Meh nevermind, I don't feel like explaining it.

Meh nevermind, I don't feel like explaining it.

You know how some people like to claim most PVP happens in hisec?

You seem to do that not explaining thing a lot, yet express dissatisfaction at people not understanding your point of view.

You just refuted an argument that I've never heard anyone make.

So hey . . . well played?

The graph says absolutely nothing about WHY or HOW it is that null, despite being a veritable wasteland according to certain null sec players, has mountains of ISK to throw away on PVP.
.

you're kidding right?

I get my null sec pvp isk from incursions....in high sec.

Are you really that stupid, or are you just trolling?

So, you're CHOICE is to do PVE in high sec and your CHOICE is to do PVP in null. Maybe you could shed some light on why that is.

http://i.imgur.com/WzXjyuN.jpg

Whoops, there goes that theory. Turns out if you remove losses to rats, hisec comes in third.

No, its not my choice, I'd rather PVE in null, but (as has been demonstrated time and again), it's just easier to do it in high sec uninterupted. Hell, my Machariel can make 105 to 120 mil per hour in null anoms, but I have to take lots of percautions, watch local and intel etc.

Or I can fly the exact same mach in a high sec incursion fleet, the FC does the "driving", a fleet of logi reps me if I get shot, I don't have to wath local or intel, and NO ONE can take sov from the Amarr Empire (where many high sec incursions happen because it's so big). And make the exact same 105-120+ mil an hour NOT counting Concord LP......

So my "choice" is be where I want to be and deal with all different kinds of danger or be totally safe and make the EXACT same amount of isk.

Some "choice".

I don't know of anyone ever claiming that.

Ever since the first time CCP posted ship loss statistics by type of space and separated between pve and pvp losses it's been entirely undisputed that highest has the lowest proportion of ship losses to PVP and the second lowest total PVP losses.

You must be new or something, because the rest of us have been aware of the statistics you posted for literally years.

You know how some people like to claim most PVP happens in hisec...

In addition, what makes you think there are more ships lost to pvp in highsec than in null?

There aren't many of those, tbh. I like to claim null sec is fairly safe for a ratter / miner, which it is, as 1. you have people protecting your borders and 2. there are usually region-wide intel channels and 3. anyone entering your system that's not blue is a threat by default (exception being Providence). Note that neither of those has anything to do with the amount of pvp in null, as there will still be constant border clashes and pvp roams.

That said, I'm a bit surprised that WH isk destroyed is that low. I know it has by far the least population, but still, I'd expect it would be fairly popular with gankers because local doesn't reveal them.

I get my null sec pvp isk from incursions....in high sec.

i think this is time to repeat some links:

http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/regional-round-up-march-madness.html

That's not going to support your assertion, since there aren't "lowsec regions" and "highsec regions" so you can't separate highsec pvp ship losses out from nullsec ones just from the data he shows there.

if nullseccers win and high-sec will get nerfed PVE then you will lose too....

bad situation

just curious:
- is it big part of nullseccers who support his PvP in 0.0 by ISK from high-sec?
- are they all stupid supporting nerfs for high-sec PvE (thus nerfing their own PvP ability)?

if nullseccers win and high-sec will get nerfed PVE then you will lose too....

bad situation

just curious:
- is it big part of nullseccers who support his PvP in 0.0 by ISK from high-sec?
- are they all stupid supporting nerfs for high-sec PvE (thus nerfing their own PvP ability)?

CCP cant offer even more isk for 0.0 pve activities so that leaves nerfing high as the only viable option. Unlike many highsecers, we are willing to see past our own greed to see through balance needs.

if nullseccers win and high-sec will get nerfed PVE then you will lose too....

bad situation

just curious:
- is it big part of nullseccers who support his PvP in 0.0 by ISK from high-sec?
- are they all stupid supporting nerfs for high-sec PvE (thus nerfing their own PvP ability)?

it also shows how little PvP wormholes have in comparison to the rest of eve, despite the average PvP ship in wormholes costing significantly more than ships used for PvP elsewhere

heh

asks for an increase in the rewards of null-sec PvE

I think RvB accounted for 80% or 90% of all hisec PVP.

Well, you could also more safely PVP in high sec, but you choose to do that in null. Whatever your reason, that might have something to do with why more ISK is being spent on ship hulls that die in null than in any other place in game.

Most serious isk makers in nullsec do it with highsec alts, either farming Incursions or FW, or doing high level industry or trading in the big highsec hubs. The rats in nullsec can be pretty decent isk for basic line members. You can keep yourself in PvP subcaps by doing anomalies, or even belt ratting in good space. Trying to rat up enough in nullsec for a carrier or dread is a serious grind. At battleship rats with a bounty of about 1.5mil each, you would need to kill over a thousand BS rats to buy a carrier hull.


They aren't stupid about wanting to nerf highsec PvE because most of us realize that this is basically unbalanced situation that needs to be fixed, even if it means hurting some of our personal cash cows. It also means that ccp can ignore nullsec problems by just sugar coating other areas of the game. You end up with nullsec being funded by nullsec players logging out and logging in their Incursion or wormhole alts, or their T2 production team 5 jumps from Jita. Then people complain that nullsec is virtually empty but all the good and easy isk is made logging in almost anywhere else.