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

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

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

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

That's value, not numbers of hulls.

But it's still probably a correct call.

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

So hey . . . well played?

considering it's in terms of isk, wormholes being so low is reasonably surprising since they tend to fly around in reasonably blingy ships in comparison to other areas of the game.

Hisec wardec pvp, best pvp

Hull cost only, the graph doesn't incorporate mods.
If it did then yes, wh space would be higher.

You apparently missed a number of threadnaughts concerning Null industry capacity. Where there were individuals making such claims, defending High Sec's need for superior industrial capacity.

Of course, ISK value is not an accurate metric to show this, since that's not exactly related to production slots.

Seeing that Nullsec can produce such goods, maybe its not as bad off as people make it out to be.

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

I've never seen such arguments despite reading over a few threadnaughts.

What I did see is that the complaint was that Nullsec has to rely on hi-sec for its manufacturing capabilities as Nullsec could never possibly supply itself with current manufacturing capability.

Overall, I would suspect hi-sec has a much higher total numbers of ships lost, but the ships lost are of much lesser value as no one is strutting around in Titans, dreadnaughts, and carriers whereas Nullsec has ships of much higher value.

Seeing that Nullsec can produce such goods, maybe its not as bad off as people make it out to be.

What makes you think nullsec is producing these goods? You do realize that the vast majority of modules, ammunition, and ships are imported from highsec, right?

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

Actual hulls destroyed in numbers vs ISK would have been the goto graph.

Tis only ship value in ISK shown on that graph.

Just means that most highseccers run around and pew in the Eve equivalent of Yugos while the nullsec crowd goes and pews with their Lamborghinis and Bugattis.

Also, that graph would look different if lets say...capitals were allowed in highsec. 1 titan kill is the equivalent of how many millions of rifter kills?

Actual hulls destroyed in numbers vs ISK would have been the goto graph.

I mean the carriers, dreadnaughts, and titans which cannot be made in high sec.

The graphs don't tell use values versus hi and null in terms of ammo and modules.

I am assuming the high values for nullsec are because of these high value ships being lost and has nothing to do with ammunition and modules.

If they want to show graphs on ammunition spent I suppose that could determine the other argument.

My main guess for PVP ships lost in hi-sec is from the Red versus Blue engagements. Those alone probaly have pretty high numbers, but I suppose I have no hard proof to show you other than the massive ship losses I see on the map every now and then. (Oh wow Dave Stark predicted I would say this but I suppose I clarified that I have no proof to show this).

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

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

Be interested to see the graph in relation to PvP kills, rather than isk value. Its no-wonder nullsec leads the pack there, running around in their shiny fleets slamming capitals against eachother. Would pure PvP ship losses there still beat highsec?

considering it's in terms of isk, wormholes being so low is reasonably surprising since they tend to fly around in reasonably blingy ships in comparison to other areas of the game.

although number of hulls would be interesting.

considering the TINY % of players that live in WHs, it's not that surprising.
if you were looking at isk loss per kill, id be willing to be WHs would be top of the list.

Carriers and dreadnoughts are better off made in lowsec because of the abundance of NPC manufacturing there and relative ease of access. So that leaves titans and supercarriers to be made in lowsec.

That still doesn't support your point at all.

I didn't say anything about the graphs regarding ammo, modules, etc. You did by referring to total manufacturing capability. You said that the graphs obviously show that "nullsec can produce such goods" which is completely untrue.

You're also making unfounded assumptions that the graphs are higher for nullsec simply because our ship costs are higher. Not all of the ships we use are particularly expensive, and for those ships we use that are expensive we lose far less of them. Our biggest losses in fleets are generally things like battlecruisers, interdictors, other low cost stuff.

Interesting. I'm always being yelled at to go to low/null sec if I want "real" PVP.

OMG, THEY WERE RIGHT?!

Well we could argue back and forth, but neither of us has statistical data to back outselves up other than what CCP provides and what they did provide doesn't show us whether or nto what type of ships were lost. I suppose I was the one to assume that Null sec losses are higher because they have more expensive ships.

I suppose the data is all there on the kill boards but I don't have the technical know how to compile the data.

So I suppose I'm going to pull a George W Bush and go with my gut on this and say that if I didn't know any better I would guess the reason null sec has higher losses in isk value is becaues they fly more expensive ships.

But without the details we've mentioned, it might only mean "Real expensive" PvP.

