TL;DR: I already made my profit, so **** everyone else who wants to make low-risk ISK.

Always hated this line of thinking in any context. People in EVE asking for nerf to hisec rather than buffs to low/null. Just like people making pretty decent living wages telling others they don't need more than minimum wage.

Instead of improving or advancing themselves, some people rather just keep others worse and stagnant.

Hi,
I am a full out carebear that rarely ever leaves hi-sec. I make several billion in profit each month (after calculating PLEX payments for each account) off mission running and mining with my fleet. If things stay this way I will have immense amounts of ISK to my name before I even know it.
As such I am honestly one of the last people who should speak out against hi-sec profits. But I am. I believe game balance is more important than my personal profit and what we have here is a lack of game balance.

Right now a person can make more ISK/hour (consistently) mining with a fleet in hi-sec than they can anywhere else doing anything else, with one exception: Hi-sec multibox mission runner/hauler ganking.
The scenario we have is thus: The biggest ISK earners are doing so in hi-sec, and the biggest ISK takers are also doing so in hi-sec.

This is counter to the entire point of low/null sec - increased risk for potential increase in reward.

I will not go into the details of exactly why hi-sec is so profitable, I hope discussion in this thread can touch on that. ]However I will relay an idea here.

We could commit these changes to hi-sec:
- Reduce bounties and agent payments for hi-sec missions.
- Reduce the amount of ores in hi-sec that are not Veldspar and Plagioclase.
- Reduce the quantities per rock to 2 cycles max and commonly just 1.


What does this result in?
- Mission running in low/null - with a disposable fit - would now be more profitable than running them in hisec.
- Only small time miners can really keep up in hi-sec. Large scale mining fleets will struggle to find belts with large enough per rock quantities to be worth their time. Very few large scale mining fleets are willing to lock onto a new rock with each barge every time a cycle is completed.

Carebears are only willing to put themselves in danger if there is a significant profit incentive. As of right now the profit incentive really isn't there, coupled with the fact that we make more than we desire anyways in hi-sec.

Profit reduction in hi-sec = Increased profit margin for low/null = Increased activity in low/null

Seems like a simple enough formula...

As such the big ISK earners in hi-sec will need to move their butts into low/null if they hope to keep up the profits.

Always hated this line of thinking in any context. People in EVE asking for nerf to hisec rather than buffs to low/null. Just like people making pretty decent living wages telling others they don't need more than minimum wage.

Instead of improving or advancing themselves, some people rather just keep others worse and stagnant.

Hi,
I am a full out carebear that rarely ever leaves hi-sec. I make several billion in profit each month (after calculating PLEX payments for each account) off mission running and mining with my fleet. If things stay this way I will have immense amounts of ISK to my name before I even know it.
As such I am honestly one of the last people who should speak out against hi-sec profits. But I am. I believe game balance is more important than my personal profit and what we have here is a lack of game balance.

Right now a person can make more ISK/hour (consistently) mining with a fleet in hi-sec than they can anywhere else doing anything else, with one exception: Hi-sec multibox mission runner/hauler ganking.
The scenario we have is thus: The biggest ISK earners are doing so in hi-sec, and the biggest ISK takers are also doing so in hi-sec.

This is counter to the entire point of low/null sec - increased risk for potential increase in reward.

I will not go into the details of exactly why hi-sec is so profitable, I hope discussion in this thread can touch on that. ]However I will relay an idea here.

We could commit these changes to hi-sec:
- Reduce bounties and agent payments for hi-sec missions.
- Reduce the amount of ores in hi-sec that are not Veldspar and Plagioclase.
- Reduce the quantities per rock to 2 cycles max and commonly just 1.


What does this result in?
- Mission running in low/null - with a disposable fit - would now be more profitable than running them in hisec.
- Only small time miners can really keep up in hi-sec. Large scale mining fleets will struggle to find belts with large enough per rock quantities to be worth their time. Very few large scale mining fleets are willing to lock onto a new rock with each barge every time a cycle is completed.

Carebears are only willing to put themselves in danger if there is a significant profit incentive. As of right now the profit incentive really isn't there, coupled with the fact that we make more than we desire anyways in hi-sec.

