And the trolls come out to play.
Well, when the high sec version of the ESS is released, I guess we will see if you are right.

Fine, start by removing jump freighters from hi-sec. should impact the isk income to high sec industry.

The fact that CCP allows these people to spin these outright lies on the forums speaks volumes about what CCP thinks of the largest segment of their subscription base.

I don't speak german so I went with the translation.

If the 72% is NPC's killed, then an even larger percentage of bounties come from Null, as Null Rats are much more valuable than high sec Rats. Meaning the numbers skew even further in Null being the largest isk faucet. You can't get away from that. Despite more people living in High, Null is still creating the most isk. As well as the most income in other area's also.

The facts are quite clear on that, Null is the best absolute income. But as I said, some of you will just outright lie.

Highsec must be nerfed and it must be nerfed now!

Their should be a new mobile structure that when deployed in highsec would disable concord in a 30km-50km range (1 hour duration, very expensive isk cost and couldn't be deployed near stations, gates, etc).

This would sort of make sense, when you consider NPC pirates are found in empire space doing their illegal activities, and mission runners go stop em. F&I?

Not sure if this is the typical, "lets break highsec because null is bad so no one can have fun" kind of idea or some misplaced retaliation for the ESS which no higsec dweller asked for and many agree is a bad idea as currently proposed.

ESS can't work in high sec due to the inability to defend it from Neuts, where as Null Sec you can shotgun anyone who looks suspicious. Other than that issue, a 25% income boost sounds great.

Everyone is biased but you, huh Jenn?

I love how Jenn tries to shove everyone into a box that fits her whine.

I don't live in hisec Jenn. Stop assuming, it makes you look really foolish.

i wonder sometimes if the npc alts are all just the same dude

like a monster with a dozen heads

I use an NPC alt so you can't harrass my main in game if you disagree that strongly. Animosity is great.

Scroll up. You even counter argued it. And gave examples contradicting a 2 month old char or something. I dunno it was a while ago..............-

I'm also pretty sure that, without counter arguments, valid facts, or even accurate observations, that last post is only a ment to attack and derail arguments.

Should high sec be less safe? No. Eve needs a theme park that is valid enough to keep at least half the logged on numbers subscribed to keep eve online. Dont like it. Unsubscribe button is overthere. ^

Gotta afk mine all the things. Speaking of afk, don't you have a node to crash so you can ***** about it?

You will never really need more than 3 nodes (2 staging system + 1 fighting system) as long as SOV stays the same.

Good thing that'll never happen. Enjoy your turkey shoot~

And again, post only to attack someone without any contribution to the topic.

if I am a high sec pubbie, what's it matter? I'm keeping eve online valid by logging in and enjoying internet space ships.

Do some market research and realise EvE isn't in a very secure position in the MMO scene, the last expansion and live event didn't generate much buzz, dust 514 is considered, by raw numbers as a f2p console fps, a failure in investment and profitability, and radical changes (for positive or negative to your playstyle) are going to happen. Or eve will just to continue to limp on. 10yrs, but in decline, a very slow one but still predictive models show over the next year. I did a whole post on it like 3 pages ago. Loom outside of eve and realise only a small number of people Enjoy the very niche gameplay that is eve. And only a slice of that pie even cares to try null sec.

Animosity doing its role. I've been a casual eve player since launch. Seen the stars. Seen the stars get a resolution update.
I'm not important. Just someone who enjoys my cake. Please stop trying to force me to enjoy your slice of cake

If CCP decide to nerf hi-sec in the future, they will do so, because they believe it will improve the game.

Goon logic seems to be, 'we bring the game publicity, so CCP should do as we want or we shall whine endlessly on the forums because we are special snowflakes'

I sincerely hope goon whining will not have any influence on the game decisions CCP make.

Oh, and jeez man, stop using words like 'pubbie' it just makes you seem like the sad kid who wants to hang out with the cool kids on the street corner.

Seriously, what is a "pubbie" in this context?

Also, 2 of those articles aren't security specific.

They don't need to be as at least one includes economics which tends to concentrate where trade does, in highsec. The articles are great in their own way, but in the end are simply snapshots of particular events that occur as part of the game as a whole. Doesn't mean the game's other aspects don't serve purpose or are of less importance. Conversely, these event's were able to occur and continue to happen despite this "game breaking imbalance" thus making them even less relevant to the subject at hand.

Would we? Most of the ideas for fixing it seem related directly to simply reducing content or income for under the goal of spreading pilots elsewhere. Essentially trying to reduce it to a deadzone and/or true de facto new player only space. That's not going to generate stories there.

Though, if your suggesting this go another direction, I'd love to hear it.

This seems a noble goal at first glance, but is still opposed to what highsec is. I'd venture that the reason so many stories happen outside of highsec is entirely related to the fact that the range of possibilities there are intentionally broader that those inside highsec. Highsec that is the same old highsec, just slower cops and higher NPC costs won't provide unique reasons or scenarios that rival other spaces any more than it does now (and in a way is just a kick in the nuts to those of us who fit mission ships sensibly and tank barges by reducing cost:EHP for ganks).

And fundamentally highsec is just space with a more limited tool set to create relative safety, and as a result inhabitants that are less likely to engage or respond to aggression, so how do you make that something.

Basically, the income tweak is debatable and at a level probably needed, but how do you transform the intentionally safer area into a place that creates comparable content while still serving that purpose?