Just means that most highseccers run around and pew in the Eve equivalent of Yugos while the nullsec crowd goes and pews with their Lamborghinis and Bugattis..

So I suppose I'm going to pull a George W Bush and go with my gut on this and say that if I didn't know any better I would guess the reason null sec has higher losses in isk value is becaues they fly more expensive ships.

That or gankers in hi-sec aren't doing their jobs well enough.

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

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

Well we don't have any proof that null sec has to import its goods from hi-sec other than null sec members saying they have to.

Can you post a link with imperical data proving to me that the majority of goods in null sec were manufactured in hi-sec?

I am pointing out the futility of this argument. I may have said things that were not backed by data, but I feel that its true.

I accept that the things you feel to be true are also not backed by data.

But I reserve the right to not believe you and I accept your right to not believe me either.

Well we don't have any proof that null sec has to import its goods from hi-sec other than null sec members saying they have to.

Can you post a link with imperical data proving to me that the majority of goods in null sec were manufactured in hi-sec?

It's been empirically demonstrated several times in threads regarding nullsec vs. highsec manufacturing capability that even if all of our slots were used to produce ammunition it still wouldn't be enough to cover our needs. Then there's also the fact that many systems in highsec are capable of outproducing entire well-developed regions in nullsec (there were some systems in The Forge for example that are capable of outproducing Tribute, for example). These are just some of many facts uncovered and supported by empiric data in such threads. It's not my responsibility to dig them out for you.

If there were a thousand threadnaughts of EVE players saying that the earth is 6000 years old, it doesn't make it true.

Even if were true, why so mad that you have to import stuff? Why not use a high-sec alt to make all your goods?

Even if were true, why so mad that you have to import stuff? Why not use a high-sec alt to make all your goods? If that isn't feasible, surely the CSM owned mostly by the Null sec alliances would have raised this issue by now? Why hasn't CCP addressed the lack of manufacturing in POS setups then?

Then again as I support WH manufacturing I see no problem in increasing POS manufacturing output in general.

If you don't understand why this is a problem with game balance then I can't help you.

I'm just saying if this perceived problem was such a great issue, why hasn't it been addressed yet? I mean I've seen countless threadnaughts saying that null-sec must have greater output, but I've seen little inclination of CCP to change this current situation.

There's an awful lot that CCP fails to address. You must be new here.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/2011/nullsec-board-for-blog.jpg

I've never seen such arguments despite reading over a few threadnaughts.

What I did see is that the complaint was that Nullsec has to rely on hi-sec for its manufacturing capabilities as Nullsec could never possibly supply itself with current manufacturing capability.

Overall, I would suspect hi-sec has a much higher total numbers of ships lost, but the ships lost are of much lesser value as no one is strutting around in Titans, dreadnaughts, and carriers whereas Nullsec has ships of much higher value.

Seeing that Nullsec can produce such goods, maybe its not as bad off as people make it out to be.

Thats where you tend to fall of the rails. You make the assumption that capital and super capital kills are somehow the driving force behind the numbers and because those things CAN be produced in null, there is no problem.

A cursory look at EVE kill or any other general killboard will show you that it's tech2 ship (crusiers and frigs mostly) kills followed by tech1 battleship and battlecruiser kills (and a generous sprinking of tech3 kills) that drives the higher isk vaule numbers of null sec. With 3% of high sec's overall industrial capacity (despite 10 years of development by null sec player alliances), null sec litterally CAN'T supply the numbers of ships needed for null warfare, and this in turn keeps null sec player groups enslaved to High Sec industrialists.

Capital ships are an element, but only a small one. Sub-caps truly rule null sec pvp, caps are jsut the flashy glory hounds. The vast majority of null sec characters can't even fly super capital ships.

Maybe I've been going about this argument all wrong.

Maybe my argument should have been "It's not that there are less losses in hi-sec, its just null-sec players are just bad at the game and tend to die more in foolish ways and should have never undocked in the first place."

Hopefully that is inflammatory way to keep this discussion going.

I mean seriously, why all the losses? It means someone doesn't know how not to die.

Or that the hi-sec gankers aren't doing their job well enough.

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

Which goes to support the whole idea of wormhole space being a carebear haven.

wait what? that isnt even remotely what i said... >_<

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.

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

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.

"Pvp more safely"? . . . that's nonsense.

What makes you think nullsec is producing these goods? You do realize that the vast majority of modules, ammunition, and ships are imported from highsec, right?

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

So the smaller independent warring nations import weapons and supplies from the larger warring nations?

