TVP's start mach fit might be expensive. TVP's starter Maelstrom fit however is not. They start with T1 BS's. So, get facts right on that front.

The TVP starter mach has tech2 rigs now (and 1 t1 ancillary rig). The hull is only like 800 mil now.

Choices have consequences.

If a miner chooses not to tank their hull or chooses to mine AFK, those choices have consequences.

If a player chooses to live in nullsec, having full knowledge of the challenges that choosing that lifestyle presents, those choices have consequences.

The idea that you are being forced to do anything is no less victimizing than miners losing their **** about gankers. The difference here is that you don't feel that you should have to HTFU?

What balance? That 11% of the playerbase, some of them entering the forum full of tears, control a vast amount of systems which MAYBE have less prod-slots systemwise than the tiny number of hs-systems in comparison which have slightly more systemwise?

Get serious ....

Well ... maybe 89% of the playerbase of eve dont want the way how to play their sandbox dictated by the 11%?

Do we now get to the point that the 89% play eve wrong and the 11% play the game right? Remember? Sandbox.

What was the topic again? Ah, yes. Nerf HiSec (89%) because they dont care about my playstyle (11%) but i cry to the forums about theirs.

Right on spot.

I thought, you wanted to stay on topic. Nice try, tough cookie.

But now we put this "80% of all bots" percentage into the "89% of eve playerbase live/work in highsec" scheme and it says ..... exactly ... nothing. Statistics just say what you want to see.

There are more ways to look at these numbers - they also tell, that low/null residents use nearly twice as much bots as hiseccers

Edit:
Forget this - just read the document about populations in high/low/null/wh

Presumably because botting is easier to do in hi-sec, which has nothing what so ever to do with the vast majority of hi-sec players.

Botting is cheating where ever it is done.

I may be misreading this but "having" to play the game? Like this recreational activity is actually a chore?. An obligation? A job?

I have to agree on the whole bot thing - why would you play a game just so you don't "have" to play it? WTF kind of sense does that make?

I can assure you that I am not trolling and my English is just fine, thanks.

I disagree. The post quoted implies that people "have" to play the game. They do not. The notion that the game is something you have to do is ludicrous. But as my response also noted I may be misreading the quote. If that is the case would you be so kind as to clarify what you meant to say rather than accuse me of either trolling or being sub-par in my native language?

It still says what it said the first time I read it. That bots "have" to play the game. They do not "have" to play the game.

Thank you Dave. I appreciate that clarification.

I did misread the original post then. When you used the term "bot", I took that to be synonymous with the flesh and blood player engaged in the botting and not strictly the software developed for the purpose of botting. Hence my confusion.

Hire more miners. Give them reason to live there, buy minerals from them, protect them. Then you will have plenty of minerals (with price tag and quantity as good as in hisec, even maybe better). Then you can start mass industry in null.

Confirming that I am a highsec mission runner running L4s not for the ISK but because I have no real interest in NullSec asshattery. I don't want to generalize but the general perception of NullBloc alliances and their membership is hardly an endorsement of fun to me. I could, of course, be mistaken and the actions or words of a few is not indicative of the whole.

I also think it's not as simple as drawing a straight line from bots in highsec as evidence of imbalance. Evidence of stupid ****wits in space is not evidence of imbalance. It is only evidence of ****wits in space.

Unless you are a botter, I highly doubt you know a thing about botter motivations, since higher earning in high sec is complete rubbish. You just keep trotting it out and it keeps getting destroyed.
Risk vs Reward is a possible argument, but that is a personal one that you have a level of risk for a given reward you will accept, beyond that you won't.
Absolute income however, Null wins. Stop being delusional in thinking we are idiots and don't know that.

No argument here at all sir. But I'm not sure all of that can be blamed on imbalance. Null sec simply doesn't sound fun to me at all. I don't measure my success in this game in ISK/hr. I measure it in fun/hr.

If the extent of fun in NS is docking whenever a red or neutral comes into system then I can completely understand why NS residents come to HS. But nerfing HS does not make docking whenever a red or neutral comes into system any more fun. Buffing ISK/hr rewards relative to risk in NS does not make docking whenever a red or neutral comes into system any more fun.