I can get behind some of the stuff on that list, though some I have doubts about.

- Contracts: How does the contract system evaluate successful completion of a freeform contract and furthermore, for all the contracts how does the system enforce it or provide penalty for failure?

- Stock: What other uses did you have in mind?

- Highsec ESS: The more I think about this, the more I have issues seeing any unbroken version of it coming into being.

- Player run content: This seems like it would be rather tricky to balance. It would need to provide some benefit to all involved at some level in order to be used yet not be able to be horribly gamed.

- L5's in 0.0 pockets: No one who is actually interested in doing lvl 5 missions will do these. Considering that you are looking at aggressors needing to have 0 risk to get to you and instant safety should they manage to disengage and leave the pocket, the only people who do these will be people setting traps and people looking to intentionally walk into those traps.

I'm not arguing on technical complexity, I'm not really qualified to argue that, but rather workable mechanics. Contracts in particular, how do they work, what kind of restitution do they give for being broken, can they be gamed? If they can be gamed, do they add value or are they dead weight? As I understand freeform contracts once existed and were removed for that reason. Sure it added an option, but it was a useless option.

Also, I'm not arguing highsec shouldn't be changed. I've several times conceded a nerf may be in order and the ideas I didn't directly address were because they seemed fine and good on their own, though maybe lacking in details to be later debated should we ever get to that point.

But as to balancing, I mention that because it's going to be a big one for player generated content in a formalized mechanical setting. The closest thing we have is FW which as many will recall had a glaring exploit upon it's revamp, and further imbalances which while largely addressed still has detractors saying that it's a farm rather than a battlefield.

Also it wasn't the procedural generation of mission I had issue with, but rather the implications for pockets of 0.0 in highsec for lvl 5's as that actually removes the ability manage risk that distinguishes highsec. Procedural missions in general is something I want but have lost faith in getting as no one seems to think CCP should devote any serious time to rebuilding PvE.

I know you believe that F&I is where ideas go to die but, with a little fleshing out, some of these ideas you might have some things that will, if nothing else, provide some serious discussion on the matter rather than a lot of screaming and bitching from both highsec and nullsec.



This too is a good idea. I could sell my expertise in Quantam Mechanics or Mechanical Engineering to anyone looking to research/invent BPOs requiring those skills.

Would this be true in Nullsec research as well?

Even with that the contract thing still seems pretty reasonably gamable in an imbalanced way.

But that aside, running in 0.0 space and avoiding a suicide gank are pretty different tasks. Specifically, the latter can be done almost entirely passively. Area control isn't really a thing in highsec, and even with this change only becomes possible in the L5 mission area itself. Policing the surrounding areas can't be effectively done and you still have local as a tool being neutralized due to the lack of system control and the general willingness to cohabitate a system with neutrals that comes from highsec living, mainly because you don't have a choice.

Long story short, you see a lot less action idling in a procurer in a belt in a 0.6 than you do in a -0.6.

At this point I think we're both speculating beyond what can really be seen when it's just a series of goals so I'll just say that all in all, despite my concerns, it's a good list.

Still trying to peddle the false wares I see La Nariz. High Sec does not earn more income than Null. I solidly debunked that. Regardless of the isk/hr you try to pretend exists in High Sec (Which doesn't exist sustainably), regardless of the fewer people in Null, Null earns more isk even when we ignore all the moon goo, high end minerals & deadspace & officer loot.
Meaning per character, Null is earning magnitudes more than high sec. It's that simple.

The imbalance only exists in your head.
And your 'suggestions' are all ways for the Goons to end up utterly controlling everything in high sec also. Not to breed more content.

Which space is getting income nerfed? Right ...so the company with access to the numbers and the data and the foresight has determined null sec is in need of a income adjustment.

Seems to me you have your answer. The information and comparison you and others hi-sec haters provide does not seem to mesh with what CCP seems to have.

I will always take data and info from CCP with much greater merit than anything you will pull out of your anal orifice.

:words: no sources :words: no data :words: plenty of fallacies :words:

Isk/hr isn't discussable. Because all we have are various peoples assertions as to what isk/hr actually is achievable. And we have claims for 500 mil/hr for null isk/hr in the forums also. None of which, High/Low/Null, have been backed by any actual hard evidence to show that it's a sustainable rate of income, simply peoples personal assertions.

The only point I've touched on isk/hr is the fact that the data shows the claims for incursions clearly aren't sustainable, because there isn't enough made on incursions for even 40 people to earn the claimed 200 mil/hr. Let alone the number of fleets that actually run incursions. Exactly what the average isk/hr is across all the pilots involved, I don't know for sure, since I don't have figures on wait time trying to get into fleets vs time in fleets, or how many people are involved in that figure. I only know my personal average.


Like I said, I've stayed inside the bounds of the actual data available to us. If you have some kind of data showing how many hours pilots who rat in null spend online vs how many hours pilots who mission spend online, I'd love to see it.

But the net result is per capita, Null is earning vastly more than High. It is possible that this is because the Null Pilots are spending more hours. But that goes against the argument the Null players are making that they can only spend a few hours a day ratting because of all the interruptions where as High Sec can run all day. So either the isk/hr claims are off, the interruption claims are off, or there is some other bizarre effect at work.

I have more proof than you do as to isk/hr arguments, since I proved that incursions were not sustainable at the claimed levels of income. The rest of it, you have just been throwing wild claims with no backing.