Art imitates life?

And does that make the Goons North Korea?

If the idea of "safer pvp" is nonsense to you, then what that tells me is that your approach to PVPing is reckless. If there are a lot of people like you, who go to null sec to PVP recklessly, then that goes a long way towards explaining why so many ships die in null versus in other places. The fact that you choose to use null as your own personal PVP wonderland and choose to use high sec as your own personal ATM machine also goes a long way toward explaining why so many ships die in null versus in other places. PVE ships are used for PVE, while PVP ships are used for PVP. One results in more ISK in your wallet. The other tends to result in a pretty pixel explosion and a blip on the graph. So, basically, you go to high sec to make ISK and you go to null sec to increase the number of ship deaths there. Think about how the graph would look if you reversed your behavior.

It's like saying "More people, per capita, get laid in Vegas than any other city in America.". Well, if a larger percentage of people go to Vegas to get laid than anywhere else, then, guess what?! Likewise, if a larger percentage of players go to null sec to explode ships and to get their ship exploded, then, guess what?!

If more people went to null sec with the explicit intention of NOT exploding, then there wouldn't be as many ship losses. I also wonder how many of those hulls are capsules, which are easy to catch if they are bubbled, and much harder to catch without bubbles . . . and how many of those capsules were just taking a ride on the pod express? How many of those ships are suicide-cynos? And let me ask this: aren't CONCORD kills PVP kills? Are those on the graph for high sec?

Game balance doesn't give a **** about whether it makes any parallels with real life.
If I'm poor in real life, can I just go and print myself some money? No.
And countless other things...

Stop with the strawmen already. Nobody said they wanted pure self-sufficiency.

But, but . . . THE GRAPH! The graph clearly shows that null sec has more disposable income than any other region . . . by far.

Nullsec players have alts in hisec, hope this helps.

"Lots of ships die, that means that everybody is PVPing recklessly."

What in the actual ****? No, it means a lot more ships are PVPing.

If everybody is {not trying to +1 the graph at the expense of their ship} then that means everybody would be {+1'ing the graph a lot less}, not {just +1'ing the graph} less.

Nullsec players have alts in hisec, hope this helps.

No, it means a lot more ships are DYING. I would readily concede that more ships are purposed for PVP in null sec than in high sec, low sec, and wormhole space. Just show me a graph that actually says that. The real question is WHY? Is it that null is a great place to PVP? Is it that high sec is a terrible place for PVP? Or, is it that players are almost systematically told to PVP in null and told NOT to PVP in high sec? Could it be that most players are just too lazy (or dumb) to learn about aggression mechanics in high and low sec? Could it be that most casual players just want to log in for a few hours, F1-F8 some stuff, make some ISK, change some skills, and log out without having to think too hard . . . just like in any other MMO? And, if most null players really are just like most other MMOers, do you really want EVE Online to cater to that demographic?

i.e. Null bears are getting enough ISK. It sounds to me like the game is working as intended!

If you don't understand why this is a problem with game balance then I can't help you.

Nullsec players have alts in hisec, hope this helps.

The reason is CONCORD (google it up), which prevents normal PVP in high security space.

(BTW, thanks for the quote, Andski. It's helping quite a bit.)

*Emphasis added

If CONCORD prevents PVP, then why do null sec players have to use alts in high sec?

Why were all those freighters dying in Jita last weekend?

Why are there still ships lost in high sec to PVP according to The Graph?

And, most importantly . . . what is "normal" PVP?

So I suppose that just means that Null sec players are technically High sec players too.

Ergo, most Null sec players are dirty High sec carebears on their alts?

yes, all the hate you see is simply a manifestation of self-loathing. they need to come to terms with their inner bear and let go of this 'game imbalance' delusion.

or the fact that they're frustrated that they feel the game forces them to have high sec alts to do what they should be doing in null sec, but don't do in null sec because it's done better/easier in high sec?

Because players who identify themselves as a Null Player dread the fact they have to create a High Sec alt to do industry and then haul the stuff in. Why shouldn't they be able to play where they want to live?

If the increased manufacturing capacity was added to the POS, why would Null residents put this POS where it can be easily attacked, instead of throwing it up in a high sec alt corp under CONCORD's protection?

Why is CONCORD protecting the NULL industrial backbone from attack not only at no charge, but with benefits?

Edit: If you read the threadnaught in question as you claim, how come any of this is news to you?