Profit reduction in hi-sec = Increased profit margin for low/null = Increased activity in low/null

Seems like a simple enough formula...

As such the big ISK earners in hi-sec will need to move their butts into low/null if they hope to keep up the profits.

You can reduce the income in Highsec by 75% and people would still be sitting there. Because its convinient. The market is around the Corner, you dont need a scout to jump two systems. You can fly more expensive ships with little risk to losing it.

Correct.

here is an even better idea. lets get CCP to go though every acct in the game and just delete 95% of all the wealth. that way the richest will loose more money the the poorest.

Good thing all my value isn't in isk.

Wealth would include assets as well.

You can reduce the income in Highsec by 75% and people would still be sitting there. Because its convinient. The market is around the Corner, you dont need a scout to jump two systems. You can fly more expensive ships with little risk to losing it.
And most importantly: You can do stuff on your own schedule

In lowsec you have to constantly watch local, watch D-scan for probes, be constantly aligned, you have to pay attention all the fuckin time. Thats work. You might not even be able to leave the station/system because of the Pirates, which can only be get worse with more Mission runners in lowsec.

Hi,
I am a full out carebear that rarely ever leaves hi-sec. I make several billion in profit each month (after calculating PLEX payments for each account) off mission running and mining with my fleet. If things stay this way I will have immense amounts of ISK to my name before I even know it.
As such I am honestly one of the last people who should speak out against hi-sec profits. But I am. I believe game balance is more important than my personal profit and what we have here is a lack of game balance.

Right now a person can make more ISK/hour (consistently) mining with a fleet in hi-sec than they can anywhere else doing anything else, with one exception: Hi-sec multibox mission runner/hauler ganking.
The scenario we have is thus: The biggest ISK earners are doing so in hi-sec, and the biggest ISK takers are also doing so in hi-sec.

This is counter to the entire point of low/null sec - increased risk for potential increase in reward.

I will not go into the details of exactly why hi-sec is so profitable, I hope discussion in this thread can touch on that. ]However I will relay an idea here.

We could commit these changes to hi-sec:
- Reduce bounties and agent payments for hi-sec missions.
- Reduce the amount of ores in hi-sec that are not Veldspar and Plagioclase.
- Reduce the quantities per rock to 2 cycles max and commonly just 1.


What does this result in?
- Mission running in low/null - with a disposable fit - would now be more profitable than running them in hisec.
- Only small time miners can really keep up in hi-sec. Large scale mining fleets will struggle to find belts with large enough per rock quantities to be worth their time. Very few large scale mining fleets are willing to lock onto a new rock with each barge every time a cycle is completed.

Carebears are only willing to put themselves in danger if there is a significant profit incentive. As of right now the profit incentive really isn't there, coupled with the fact that we make more than we desire anyways in hi-sec.

Profit reduction in hi-sec = Increased profit margin for low/null = Increased activity in low/null

Seems like a simple enough formula...

As such the big ISK earners in hi-sec will need to move their butts into low/null if they hope to keep up the profits.

You all sound like those window-licking antivax derpists and science-denier fundie religious types that flood my country with their stupidity (I swear to s**t, if it gets any worse, I'm going to leave, move to Iceland, and be CCP Guard's flatmate). stop America-ing up my EVE.

OP:

1. Shut up
2. No, that's totally all I got for this one....

I'd defend that by saying I haven't made a fraction of what I hope to, or a fraction of what the majority of hi-sec veterans have... but here's a better thing to say: Why are you obsessed with me?

Please stop replying to my posts you have the logic of a 5 year old, no offense.

This thread again?

*removes eyes, washes with bleach, inserts back into eyesockets*

"I am not obliged to attend to every ball I am invited to"

I don't understand the concept of balance

you should dilute that bleach 1/1000 parts or you'll go deaf :(

OP

...Right now a person can make more ISK/hour (consistently) mining with a fleet in hi-sec than they can anywhere else doing anything else...

If you think there is game imbalance because of high/ low/null sec stop mining in high sec and move to null. It is ever so ironic that a game touted as a sandbox where you can do whatever you want has such a high percentage of its player base insisting the game be changed because there are people not doing what someone else wants them to.

