right now as too much inflation has already happened.

Economics 101 will tell you that in order to counter the current inflation, more money needs to be printed.

Where that money is injected will determine the face of EVE though. People by nature go where the resources which are available to them are.


I think you need to consult your economics textbook. Printing money to keep pace with inflation only makes inflation worse. It does nothing to deal with the underlying causes. Look at Germany in the 1930s, or the UK in the 1970s.

EVE's inflation is driven by an excess in money supply. The only way to stop it is to take more money permanently out of the economy, through ISK-sinks. It will hurt players in the short-term, but it will allow prices to stabilise, which is in everyone's interest in the long-term.

I stand corrected... You lower interest rates. welp.

the problem is, null bears are in empire grinding incursions instead of being in null sec losing ships.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

Tore Vest
#59 - 2011-11-27 15:01:42 UTC
Zagdul wrote:

I stand corrected... You lower interest rates. welp.

the problem is, null bears are in empire grinding incursions instead of being in null sec losing ships.


Why be in null sec losing ships
when you can be in high grinding isk ? Cool
Or... grinding isk in high.... loosing them in null..
Little info: ppl loosing ships in highsec allso Blink

No troll.

Rico Minali
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2011-11-27 15:06:15 UTC
Perhaps there needs to be an incursion interdiction...

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.