I however, have proved that Null is making vastly more per capita than high is. Exactly how they do this is still open for discussion obviously, but there obviously is not a shortage of isk in Null as a result.

You are the one throwing mud here, I provided actual maths backed by CCP figures. You have provided insults & dismissals just because you don't like what the result was.

La Nariz, all you have tried to say is 'You are wrong because I say so'.
Or 'You are wrong because another goon said so'.

At no point have you presented any evidence which is backed by CCP figures, you have occasionally spouted off a nonsense figure from 'personal experience' which has come with no proof as to how that figure was obtained or how sustainable that figure is or how normal it is.

I'm quite open to see actual maths from CCP figures showing that Null actually doesn't earn more than high, but quite frankly, I don't believe I ever will because all the actual maths so far says the exact opposite.

Now on the questions Benny raised.

Those are all valid issues and at no point have I ever said that null shouldn't have those issues looked at, though industry is in a much better state than most claim since they are using the old pre outpost buff figures, not the new figures. But even then it still needs some work.

I'm just against the 'Nerf High Sec because we fail at making use of null sec income' crowd.

yeah ok

reckon it's silly to be asking for devblogs though if 'ratting anoms in an ishtar' isk per tick is pretty much common knowledge among those who do it since it's min-maxed

even if, uh, i can't remember what the number is

(doubting there's much wrong with sigs except perhaps capacity)

You cannot make 22 billion in high sec in two months reliably. You maybe could scamming or something but even incursions will not give you that much unless you're poopsocking.


In null you can make that reliably playing a few hours a day. If you're clearing null belts as well you could make up to 10's of billions or more just on the one rare officer.

Or possibly, my friends just don't have as terrible experiences as you seem to always have when it comes to making isk in null. You seem to have some kind of victim complex going on here. Where anyone who has ever had a better experience in null, or a worse experience in high is lying. And you wonder why no-one other than your fellow goons trying to bury all the real discussion & maths in this thread takes you seriously when you continuously call everyone else a liar.

So anything my friends do is only an anecdote.... But anything Baltec experiences is automatically the true reality....
Well done making my actual point. You don't have hard statistics, you only have your own personal anecdotes about null income.

Which doesn't match up with the Gross statistics at all. So obviously something very different from what you claim is actually going on.

And it's exactly the same with your numbers. The only numbers we have than aren't anecdotes are CCP's gross income figures that you were so fast to dismiss as irrelevant because they don't match your beliefs

As for you Jenn, Not being a Goon/PL/N3 member, I don't have a massive blue area with a huge intel network to actually make full use of the space my alliance/coalition controls, so any tests I do in Null are naturally going to have worse results than the actual owners in Null, it's called a blatant experimental bias. And even if I did test it, unless the tests matched up with your claims you would simply dismiss them as abnormal, exceptionally lucky, unsustainable, just like you all have over the years every time this discussion comes up and anyone says anything about null having enough income.

The Gross figures come direct from CCP, and tell a different story to the sob story about Null you are trying to push.

I did that 30 pages ago La Nariz. I posted data sources, maths breakdowns and end results.

Given lack of CCP data releases I did make some assumptions but I typically took the high side of High Sec income and the low side of Null Sec income in those assumptions and we still came out with Null Sec having earned more raw isk than high sec earned in both isk & LP, despite maybe 1/5th the people (again high balling in Nulls favour.)

And this didn't even touch on Loot, PI, Moon Goo & High End Minerals. Which obviously Null wins. Because those are area's everyone knows Null is Superior in. Only way to get officer drops in high is to gank over blinged mission & incursion ships. It was just looking at raw isk income then calculating LP income beside that using average LP value.

If you use current SOE LP value then high sec just beats Null Sec on total gross income. But when you consider the population difference, that still means that Null Sec earns more per capita.

So obviously something is going on income wise that doesn't match up with all the isk/hr figures & null sec woes people are claiming. Exactly what that is, insufficient data set to work out.

As for things like number of people a Null Sec system can support at once, you have my support on those issues. I'd love to see a single Null Sec system able to support 20/30/40 different people all at once. That makes it a lot more attractive for them to do it all in PvP ships even with slightly lower income, because it means when that roaming gang comes through, instead of docking up they can all warp together and have a good brawl, because there are enough people in the same spot to actually defend.

This is what they do...... close their eyes stick their fingers in their ears and go nah...nnnnaaaahhh......naaah because they dont like or agree with your post, and will continue to troll till it becomes locked.

So the bottom line here is CCP nerfed null-sec income because they felt it was needed.

Dont have to like it or agree with it so either accept it or unsub.

Its just THAT simple

That's good. Keep invoking Incarna every time CCP does something you don't like.

We'll have numbers from HS this weekend.

Where did I say it it was right or wrong? Its not a question of right or wrong. It is what it is. I have toons in null sec as well.

I know you and those like you are use to getting your way via your meta game and crying on the forums etc...but sorry you dont seem to have gotten your way this time.

Either adapt or get the hell out my game. You are keeping the floor wet with your constant crying over not getting what you wanted.

Of course not. But to bring up Incarna every time something isn't going your way is straw man at best. No one is talking about Incarna and to keep bringing it up is just silly. If every decision CCP ever made was Incarna-invoking-worthy, you would not still be playing Eve, just like all the people whining about this most recent series of patches - "Incarna this, Incarna that". Holy ****! Everything that makes your game bad is Incarna all over again.