That's a myth, that nerfing or buffing incomd helps.
It's not working that way.
You are a troll.
This thread is pointless and full of bias.

Reporting for closure.

PS: Everybody falling for it deserves a fat smack on the head.

That's a myth, that nerfing or buffing incomd helps.
It's not working that way.
You are a troll.
This thread is pointless and full of bias.

Reporting for closure.

PS: Everybody falling for it deserves a fat smack on the head.

splergelords

Falling for it, nah, it just gave me an opportunity to have a dig at 0.0 splergelords and their strident calls to nerf hisec...

move nocxium to lowsec only

Right now a person can make more ISK/hour (consistently) mining with a fleet in hi-sec than they can anywhere else doing anything else, with one exception: Hi-sec multibox mission runner/hauler ganking.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the typical victim of a manipulation attempt,
not realising he was manipulated.

If we could all please pull on the same string, we all would be better off in the long run.

Oooooooh jolly good I have been manipulated, oooooh that hurts, like a kick in the gooolies...

As for the question of defining a 0.0 splergelord, Malcanis would be a perfect example, I hope that was educational!

Public display of idiocy.

Nice.

"Oh look i am full of hatred against [random] and my inability to cope with my feelings forces me to tell everybody"

Keep going. At least it'll get the thread locked.

As for the question of defining a 0.0 splergelord, Malcanis would be a perfect example, I hope that was educational!

'splergelord' must be a great compliment, but can you please tell us what it means

This thread again.

Awesome.

that's not obvious

Always hated this line of thinking in any context. People in EVE asking for nerf to hisec rather than buffs to low/null. Just like people making pretty decent living wages telling others they don't need more than minimum wage.

Instead of improving or advancing themselves, some people rather just keep others worse and stagnant.

While the OP failed to give a single reason for nerfing high sec that makes sense, he did give a few for banning ISBoxer and other multiboxing tools. I'm a part of a high sec mining fleet for at least a couple of hours every day and I can tell you I bring in about 15 to 20 million an hour. With T1 mining crystals and the Orca boosts I get 1880 m3 per 121.8 second cycle. After an asteroid is depleted I have to manually switch my strip miner to a new asteroid. But that's okay, since I have a single Mackinaw. My friend has a few barges/exhumers and he too has to manually switch targets. Now another guy we know has 40 accounts. He uses ISBoxer to automatically target, lock and mine a single rock with all 40 of his barges. He takes in far more ISK per ship than us simply because he saves so much time by only having to input a single command to get all 40 of his ships to act. If he had to actually play all 40 accounts, he'd make far less than us because of the time lost changing clients and entering individual commands. That's what the OP means when they say mining. He's not talking about a group of friends talking on TS3 whilst their lasers cycle. He's probably a middle aged man, likely from the US like I am, that's probably on some sort of government assistance(disability or welfare), which unfortunately I'm not, likely overweight, and he definitely spends a lot of timing thinking the wealthy owe him something. This man is likely unhappy, has been divorced, and trends towards anti-social behavior. Obviously playing a multiplayer game with 50 pretend friends isn't helping. We must help these people! Ban ISBoxer so that he can be freed from his parents' basement, and maybe see a real human being again!

Yep, and it'll keep happening until highsec isn't horribly out of balance.

Yep, and it'll keep happening until highsec isn't horribly out of balance.

Right now a person can make more ISK/hour (consistently) mining with a fleet in hi-sec than they can anywhere else doing anything else, with one exception: Hi-sec multibox mission runner/hauler ganking.
The scenario we have is thus: The biggest ISK earners are doing so in hi-sec, and the biggest ISK takers are also doing so in hi-sec......As such the big ISK earners in hi-sec will need to move their butts into low/null if they hope to keep up the profits.

Ugh. But it's so tedious making the same simple data-supported points over and over and oh look, thread #12,053 just got posted by some genius who thinks his ideas are so amazingly original that he couldn't possibly put them into the existing thread on page 3, so let's do it over one more time.

I know that persistence is an essential component of advocating change, but really there comes a point where it does more harm than good. Is anyone going to change their mind because of this thread? Will a single remotely new or original argument be made? Will any new information that wasn't in the 12,052 other threads on this very topic come to light?

