How else can we see officer fitted ravens being ganked

this game is just over a decade old. Do you honestly think most of the 500k accounts in this game are scrubs?

At the very least there are tens of thousands of people with near perfect skills for whatever their chosen top end mission ship is. It would be moronic to think that this kind of mission runner is rare.

In ever has probability of 1 (or 0), not even ship losses from ganking (on either side)... It doesn't matter if it's a constant. A risk is a risk is a risk, and costs with p=1 are also risks because they are still a cost-probability duplet.

The risk in L4s is zero.

At least half the amount you can make in null.

One of the biggest mistakes CCP has made over the last six years is to nerf null income while leaving high sec untouched.

That would inject too much isk into the system and do great harm to the game.

If you want to be pernickety about it, the ISK faucet is still insurance, and the size of it is determined by standard minerals, not moon goo.

Either way, materials creation is not an ISK faucet.

Looks like you can earn around 40k in 5 missions. Thats doable in an hour.

For the record, going by dotlan's moon count just to get some ballpark numbersGǪ

GÇó There are just over 8,000 R8 moons listed. On average, such a moon generates 0.12 M ISK/h worth of goo.
GÇó A small Gallente tower (with its handy silo bonus that reduces the logistics need to manage the tower) costs 0.15 M ISK/h to run.

GÇó There are just over 3,500 R16 moons listed. On average, such a moon generates 0.37 M ISK/h worth of goo.
GÇó There are just under 1,500 R32 moons listed. On average, such a moon generates 1.02 M ISK/h worth of goo.
GÇó There are just over 650 R64 moons listed. On average, such a moon generates 2.58 M ISK/h worth of goo.

GÇó If all moons listed on dotlan were mined (including the ones where this loses you money, maybe to offset the cost of a research POS), the goo harvested would be worth ~131bn a day. The R64s would account for roughly Gàô of this.

GÇó As a point of comparison, last we saw any numbers on it, the value of mission rewards alone (not counting bounties, LP, loot, or salvage) amounted to ~146bn ISK per day.
GÇó As another point of comparison, incursions injected 300bn ISK/day and NPC buy orders injected 340bn ISK/day during the same period.

GÇó A 10% tax on all bounties and agent payouts would at that point in time have provided a total corp income of 134bn ISK/day.

Ship loss beside supercap are an isk faucet not sink. It's a cost to the guy who lost the ship but it inject ISK in the economy in the form of insurance payout. The only way it would be a faucet is if the transaction tax to buy the ship + isk cost for the production line removed more ISK than the insurance payout inject.

You can't solve the increased amount of ISK in the economy in the game by blapping ships. You will never succede.

Tell me where that other 70% of the payout comes from.

Insurance is one of the biggest isk faucets in game

At this point I will again point out that level 4 missions offer around the same level of income as null sec.

Local wont get rid of people hunting your t2 fitted raven in null. Please, go find me a t2 fitted raven that was ganked in highsec.

The simple fact is that high sec is a better option for making isk right now.

They have already started this process with the ice changes.

At this point I will again point out that level 4 missions offer around the same level of income as null sec.

Anoms are our variation of missions in sov null.

What is the point in owning and defending an empire in null if the best option is to make our isk outside of it in high sec? This is the problem, high sec offers too much for little effort or risk.

sounds like safety to me.


It man I generally won't bother making a trip just to hank someone for being an asshat.

And you can't dec npc corps so.....

There is a 10 to 20 minute respawn time on chaining. Most systems also have too few belts to do this effectively as you need a lot of belts to do this.

Even under perfect conditions you will make much more isk running anoms or high sec missions and a lot more in incursions. Infact you can be earning more mining ice in null at times.

If you look at the link I provided, it shows that high sec (with somehting like 70% of EVE's population) has less than 1/7th the ship deaths of Null sec (11% of EVE's population).

Everyone who undocks is "pvp active". Those numbers are correct and shows that high sev is very safe.

Are youkidding? We LOVE these people. Their utter lack of pvp awareness in a pvp focused game makes our lives so much easier.

We are starting none of these threads however we will not stand by while people demand tbat we be nerfed yet again because they refuse to take any steps to protect themselves.

As for mission income, we simply ask that null and low offer more reward for the higher risk we face. We want to live in null but so long as high sec offers the same or higher reward we find its just not worth it.