How long has this been a "mistake"?

Incarna is proof that CCP ****** up. It is not proof that they're continuing to **** up.

This is an old argument La Nariz. The whole nerf highsec discussion has been argued over and over again. What is being stated here, from where I am sitting at least, is that even with all the null residents slumming it in "Pubbieland" where the ISK just falls from trees for all of us "themepark risk-averse *******, CCP is missing a huge imbalance, Is that what is being postulated here?

I will do the Level 4 SOE missions this weekend for 4 hours. I will come back with the data and we can talk about it. Not Incarna but the data.

The only 'problem' high sec has is the incessant buzz of the little bees trying to force them into low/null.

It ain't gonna happens guys. Give it up already.

You've shown recently that you can actually manage to find targets without forcing mission runners into low. So ease up out of high sec's face for Christ's sake.

Mr Epeen

Dear La Nariz, every time you use the word, 'pubbie' it makes me wonder if you are actually old enough (13) to play Eve Online.

Whinge all you want about how unfair CCP is to you, but do it without using your kiddie school-yard slang, please.

I know that a few nul-sec folk are unhappy about the (insert fantasy figure here) isk folk in hi-sec earn, buy many of us play for fun not isk/hour and some of us use the isk we make to lose ships in lo and null-sec.

If I wanted to spend my time with a self selected 'elite' who think that they alone play the real Eve, then I would make a permanent move to null.

I don't think so

Kimmi, no matter how good your skills, no matter how quickly and efficiently you run missions in hi-sec, no matter what ship and fittings you use, some null-sec folk will still whine that you are using the wrong ship with the wrong fittings, that you are not running missions efficiently and that your sample is not large enough.

Null-sec self pitying whiners will whine no matter what, as indeed will some hi-sec folk

You are using the word, 'pubbie' again - is it a cool school yard thing for you?

Those null-sec folk who male fantastical claims about how much hi-sec missions runners earn per hour, need to define what parameters they will consider acceptable, otherwise I stand by my earlier comment that some null-sec folk will keep moving the goal posts no matter what figures a hi-sec mission runner posts.

Edit, see Jenn aWhine in the above post 1822 for an example of what I mean

Well according to your fellow goon member he can make a straight 160m an hour not including drops which can easily double or triple the isk per hour. So assuming +220m an hour the ideal rate of 110m an hour in highsec is under half the rate of null..


So now you have no reason to complain because in optimal conditions nullsec nets you over twice the income that highsec can get you.


MTUs are a waste to use while blitzing because missions griefers will probe them down and laugh in glee when they spot one.

I think these people are using old pre-nerf numbers from tengu blitzing. The HML platform was nerfed and I believe the tengu has been nerfed too. Hell even the missions have been nerfed since then as you can no longer blitz some due to spawn changes and such. Tengus also warp much faster then even the marauders. If you're using a regular BS then blitzing becomes even less efficient.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4170495#post4170495

Thank you come again.


EDIT : I'm sure he's in hot water now for letting the truth out. It's quite clear that goons in particular have been on a campaign to nerf highsec. Part of that campaign is the propaganda war which involves understating nullsec income as much as possible while wildly overstating highsec income.

EDIT 2 : In before grr goons pubbie and all the childish trolls your type engages in. I have nothing against the goons as I find their activities fairly hilarious. This charade is old and moldy though.

High sec missions are far more contested than anything in Sov space. Or are you really as bad at EVE as you are painting yourself?

Mr Highsec Pubbie

92 pages later and people are still trying to argue with Jenn and Goonies more stubborn than a tea party freshman screaming down an unemployed college student for being a 'leech' because he can't find a job.

Do youself a favor highsec bros; act don't talk. Don't argue with these people. Play your way and ignore them simple as that.

Kimmi is far, far more patient and polite than I am.

I hope this will suffice.

My apologies. I had not shared it.

Take two.

You are running in VERY high sec space or with a character that doesn't have his social skill right.....and Anomaly, NEVER run Anomaly, its a HUGE waist of time.

Was that just an hour running?

0.6 Sec Status - My social skills are not brilliant. SC 0 for example and Negotiation II

Sheet 1 is the first 4 hours.
Sheet 2 is the second 4 hours.

I think instead of doing 4 hour gigs I'm going to go with 2. Blitzing and pushing like this trying to get close to the numbers we're looking for makes this more like a job.

Also, my plan is to use the different strategies you proposed (i.e. Do four different runs, blitzing and salvaging, full clear and salvaging, blitzing without salvaging, and full clear without salvaging) each day so tomorrow blitzing and salvaging, Monday full clear and salvage, etc.

Will that still give us the data we need?

Don't even bother with full clear without salvaging.

Anomaly
Massive Attack

After that its a judgement call.

That storyline may be a shipyard, and that is a MINIMUM 25mil reward for not a lot of work.

Likewise if you give no fucks about standings, tag missions (smash the supplier and whatnot) yield 20-30mil in tags.....but most skip them outside of dedicated single empire runners.

Not exactly setting this up as an average player, are you people?

Then again maybe that's the point, useless for anything other than comparing ideal situations. I presume you will set the same standard of perfection for the null side of this equation. Right?

Apples to apples and all that.