Ugh. But it's so tedious making the same simple data-supported points over and over and oh look, thread #12,053 just got posted by some genius who thinks his ideas are so amazingly original that he couldn't possibly put them into the existing thread on page 3, so let's do it over one more time.

I know that persistence is an essential component of advocating change, but really there comes a point where it does more harm than good. Is anyone going to change their mind because of this thread? Will a single remotely new or original argument be made? Will any new information that wasn't in the 12,052 other threads on this very topic come to light?

We'd at least understand if CCP sees it as an issue and if they have any plans to address it.

ITT: OP has performed another successful drive-by-trolling. And apparently Malcanis is a lord of vomit. Is that how he keeps that svelte physique?

While the OP failed to give a single reason for nerfing high sec that makes sense, he did give a few for banning ISBoxer and other multiboxing tools. I'm a part of a high sec mining fleet for at least a couple of hours every day and I can tell you I bring in about 15 to 20 million an hour. With T1 mining crystals and the Orca boosts I get 1880 m3 per 121.8 second cycle. After an asteroid is depleted I have to manually switch my strip miner to a new asteroid. But that's okay, since I have a single Mackinaw. My friend has a few barges/exhumers and he too has to manually switch targets. Now another guy we know has 40 accounts. He uses ISBoxer to automatically target, lock and mine a single rock with all 40 of his barges. He takes in far more ISK per ship than us simply because he saves so much time by only having to input a single command to get all 40 of his ships to act. If he had to actually play all 40 accounts, he'd make far less than us because of the time lost changing clients and entering individual commands. That's what the OP means when they say mining. He's not talking about a group of friends talking on TS3 whilst their lasers cycle. He's probably a middle aged man, likely from the US like I am, that's probably on some sort of government assistance(disability or welfare), which unfortunately I'm not, likely overweight, and he definitely spends a lot of timing thinking the wealthy owe him something. This man is likely unhappy, has been divorced, and trends towards anti-social behavior. Obviously playing a multiplayer game with 50 pretend friends isn't helping. We must help these people! Ban ISBoxer so that he can be freed from his parents' basement, and maybe see a real human being again!

He's paying either 600 dollars per month or 24 billion for those accounts why shouldn't he mine more than you?

I would rather that the multi-boxers, if they are as described above (who the heck knows?), be playing Eve and/or paying lots of money on subs rather than out in the world pushing collectivism or some crap religion (as if there was a difference).

He's paying either 600 dollars per month or 24 billion for those accounts why shouldn't he mine more than you?

"CCP" is a slippery concept here. There are hundreds of people who work for CCP. Some of them most definitely see it as an issue.

All the more reason for a conversation then.

Hopefully you will include those that don't in this conversation, or it will turn into a 0.0 mothers meeting...

"CCP" is a slippery concept here. There are hundreds of people who work for CCP. Some of them most definitely see it as an issue.

high sec incursions

The bad part is you probably can;t give us more details than that. Like how big is that "some". If high-sec income was truly seen as a problem, it would of been tackled by a temporary fix until they find a more elegant solution. Right now, nothing is done and to me, that means there is nothing to cahnge because it's how it seems it should be.

'splergelord' must be a great compliment, but can you please tell us what it means

The reason many players avoid low and null is not ISK. What they are avoiding is Adrenaline.

For many people the adrenaline rush feels bad and is something to be avoided. Chribba even said he fells that way in his presentation at Eve Vegas. As nothing in the OPs post was geared to reducing the confrontational interactions of low and null, those who do not like adrenaline will continue to play in high accepting what they can get, or move to a different game. What they will not do is move to low or null. Why would they want to play a game that makes them feel bad for fake space money?

High sec needs to be a viable place to play for players who like a calm easy going area with cooperative and competitive interactions with other players.

Low needs to be a viable place to play for those players who like the adrenaline rush that comes from confrontational interactions with other players.

Null needs to be a viable place to play for those who want to empire build, or knock down.

W fits in there somehow, Im not sure how to word it (and I live there.....).

Ugh. But it's so tedious making the same simple data-supported points over and over and oh look, thread #12,053 just got posted by some genius who thinks his ideas are so amazingly original that he couldn't possibly put them into the existing thread on page 3, so let's do it over one more time.