Every earning method quoted in high sec has higher potential in null sec. SoE missions are eclipsed by Sanctuary corp missions. Incursions in Null earn 40% more than in high (Incursions in low even have revenant BPC chance). Anoms once loot is averaged out over a long period of time can easily earn 200 mil/hr. Sure you might have a bad day. You might loose ships. That's the risk/reward ratio I was talking about. But absolute earning potential per hour, null exceeds high.
And this ignores moon goo, officer drops & PI earnings, which High Sec doesn't have a single thing that comes close to them in the same field.

It's only Risk/Reward that stops you, you have decided that the massive increase in risk is not worth that degree of reward increase. And for that, I can't entirely blame you. But, that doesn't mean that the isk isn't in null to be made. It is a choice to not accept the risk. You aren't forced to leave Null.

So in an ideally constructed universe, no one living in NS should need a HS money alt. Is that what I am to take away from this?

200 m/h incursions are not the standard income rate. Even with LP, most people will only be making 100/hr on them. Though I suppose we should ignore downtime, which can bring them up to 150 as an average. 200 however is not the standard rate.

Of course. Even if we accept your 200 figure, that means a Null incursion is 284/hr. Meaning you are making more.
So, stop with the 'High Sec makes more isk' rubbish. Because it is rubbish.

Not to be snide or anything, but when was the last time you pulled off an nullsec incursion?

To the best of my knowledge it's only been actually done in lowsec a handful of times, and never once in null.

If Null vanished however, High sec would be destroyed. No T2 Mods or ships at all,

Actually his numbers are not correct.

90 mil/hr is more the norm on anom ratting with a single account. Ship of choice right now is the ishtar.

Incursions are not run other than to remove them from the area simply because they act as beacons for roaming gangs.

Would it pain you to learn that that is from our better anom systems?

Except they're not, because no alliance is going to move a ton of ships and go do incursions in hostile territory.
That's just asking to be ambushed while running the site.

Yes... Because T2 mods & ships don't need moon goo products which come from Null Sec, because every high sec system has R32 & 64 moons.... Oh wait.... Really. If you are going to try and call me out, don't talk crap.

Since you have no idea how nullsec or nullsec Incursions work, let me tell you the difference, and why nobody does them.

1. Mobility

-Incursions spawn in random constellation in nullsec, just like highsec. However, that spawn may be in your own space, in neutral space, or in enemy held territory. It is utterly implausible to run incursions in enemy space, and most alliances operate on NBSI, meaning you are not welcome there either, and they will aggressively hunt you down. If an incursion is not in your territory, you don't get to run it. Compared to highsec, you might have an incursion to run about 10-30 % of the time depending on your affiliation (lel provi)

-Lowsec and and Nullsec Incursions are camped by gate rats. Incursion gate rats lock fast and hit hard, this means travel must be done in groups. A incursion runner can not move alone to an incursion system. The fleet must be formed outside of the system, then moved in.

-Traveling 30 jumps to the next Incursion (if it's in friendly space) is a lot more difficult than doing the same in highsec. The alternative is using a Jump capable ship, but Jump freighters can not carry rigged battleships. This require the Incursioner to use a carrier, or have a carrier capable friend lug the battleship around for him. This adds roughly 2 billion to the cost of your incursion setup

2. Risk

-Anyone can attack you in null, including in the Incursion site. If anyone sees a high "NPC killed 24 hour" state in an incursion system, they will know people are attempting an incursion, and will flock the constellation looking for easy kills. A single celestis getting into a site and damping your logi can mean bad things. Never-mind a fleet of Gank Talos or something similarly nasty.

-The very threat of a gank fleet can make a incursion fleet dock up, if 10 neuts/reds are in local, you aren't running incursions.

-This mean it's not plausible to use bling ships, no machariels, no vindictors, no nightmares, and certainly not deadspace tanked. No dead-space tanks means you must bring more logi, further reducing DPS.

The net effect of all this is that to run nullsec incursions, you need to use cheaper ships, and more logistics, drastically reducing DPS. This more than offsets the pitiful 50% extra LP/isk bonus that Nullsec Incursions give. Not to mention the extra hassle of moving battleships in null, movi

150/hr before LP is also is faster than the standard incursion fleet can do. 150/hr is a site every 12 minutes. 15 is a much more normal figure

why are you arguing they are a viable income source?