I nominate Infinity for the null runs. Even though he has already shown what the ideal null runner pulls in. It's only fair to do it again so you have the same baseline.

I'd actually be interested in seeing how that pans out.

Mr Highsec Pubbie

Fair enough.

But I'd still like to see a legit comparison. That info would come in really handy for you forum warriors that seem to care about actually running missions and stuff for the piddly amount of Iskies you get compared to any of the high paying professions.

Mr Highsec Pubbie

Explain how arguing over nickels when everyone else is sitting on hundred dollar bills makes any sense.

I said I'd be interested in seeing a maxed runner in high sec compared to a maxed runner in null sec. And I would be. Are you trying to argue that I don't want to see that?

You need to ease up on the energy drinks, bud.

Mr Highsec Pubbie

So I have some constants in mind as far as agent/fitting. I am going to do some experimenting on Singularity for a week or two. While doing that I'll finish Cruise Missile Spec V and queue up Negotiation to IV and SC to IV. I might also go ahead with Marauders to IV.

The only deficiencies that will leave is that Warhead Upgrades and Guided Missile Precision are still at IV.

This will likely be my last post in this thread until I post the results. I will post them in Missions and Complexes (as that is where this is most appropriate) and link to it here.

Wish me luck.

a) Not even nearly the deadliest. It's a good example exactly because it's away from lowsec bumming, fw exploits, major trade routes, etc - so that suicide ganking is the leading cause of ship pops.

b) We have loony goonies claiming that hisec is safer than what they have. Well, no, and by a lot.

You can't avoid ganks via any method other then not undocking. People gank for profit and for fun. The loss of 21 or so mill is well worth it for gankers if they think they can get tears or some luls out of it. Hell I know people who gank just because they are bored and massively space rich.

Your childlike grasp of how the internet works is almost funny. I can only hope you're just trying to troll because it would make me sad to believe that someone really could be so simple minded. Just cause your ISP is good doesn't mean their ISP is good or the backbone is good or even that CCP's node will be stable. There's been at least one solid case in the last couple weeks where CCP's node went down during an incursion resulting in massive d/ces across north america. There's absolutely nothing my isp has to do with such situations and there was absolutely no warning before vast numbers d/ced. Socket reset due to node issues is completely unpredictable.


What's interesting is we have people saying "DON"T FLY BILLION ISK FITS AND HIGHSEC IS SUPER SAFE" who pages before said "OMG HIGHSEC MAKES SOOOO MUCH MONEY (although you have to fly gankbait for any hope to somewhat approach our wildly inflated values)!!!!". It's pretty comedic from my view.

pffffffft.

We had Odyssey already, which neared on destruction. Next time CCP Fozzie remembers hisec exists would be the end of it.

Except ol baltec and the other goons who want to cut the income of highsec in half at least..

You know "minor balancing changes".

Look you guys are claiming that highsec mission runners are making +110m an hour. They also claimed that null cannot make the +200m an hour that their fellow goon claimed in the other thread. They (the goons) also said that a reasonable level of income for highsec would be half of that of null. So since null can't break 100m an hour that means they want highsec to be nerfed from +110m an hour to 40ish mill an hour. That would require at least a 60% cut in income for all highsec adventures..

So yeah..

Uh the billions required to replace the ships I lost last time CCP's north american node hiccuped? To replace the ships I lost clowning around in low/null? To replace the money I blew sponsoring a newbie tourney the other day? To replace the t3 I lost in a wh cause I got distracted? No ganks attempts in a while fortunately :P

EDIT : I mean you guys do like having targets in low/null/whs right?

Stoic proved that if you massively outgun a mission level that you can make decent isk per hour with moderately reduced payouts. Your attempts at extrapolation to level 4 mission running is extremely laughable. Level 4 npcs appear in much higher numbers and have more HP/DPS then level 3s. There's absolutely no way you can outgun a level 4 mission like you can a level 3. Also several of the old blitzable level 4s are no longer blitzable due to changes in triggers/gates/etc. The blitzable level 4s are not paying out enough to counter the increased time required for completion. IT just doesn't scale anywhere like you're pretending it does.

You're thought process is so flawed I can't imagine why anyone would take it seriously. You want jaw dropping income? Do some WHs or get out and run some anoms in nullsec. EVen without drops you're making more then highsec.

Nerfing highsec isn't going to provide that incentive as evidenced by the oh god +8 years of eve. OMG level 5s MAKE TOO MUCH ISK AND IS KEEPING PEOPLE FROM GOING INTO LOW/NULL.. Okay so lets put level 5s in lowsec. OMG NO ONE RUNS level 5s WTF??? Okay a handful of people do but it furthers my point. You can't force people out of highsec by nerfing it. You'll just force people out of the game. The whole reason highsec was implemented in the first place was because of the constant curb stomping that was killing the game. Without highsec eve is a dead game.

If null is having income issues then it's because of the choices of the people who live there.

You can.

Tell me more stories about how awful of a player you are, and how you can't make ISK in nullsec.

hahahahhahahahahaha

nobody forces you to do anything dude.

for instance: nobody is forcing you to be baddie who can't make ISK in nullsec.

Terrible misassumption.

People are staying in hisec because hisec is bad, not the other way around.
Every time they try to get out, they meet massively outISKing blobs of nullbears, which they can never face as long as they don't have a cut of the grand nullsec pie, which they cannot get because hisec is unable to be the staging point for that.