I know that persistence is an essential component of advocating change, but really there comes a point where it does more harm than good. Is anyone going to change their mind because of this thread? Will a single remotely new or original argument be made? Will any new information that wasn't in the 12,052 other threads on this very topic come to light?

"Nothings being done because there isn't a problem and this is how its supposed to be," not even going to touch how terrible of an argument that is. You're forgetting that there could be gridlock, half wants to change it half does not so both halves are left at a point of indecision.

"CCP" is a slippery concept here. There are hundreds of people who work for CCP. Some of them most definitely see it as an issue.

"Nothings being done because there isn't a problem and this is how its supposed to be," not even going to touch how terrible of an argument that is. You're forgetting that there could be gridlock, half wants to change it half does not so both halves are left at a point of indecision.

Poor sov space literally has nothing that you can't get somewhere else. Nothing at all.

- you can build capitals/supers
- you can set up outposts and deny enemy docking rights
- you can have your name on a system
- you can run regular anomalies and mining sites with upgrades

The issue here is that the half that want to change it are mainly in 0.0 and seem to want to do it to force those in hisec into 0.0. Those in hisec don't want to go to 0.0 and cannot see why their ISK levels should be nerfed to force them to do something they won't do and ruins their enjoyment by making it harder to gain shiny stuff.

If there is indeed a gridlock, then debating it until the cows come home is not gonna change anything anyway and I can tell you the cows are very far from home. Both side dismiss the argument of the other because they see the game as needing to be played "thier" way. "We should not ahve to go to nigh sec to be efficient at makign ISK" and "We should not have to go to low/null to be efficient at amking ISK" is pretty much the same thing in the end and it's what most of those stupid thread end up in anyway.

If CCP is stuck in a gridlock like the forum is, you will have to live with the current way it is.

That's only the case because reward > > > risk in highsec.

- you can build capitals/supers
- you can set up outposts and deny enemy docking rights
- you can have your name on a system
- you can run regular anomalies and mining sites with upgrades

The issue here is that the half that want to change it are mainly in 0.0 and seem to want to do it to force those in hisec into 0.0. Those in hisec don't want to go to 0.0 and cannot see why their ISK levels should be nerfed to force them to do something they won't do and ruins their enjoyment by making it harder to gain shiny stuff.

Aaaaaaand paranoia again! "You just want to make me go to low/nullsec so you can gank me!"

No, they don't. That's just you protecting your golden goose. It's always the same trite and tired response when people tell you that highsec is raking in the cash at an inappropriate level.

So, there are two real possibilities here. Either people who like highsec will stay in highsec because they're cowards and won't go anywhere that doesn't have CONCORD.

Or, they will go because they will only go where the most money can be made, in which case we still need to nerf highsec because the very existence of those people in highsec is a damning condemnation of how much obscene amounts of money can be made there in almost total safety.

So, people who are in highsec now are there for one of two reasons: safety, or money. If they are there for safety, then they won't leave anyway. If they are there for money, that just goes to show that it's too lucrative.

Since we know money can also be made in low/null with the difference really being that it is more dangerous, then the amount of money made in high sec should not really bother you because you would also be making money. The choice of living in dangerous sapce is one players make by themself. If you want non-consentual PVP to not cost you a ship, then you ahve to live in more risky place. CCP made sure that you can also make money in the PVP zones but your own choice mean you have to put more effort into it. Prove to me that the risk/reward ratio is more skewed than CCP intended and I will support your crusade because it will be then proven that the game is not balanced as it should be. Until you can do that, I will go with my own theory of "It's currently implemented the way CCP wants it".

It's not like nerfing the income of high-sec would be hard if they really wanted to nerf it.

CCP have nerfed null income many times but have not nerfed high sec income to match. Over the years this has resulted in an imbalance.