We are starting none of these threads however we will not stand by while people demand tbat we be nerfed yet again because they refuse to take any steps to protect themselves.

As for mission income, we simply ask that null and low offer more reward for the higher risk we face. We want to live in null but so long as high sec offers the same or higher reward we find its just not worth it.

We adapted. Its now time for high sec to adapt to some much needed nerfs to further balance the game.

Did I post those numbers? No.
Did I post the link you provided? No.

It's been said before, but it bears repeating: you really need to stop trying to put words in other people's mouths because the only one that will be confused by them is you. Everyone else can read what people have actually said and notice that you have no grasp on reality.

Plenty of evidence has been posted in this thread, and none of them, nor the conclusions based on them, have been refuted or disproven, and no evidence whatsoever has been offered to support your position. So before you start screaming high and low about what has and hasn't been proven, maybe you should take the time to actually check what it isGǪ

GǪ70GÇô100M, if you're efficient (and using obsolete ships); 45M if you're pedantic about picking up every last valuable.

But those are old numbers. You get more faster these days.

Well lets see your evidence that contradicts ours then.

You can be in a navy raven inside two months, you can have a good CNI after 6 months. The game is ten years old. You honestly expect us to believe that most people cannot fly a CNI?

You flying a caracal in level 4s is simulating the average 3 week old player.

No, it's you not wanting to click a link.

My personal thought on the matter is that the longer you have your head in the sand, the longer you can claim the sun does not exist.

Willful ignorance is both obvious and does little to bolster your argument, however.

I shouldn't have to follow any evidence trail. It should be presented in order for us to understand a coherent argument. If I argued against or for global warming you would expect me to provide solid peer reviewable facts that either support my argument that warming is somehow happening or that it isn't. It's no good me saying to you to visit your local library or even worse get on the internet, or that google is your friend, because naturally enough I might not find the same sources that you are relying upon to support your argument. This is intellectual laziness or a big fat dishonesty shield....

The last thing we want is concord in null. The people too afraid to lose their space pixels can stay in high sec but the ones willing to go out of high should be rewarded for doing so.

Level 4 missions in high sec offer the same income as nullsec offers. High sec incursions offers vastly better income.

Tell me why you would make your isk in nullsec.

I want to live in null full time but high sec is simply better for making isk.

It would give us a reason to do our PVE out in null because it would earn us more than in high sec.

We get zero reward.

As for history, null sec used to have better income than high sec but after 8 years of nerfs to null and none to high sec its become unbalanced to the point where high sec offers the same isk but with near perfect safty.

High sec income is one of the bigger problems with null sec. There are other issues yet but the fact that null sec offers only drawbacks to the average line member when it comes to income is a big issues we face.

I see you have no idea how to tell the difference from alliance level income and alliance member income.

List these mission nerfs.

CCP will hurt their foot on that nail, highsec is too important to the very survival of eve online

Because the guys from the biggest alliance in nullsec are telling you that's wrong as hell, and that they, and their friends, and much of the line members of big alliances, make their money in highsec blitzing missions and running incursions and such.

As for our ability, we have no issues with making isk in null, there is just no point in doing it when high sec offer the same isk for near no risk and a lot less effort. Or in the case of incursions, better isk than in null sec.

Loot nerfs also happened in null.

AI changes also happened in null.

L5s were intended to be low sec in the first place.

Just make a bunch of things from the LP store cost isk, which will make life painful

Perhaps the way to go would be to remove LP from high sec missions. It would end the blitzing, the bad pilots wouldnt see any change in their ticks and low sec would get a nice buff without injecting any more isk into the system. Null would also become a more viable place to be.

Fixing a bug is never a nerf, period. It's the fault of the players who exploited the bug that they lost out, not ccp. CCPs only fault is allowing the situation to go on for 3 years.

Well we would have to be nerfing high sec incursions more anyway. These things should never have been put into high sec.

But it has nothing to do with whether or not Baltar (or anyone else) lacks incentive (read: ability) to make their isk in null.

GǪbut neither supply nor demand would change, so they'd intersect the same as before. As they've been so fond of pointing out, such a reduction wouldn't actually affect their buying power.

No, they weren't. Stop lying.