I am proposing the drastic solution - BUFF hisec. Now it can serve as a staging points for fleets venturing into low, which can be only fulfilled by having comparable income. So far we're looking at 10% to 25%, which is imo incomparable.

If hisec dwellers will get the means to get out, they will. They're not getting all that ISK to sit on it. It's just they know that the cost of losing their implants would be 30 hours of hisec PvE or 3-8 of nullsec one, and getting jump clones might be a pain for an account which didn't spend 2 years to get into marauder.

So they can afford just 1 expedition per month, and with raised income they could afford maybe 1 per week. You want to limit it to 1 per year?

Wait what about war decs and ganks?????

Oh, listen to yourself. "Stay in hisec, you should just never be able to go nullsec, that would be fine for me".


Blue donut is so much more untouchable than any of the limited places you can run profitable hisec missions that I don't even know how to respond to that.

The blue doughnut is a myth....yes, just as OTEC is a myth, and the BOTLrd accord is a myth, just as the deal goons cut with RvB to control the high sec POCO's is a myth.

You can lie better than that.

Stoic proved you can make 50m an hour in highsec. That's not +110m or +180m as claimed earlier. Several of the big profit level 3 missions he ran don't even exist in level 4 form.

Once again you've completely ignored the points and explanations I provided. You don't need a bling fit to massively overpower level 3s. You need a ridiculously blinged fit to somewhat overpower level 4s and even then it's still not as effective as stoic was in level 3s.


Stoic was running at least 800 dps in level 3s with a range of 100 KM where as if you run a t2 marauder you're going to do about 1100 dps at shorter range.

Lets take silence the informant for example. That was a profitable mission for him.

level 3 = 18 ships

level 4 = 52 ships

The level 4 version cannot be blitzed and has almost 3x the number of ships including those with higher HP and DPS capabilities.

Do you see a bit of a difference there?

I have no clue what that even means.
Is that some kind of goon secret handshake?

Can you tell me where you saw this post? I've been reading this entire thread and keeping up to date on it and, my apologies, I do not recall Baltec or any other poster ever mentioning cutting high sec income by any specific amount, let alon 50%.

Thanks!

Where does his numbers show 110? The best he got was damsel which even if ran over and over would be able net what you claim. You really think you can get the same set of three missions over and over for hours every day forever? Really?

Also the level 4 version of damsel has SIGNIFICANT dps incoming if you try to blitz it where as the level 3 is basically just a walk in the park.

Blitzing is about speed and having an overpowered level of dps is an important part of that speed. Also having a very fast ship. Neither of those are possible with level 4s. Note that damsel decreased in value rather shockingly when he was forced into warping just a little longer distance.

Hell at this point level 3s are actually looking more attractive for blitzing then level 4s.

ARGH SCREW YOU DRAFT SAVING CRAP!!! Keeps deleting my post when I click post now..

This whole thread is a moot point.
The next nerf of high sec is already in the can, and we get to hear about it in a few months.

I mentioned it earlier, and will make the point again.
Jester in his blog weeks ago danced on the edge of the NDA, stating flatly the the direction Eve was headed in was not for everyone, and too bad for the group that did not like it. Recently, he went on about a new "feature" that will anger many.

Given the newest theme of CCP's, that being "the empires are losing their grasp", only someone completely obtuse, or utterly cynical, would say that the group about to get hammered with these changes is null sec.

High sec is about to get slammed, hard.
Very very soon, the cartel owned POCO's will be the least of the invasive attacks by null sec on high sec.

Dayng, lost track of the point of all this back when the thread turned into mission runners optimisation tips.
It's too hard to make isk in nullsec? You're bad, and an idiot.
No really, don't even, nobody believes that.
It's too easy to make isk in hisec? So what? Don't like it but can't blame the hisec permapubs.
Also: 100m isk/hr? 120m isk/hr? 500m isk/hr? WOW you're doing PVE for between 4 and 15 dollars an hour. In game money only btw.If you're not in the 3rd world you are wasting your time with that. If you are why are you spending hours making play money?
That gewn saying hisec is too rich is loltastic.

The nerf would have to be done to LP. But, and this is important, less LP in the game clogs an ISK sink.

I think the issue that every continues to miss is the value of LP. Even in Stoic's Escapades, 69% of the ISK he made was from LP. Anoms don't give LP unless you use an ESS. It would be interesting to take Stoic's number, reduce the bounties portion by 5% (is that still what the ESS is doing?) and give him 150-200 LP for every 1m in bounties, subtract the mission payouts and see where that puts him with ISK/hr.

I was going to **** around on Sisi trying anoms but it doesn't look like bounties are paid on SIsi so I can't really get an idea on this. There are also less than 100 people so there would be no way to account for lost time due to docking up for neut or red.

Anyway, carry on.

http://jestertrek.blogspot.ca/

Peruse some of his posts about the latest CSM Summit.
Everything is heavily NDA'ed, but he makes it clear a game mechanic is changing that is going to anger a lot of people, and that is only a 1st step.

Go back farther about a month to 6 weeks, and buried deep, you will find a post by Jester about how the new direction of Eve is not for everyone who plays now, and they will be left behind.

Add in CCP's crap about the empires and crossing the Rubicon, and it is pretty clear who is losing out here.

Yeah well, I for one hope it has to do with some mechanic that forcibly splits up the large nullsec coalitions that have turned all of nullsec into carebear borefest blueville.