Since we know money can also be made in low/null with the difference really being that it is more dangerous, then the amount of money made in high sec should not really bother you because you would also be making money. The choice of living in dangerous sapce is one players make by themself. If you want non-consentual PVP to not cost you a ship, then you ahve to live in more risky place. CCP made sure that you can also make money in the PVP zones but your own choice mean you have to put more effort into it. Prove to me that the risk/reward ratio is more skewed than CCP intended and I will support your crusade because it will be then proven that the game is not balanced as it should be. Until you can do that, I will go with my own theory of "It's currently implemented the way CCP wants it".

It's not like nerfing the income of high-sec would be hard if they really wanted to nerf it.

if parts of the game are badly balanced.....

Which they arent

- you can build capitals/supers
- you can set up outposts and deny enemy docking rights
- you can have your name on a system
- you can run regular anomalies and mining sites with upgrades

This argument has come up in every single thread Malcanis has just verbally sighed about. "You want highsec nerfed so you can force highsec people into other sec areas." People want to be able to live and thrive in their own areas that's the simple. Its only easy to do this in highsec because its rewarded so well for the risk that is there. I don't see officer/faction fit vindicators as a common site in lowsec, I don't see it in nullsec or wormholes either. The reason for that is its not rewarded enough for people do decide its a good idea to do that.

I'm going to make the claim that the average person has a hard time thriving in their own space outside of highsec so they make alts and sit them in highsec to enable their actions outside of highsec.

That's only the case because reward > > > risk in highsec.

It doesn't matter what part he's talking about. You could easily say it with ships, for instance. If attack battlecruisers are overpowered, whether CCP designed them that way or not, CCP is still wrong.

Aaaaaaand paranoia again! "You just want to make me go to low/nullsec so you can gank me!"

No, they don't. That's just you protecting your golden goose. It's always the same trite and tired response when people tell you that highsec is raking in the cash at an inappropriate level.

So, there are two real possibilities here. Either people who like highsec will stay in highsec because they're cowards and won't go anywhere that doesn't have CONCORD.

Or, they will go because they will only go where the most money can be made, in which case we still need to nerf highsec because the very existence of those people in highsec is a damning condemnation of how much obscene amounts of money can be made there in almost total safety.

So, people who are in highsec now are there for one of two reasons: safety, or money. If they are there for safety, then they won't leave anyway. If they are there for money, that just goes to show that it's too lucrative.

First of all I reject the simplistic risk/reward view that many of you have, its more like risk/reward/fun, for the average player running anoms is a lot better than running level 4's. And there is risk, you can get your mission ship ganked, or trigger the wrong ship and bang too much DPS and lots of webs and points.

In terms of the officer fit Vindicators that is a silly example, because who except for a few very can afford to fly something like that where you are likely to lose a ship, of course they won't take those into low sec or null, though I have in my time seen quite a few shiny ships in null.

And just because people have a mission alt which they run while waiting for PvP perhaps sitting on a Titan proves nothing, many people do that as they just warp out of the mission when it looks like they are going to get a fight. And because they are focussed on the PvP potential they cannot run a character doing anoms in 0.0. It makes sense and therefore proves nothing, just that its lower risk.

Hi,
I am a full out carebear that rarely ever leaves hi-sec. I make several billion in profit each month (after calculating PLEX payments for each account) off mission running and mining with my fleet. If things stay this way I will have immense amounts of ISK to my name before I even know it.
As such I am honestly one of the last people who should speak out against hi-sec profits. But I am. I believe game balance is more important than my personal profit and what we have here is a lack of game balance.

Right now a person can make more ISK/hour (consistently) mining with a fleet in hi-sec than they can anywhere else doing anything else, with one exception: Hi-sec multibox mission runner/hauler ganking.
The scenario we have is thus: The biggest ISK earners are doing so in hi-sec, and the biggest ISK takers are also doing so in hi-sec.

This is counter to the entire point of low/null sec - increased risk for potential increase in reward.

I will not go into the details of exactly why hi-sec is so profitable, I hope discussion in this thread can touch on that. ]However I will relay an idea here.

We could commit these changes to hi-sec:
- Reduce bounties and agent payments for hi-sec missions.
- Reduce the amount of ores in hi-sec that are not Veldspar and Plagioclase.
- Reduce the quantities per rock to 2 cycles max and commonly just 1.