I fly with them, 11 mins is not their standard fleet time for site to site. 15 is realistic for them and they are actually pretty damn shiny. They just accept non shiny, but the reality is 90% of the ships in fleet will normally be pirate with T2/Faction/Deadspace/Officer fittings on them. Not T1 BS's with Meta 4 guns. They might pull a site completion in 11 mins sometimes from entry to pay out, but then there is the travel, fleet refill, quick logi re-org. Which mean you are not ticking sites over at that speed most days.
TCRC wall where not a single person drops fleet and it's one of the shiny fleets where everyone listens, yea, ok, that can happen. Which will be why it got screenshotted as an exceptional day.

How nice for you getting a perfect fleet and fast sites. I just went through my incursion alts wallet and the average site is slower than 15 minutes. Was some gaps as large as 25-30 minutes between pay outs even. So again, if you want to base everything on perfect, Null Anoms are 500 mil/hr. If you want to actually use real figures rather than cherry picking, Incursions are not 150/hr.

Oh, I was going off the lucky loot drops for that figure. I know 500/hr isn't a sustainable figure. But if Dave wants to use unsustainable figures from high sec, then he has to use the comparable unsustainable null sec anoms figure as well. If he want's to use sustainable null figures, then he has to use sustainable high figures also.

500th post

Northern Associates. - 4859 members
Brothers of Tangra - 5003 members
Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere - 2856 members

Those are 3 of the 4 largest alliances in the game. Your analogy just doesn't hold water. Why would 11% of eve choose to live in sov if it was total ****? Objectively, that just doesn't make sense.

Bullshit.
Plain and simple, bullshit.

Citation needed from both of you as to where the 'active' bots are.
Yes, CCP's bot bans have hit The Forge hard.... Almost like they include Spam Bots as 'Bots'.
Neither of you have any evidence where mission bots & ratting bots happen to live.

The only thing we know is that they do exist.

Botters are cheats, it does not matter what security sec the botter comes from.

We'll look what happens when they try to promote team work in null.

Tear jars would fill at an alarming rate (unless you sell them)

I would support doing something about hi-sec profits. I do not support the suggestions of lowering profits across the board though.

I think getting rid of the insane hi-sec profiteering and promoting low/null/WH profiteering is best achieved by limiting number of accounts logged in at once. There has been a 12-barge botting setup that moved to my system recently and has pretty much taken over. No one can get a fair share of ores in the system as these bots are on right after DT, and finished within a few hours.

Remove the ability to open up more than, say, 3 characters at once. Bye bye hi-sec botting.

Except that data only shows where bots were banned in 2011.
Not where they are currently active.
Nor what type of bots were banned.

Which was my point. CCP knows that in 2011 (Fanfest 2012 being early 2012, so primarily 2011 figures) they banned a whole lot of bots in certain places. Great. So... where is the breakdown of bots purpose. As well as the 2012 figures, and the 2013 figures.

After the trashing you tried to give my maths when it was based on a hell of a lot better data than you are claiming.

You are also claiming isk/hr is obviously the only factor mission bots take into account by deciding where to play. And that if isk/hr were higher in Nullsec they would take the vastly increased risk. Which, quite frankly is rubbish.

Or you mean because I can do basic statistical maths that prove the Goons in this thread have been utterly lying about Null Sec not making more isk than High Sec?

It's irrelevant what your perfect isk/hr is.

Other than all those people who do produce isk/hr in Nullsec, that you all claim are lying or can't sustain it. While you take the perfect High Sec Isk/hr and pretend it's sustainable and replicable by thousands.

Also known as cherry picking your statistics without thought of true context or wider application.

Mhmmm. See, insults, accusations, but no hard figures for a large number of people doing true averages. Rather than single perfect incomes. Overall income in Null is higher. It's that simple. You can argue the individual isk/hr all you want, but the month by month income breaks down and shows Null has the isk. As it should, and as anyone with a brain knows is true.

Amoms = 90 mil/hr on average

High sec level 4 missions = 100-120 mil/hr

Incursions 150 mil+/hr

no idea, i don't run incursions. it's just obvious that if i'm not fleeting with any one when running missions then the risk is absolutely zero, in comparison.

So my alt flying in an Incursus fleeting with my friend in a Gnosis and me shooting at the Gnosis would invoke a CONCORD response. This was not the case a week ago when we did just that.

You mean diregarding actual proof like you bullshitter ignoring numbers from ccp.