Kind of like how large monopolies/oligopolies get split up IRL.

Can you imagine the tears?

You must be the worst of your entire propaganda wing.
I suppose when Ma Bell in the u.s was broken up into baby bell's , that never happened.

But yes, the changes coming will enhance the goons' stranglehold on the game, not weaken it.

CONCORD is the equivalent of basically the government - so no, your example does not hold.

Uh. What?

Yeah, a multinational "corporation" with police rights and the final say on who lives and who dies.

Sounds like the government to me.

]HIs own data clearly shows he cannot keep up 110m an hour like you claimed. It's just not possible over any reasonable period of time. The proof is right before your eyes in that his biggest isk per hour mission dropped wildly in value when forced to warp a mere extra 5 au. It's further proven by the fact that only a few missions got him the isk per hour you're claiming. So in order to get the isk per hour you claim not only do you have to reject the majority of missions but you also have to cherry pick the distance of the few missions you can run. That's just not a reasonable expectation. The expectations to make 110m an hour is by far incredibly more unreasonable then the expectations for the goon who was making +200m an hour plus drops.

He has made no changes accounting for the omni or warp changes. He even posted here saying he was going to have to try again to see how the changes effect his blitzing.

Because Eve is, for me, essentially a social game with spaceships -

The arrogance of some null-sec folk and the null-sec ego politics, puts me off making a permanent move to null.

The idea that I would pay good money to spend my game time with the self appointed elite of Eve is just laughable really.

If hi-sec was to be seriously nerfed, some folk might leave the game, some might join because of the nerf, some would just not care.

The game, for me at least, is not about isk/hour but fun per playing session.

I'm not complaining about gankbait. I find it a perfectly valid tactic to engage in. I was merely responding to baltec and La whatever who claimed you could do +110m an hour in a t2 non gankbait boat so the isk per hour was completely risk free. That assertion of course is absolutely ludicrous.

As for you well I've had good days and bad days in null. Since I'm not a part of any major alliance I tend to have more bad days then good.

As I stated earlier I lost a t3 in a WH the other day because I got distracted by real life. I let it happen and I have no one to blame but myself.


In all seriousness I can't be the only person who has issues with the draft thing causing the post to revert to an earlier version when hitting the post button.

Forgive me, but it has nothing to do with grr goons, that is just your ego speaking.

I have absolutely no issue with how goons play the game, (they seem to be good at it, and good for them) but, having said that, even if I got a personal invite from mittens to join goonswarm, I would not join any corp which uses terms such as, pubbie etc, it is just so childish.

You stated that Stoic proved you could do +100m an hour with a non bling fit in safety. Stoic showed that he was using a blinged out mach to reach 100m an hour.

So you've been proven wrong in your assertion that a blinged ship isn't needed to do +100m an hour. In hindsight I believe it was baltec that brought up the safety of doing missions at that hourly rate.

For example :

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4185521#post4185521

So you're admitting that the only way to beat the blitzing of level 3s in an overpowered pre-nerf AHAC setup is to use a pre-nerf blinged out ship to blitz pre-nerfed 4s?

Thus contradicting the earlier contentions that a non blinged ship can safely make +100m isk an hour running level 4s?

Safe being a relative thing of course as even a t2 equipped mission ship can be ganked if someone wishes. Granted not having bling does decrease the pool of potential gankers greatly.

So where's this mound of data you have to support you contention of highsec income?

We have data showing that even a pre-nerf blinged mach blitzing pre-nerfed missions cannot reach the mythical 110m stated earlier.

70M/hour if you're uninterrupted.

Just for shiggles, if I set my Mach spreadsheet to 0 isk/LP, I'm looking at ~33M isk/hour (adjusted for warp speed nerf,) with 39% bounties, 60% mission rewards, and 1% loot. I'm beginning to wonder if we need a level 4 test run that focuses on isk (bounties+rewards) instead of blizing for LP.

It shows the Average Anom to be 70m/hr ISK.
You however deliberately did not use the ESS to give yourself an extra 5% isk & 15% LP for starters, potentially an extra 20% isk & 20% LP.
In fact an extra 40% LP if we use the matching 2000isk/lp figure you are basing your high sec figures on (Which is not an average LP figure anyway.)

So, before we take loot into account we are already up to 105m/hr on your middle of the road figure and your high end figure of 100 similarly jumps to 150/hr using the same basis.

And you are only using a basic T2 HAC here. Go use the same HAC in high sec and you will see much lower figures than the high sec figures you have been touting. Not a bling fit. So you are failing in doing a decent comparison and deliberately loading your data.

Seriously, at least 'try'. It's blatantly obvious you are attempting to make your Null results as bad as possible, and they are still competitive.
We haven't even looked at the potential loot value here or Escalations which give better loot. Though I'm guessing your claim will be that they don't count either because you don't get them every time.

I understand common maths.
You apparently do not understand scientific testing, and data set controls.
You do however seem to understand deliberately lowering your results by doing things in inefficient ways.

This old whine about high sec mission income is old. Seriously, you null guys need to learn a new tune.

Did we really need yet another stealth "nerf high sec into the ground and force everyone to join a blob null alliance" thread? Really?

No way in hell I'm ratting in a marauder or carrier in fountain, its just not going to happen.

I can put up numbers in an ishtar...they are going to suck though, specially after the omni hit.