What does this result in?
- Mission running in low/null - with a disposable fit - would now be more profitable than running them in hisec.
- Only small time miners can really keep up in hi-sec. Large scale mining fleets will struggle to find belts with large enough per rock quantities to be worth their time. Very few large scale mining fleets are willing to lock onto a new rock with each barge every time a cycle is completed.

Carebears are only willing to put themselves in danger if there is a significant profit incentive. As of right now the profit incentive really isn't there, coupled with the fact that we make more than we desire anyways in hi-sec.

Profit reduction in hi-sec = Increased profit margin for low/null = Increased activity in low/null

Seems like a simple enough formula...

As such the big ISK earners in hi-sec will need to move their butts into low/null if they hope to keep up the profits.

CCP have nerfed null income many times but have not nerfed high sec income to match. Over the years this has resulted in an imbalance.

Why is it you reject that? Show us some compelling reason we should accept risk:reward:fun over risk:reward. The rest of the post is stuff that has already been refuted.

for the average player running anoms is a lot better than running level 4's.

Oh god no.

They are just as boring and earn around the same.

It's the gate camps.

Don't want to be sheep and mine and grind in highsec? Boring? Yeah sure.

Go to lowsec or nullsec and what happens?

You end up gate camping. Big deal.

Oh and you'll kill everything that moves and then complain about a lack of targets when nothing shows up any more.


So we go from contradicting ourselves to looking like morons too.


Just make it easier for ALL ships to get around, even a system to system warp capability. Just do that and we'll see everything change.

For now all we are doing in threads like this is pushing a limp johnson up a hill.

It would be nice if 95% of the supercaps were gone, I admit.

Of course you want a load of easy to kill low sec noobs in shiny ships to kill, who wouldn't? Hell taht would interest me...

From what I have seen the higher level Incursion groups and people who can multibox missions to their eyes bleed like robots can make cash at an inappropiate level in hisec, this is not true for everyone, Incursions can be compared to sites in terms of limited availability.

Those people who want to stay in hisec do so because they do not want to pew pew and lose their expensive ships, they just don't feel like doing it, cowards, maybe, but that is their choice. The thing is that they do not want to go into areas in which they can lose their ships period, the ISK makes no difference and if CCP was to make the ISK reward less then these people will stay in hisec and get fed up at the extra grind to get what they want to fly in, hell taht is their fun.

I believe that they are there for safety, simple as.

It is so goddamn easy to avoid gatecamps if you bother to look at a map. You should be embarrassed by this post.

I think they earn more for the average player, in themselves they are boring, its the spice of being in 0.0 that makes it more fun.

Run several thousand and it becomes a grind. Its just mining vs rocks that move and shoot back.

Combat sites - we don't have billion isk per run faction filled pinata combat sites in high sec...

First point. No, actually. Because people tend not to do that twice, and I like to shear my sheep, not eat them. (I honor all ransoms for example, for 24 hours)

Ok, so you say "coward". I think it's a mix of both, to be honest. There are some smart people that are just making money hand over fist in highsec, and those people are only there because that's the best place to make money.

Well, I would argue that Incursions are not limited availability(seen some of those big groups farm them for days when they could have taken the mothership out in about 8 hours), so much as they have a barrier to entry. A big one too. Blitzing L4s on the other hand just requires a Domi.

Run several thousand and it becomes a grind. Its just mining vs rocks that move and shoot back.

This argument has come up in every single thread Malcanis has just verbally sighed about. "You want highsec nerfed so you can force highsec people into other sec areas." People want to be able to live and thrive in their own areas that's the simple. Its only easy to do this in highsec because its rewarded so well for the risk that is there. I don't see officer/faction fit vindicators as a common site in lowsec, I don't see it in nullsec or wormholes either. The reason for that is its not rewarded enough for people do decide its a good idea to do that.

I'm going to make the claim that the average person has a hard time thriving in their own space outside of highsec so they make alts and sit them in highsec to enable their actions outside of highsec.

That's only the case because reward > > > risk in highsec.

CCP have nerfed null income many times but have not nerfed high sec income to match. Over the years this has resulted in an imbalance.

Not beeing "forced" to come online at 3 AM for a CTA or having to do pixellabour to pay a pixelrent for some pixelspace is very convenient for me.