If CONCORD prevents PVP, then why do null sec players have to use alts in high sec? Why were all those freighters dying in Jita last weekend? Why are there still ships lost in high sec to PVP according to The Graph? And, most importantly . . . what is "normal" PVP?

Don't blame us for using the exact same mechanics available to you.

Modest boosts to Nullsec industry seem fine to me, but too much will not be healthy for the game as a whole.

CONCORD doesn't prevent PVP

You're a flithy high-sec carebear and you enjoy it! You wallow in that hi-sec isk like scrooge mc-duck on cokahina and gold!

"Some X happens despite Y.
Therefore Y never prevents X."
I'm pretty sure this is a fallacy, I'm just not entirely sure what the name for it is.


So in other words, nerf highsec to teach Goons a lesson, amirite?

Let me offer you MY "narrative", Georgina Parmala.

Null sec players like Andski (and pirates) use alts in high sec TO AVOID PVP. If they try to enter high sec in their PVE bling-mobile or in a freighter full of null sec goods wearing a GoonSwarm or TEST or RAZOR or whatever-nullsec-alliance ticker (or with -5 CONCORD standing), they will get ganked. They will get ganked by war dec'ers. They will get ganked by suicide gankers. They will get ganked by the alts of alliances they are at war with in null. They will get ganked for ISK. They will get ganked for lols. They will get ganked for tears. Otherwise, why WOULDN'T they use their high skillpoint uber-elite PVP mains? They can't. It's not safe for them.

Burn Jita is a prime example of how ridiculous it is to say that PVP doesn't happen in high sec.

If a freighter is not safe from non-consensual PVP in 1.0 space, then what are people talking about when they say that "CONCORD prevents PVP.". CONCORD doesn't prevent PVP any more than lack of skillpoints prevents PVP or lack of ISK prevents PVP. CONCORD is a feature of the game, just like warp disruptor bubbles, just like gate/station aggression lockout timers, just like super capitals. If you're going to complain about one, be consistent and complain about EVERYTHING that hinders direct, indiscriminant hostilities. CONCORD may save a lot of ships, but you know what saves more ships? Space stations that allow you to dock your ship and store it completely out of harms way.

"Normal PVP" is a great example of the socialization and subliminal messaging that goes on in this game. If you can't do "normal PVP" in high sec, then maybe you should go to where you CAN do "normal PVP". Right? Georgina, you and null bears are no more qualified to tell the rest of us what PVP is "normal" than we are qualified to tell you what is "normal" mining or "acceptable" trading or "good" ship fitting. Your way of doing PVP is no more "normal" or "acceptable" or "fair" or "skillful" than a high or low sec or wormhole player's way of doing it.

1.You make some sweeping generalizations that are not necessarily true and in some cases contradict themselves. First off, as I recall, Marmite has killed several "goon" freighters rather recently in their war. Null blocks already do blow up each other's freighters, be they in or out of corp. Most are simply targeted because it is a profitable gank thanks to a greedy pilot.

2.. . . You claim sec status is the problem they are circumventing . . . The superior skills of the main are simply not needed or worth the travel time.

3.You say they would get ganked coming to high sec. Why would you train production efficiency and mass production on a combat character, no matter where you live? It makes far more sense to simply make a new one(s) for that, who will sit in the station with the production slots rather than traveling back and forth. Why move that alt to null, when you have better capacity in high and would have to bring in larger m3 of materials from high than bringing in the finished product?

4.Who doesn't use an out of corp hauler alt? . . .

5.Who said PvP doesn't happen in High Sec? . . . "Normal" PvP does not happen in High Sec.

6.I never said [x]. I never said [y] for that matter. I also never claimed [z]. Nowhere did I mention [a]. Nowhere did I tell you [b]. Nor did I say [c]. I find it amusing how deeply you tie my views into [n].

7.I think we'll agree most people would consider this game split into four or five distinct areas with their own rule set. High Sec, Low Sec, NPC Null, Sov Null, W-Space.

8.I claim high sec PvP is not "normal", because the restrictions mentioned in my post are only present in that one specific area of space. Nowhere else do I have to fit out a special minimalist ship to destroy an unarmed vessel, because "the unarmed ship is guaranteed to kill me". I'm considering an NPC response, as opposed to player response as consequence of my actions. As a counter example, stations and docking games are prevalent throughout the game. Even in W-space and systems with no stations, you have POS shields that are used in very similar fashion. So it becomes "normal" in my mind, simply because it's present somewhat consistently throughout the entire game.