The Tengu only comes out for 10/10s if I have my druthers, it too expensive to risk without a payout.

Issue is Fountain for me

The systems are there, but they are constantly camped by the four alliances that live in NPC core.

Quick pratical question.. if null sec woudl indeed pay less thanhigh sec.. why would be so many peopel paying a TONS of isk for your alliance so they can go rat in null sec?

The average income in high se cis NOWHERE near that. That is what you get at PEAK moments. Only SOE and Thukker tribe pay enough in LP to reach 100M isk per hour and their systems get LARGE ammount of suicide ganking. The realistic numbers are very close to the numbers of null sec, around 70 m

I should think you would want to do that anyway. It is relevant to the study. During that interruption you are making 0 ISK/hr and I would hope you would make note of that. ESS or not because it is relevant.

I was thinking about that this morning before going to work. Living in HS, I can log on at any time and make ISK, not ridiculous amounts (due to my inexperience with blitzing and an overtanked hull) but I can make ISK any time that isn't downtime. Residents in NS don't necessarily have that luxury. Tell me, when you logged off for that first interruption, what did you do?

My money is on logging on a HS alt to make money.

So basically you have plenty of repressed "grr goons" and its preventing you from visiting nullsec because.

Wow, screenshots from a goon.
A goon, a group that prides itself on deceit and subterfuge.
Yes, I am sure that anything you post is 100% accurate.

This whole concept of you trying to "prove" that null sec sucks compared to high sec, is a joke.
CCP can look at their own internal logs and databases and see what the truth is.

As I said before, CCP has already made whatever decisions they have for the summer release.
I am certain that high sec is facing a massive nerf already in May /June.

Why can't you just shut up until then?

You can but is HARD to keep that level. Specially because you are MORE likely to get ganked in the good high sec mission systems than in 0.0. Yes you ARE , i lived in 0.0 and if you are nto drunk and have an alliance with average IQ over 50 that can use chats you will not loose anything.


0.0 is much easier to casually make a lot of isk. HIgh sec you can achieve high income but with a much more specialized and tunned approach.

Unless the best LP you can get between four empires is below 1000/lp, the ESS returns equal to no ESS the second you drop it. And if the best LP you can get is above 1000/lp, then you show an immediate profit.
If you then sit an alt at the ESS (You know, that Cyno alt that can't rat because of system density issues, which I do agree is an issue, but you will always have some alts who can't rat, and the higher the system density the faster the ESS gains it's buffs so the more you gain via it anyway), and spam the share all button every opportunity you get, you show an immediate 20% profit above no ESS.
If you actually manage to leverage the ESS to make maximum profit, you are showing a 30% profit above no ESS, (Assuming 95% start 125% end) assuming you can't make use of the LP market to find something extra profitable. If you are able to leverage the LP market to make a real profit on the LP, say, 2000/lp, then you are at 50% above no ESS.

In short, with the revised stats on the ESS, assuming the ESS isn't bugged (Since we can't allow for bugs), it's very hard to not gain overall income from it unless you are getting camped so often they keep blowing it up as soon as you drop one. Exactly how much depends on if you loose them regularly, and if you manage to tick them I agree, but you should be showing at least 20% more than the given figures before we take bonus LP profit into account.

And since you are taking the best LP possible in high sec as the 'average high sec' figure, when anyone with a brain knows that's not sustainable since the more profit seekers who chase the high LP, the lower it's going to drop. We can take the best LP when looking at the ESS options also.

Just to keep people joining the thread updated on the current state of affairs.

Goons: "omg omg you can theoretically with luck and assumptions make 110mil ISK/hour in hisec, my average null income is only 150m/hour NERF HISEC"
Voice of Reason: "Why do you compare maximum hisec ISK/hour with average nullsec ISK/hour? Want us to tell you how much maximum nullsec ISK/hour you can make theoretically with luck and assumptions?"
Goons: "But hisec *goon personal attack generator* are making ISK! HISEC SHOULD MAKE 50% OF NULLSEC ISK!".
Voice of Reason: "In that case hisec income needs to be buffed by about 100% to match 50% of nullsec."
Goons: "Millions of goons can't be wrong, because we're too cool to be wrong, means you're wrong. You're missing the point. HISEC DARES TO MAKE ISK! NERF HISEC!"

This has been going in circles every 7 pages or so.

No, we are not.

You don't get to ignore PI and Moon Goo.

Income in null was fine prior to the dumb ESS. My income making in null over the years was way beyond what it ever has been in hisec. Why? Because I actually utilized all that was available, not just ratting.

Stop crying and work on PI. Also, get your fair share from moon goo.

If you are making less in null than what you can make in hi, then you are doing it wrong.

Total income should be compared. Not just parts of it.

You don't get to cherry pick an activity from both security levels and then complain they are not balanced against each other. It is entirely irrelevant.

If you want to compare total income in hisec versus nullsec, then by all means do it. Cherry picking is nonsense. You are sitting on a passive ISK faucet (PI) and trying to pretend it doesn't exist.

It does.

If anything, we need to nerf PI so you don't get the output unless you are within range and online. As soon as you leave range, it stops producing. This would force all the whiners to return to their SOV.

Why?
Pretty simple. Money.

Though goons have an extremely successful rental empire, they still have huge swaths of space available right now, (and that will grow when they are done with N3), that right now, they can't rent out. There has already been a migration of players from high, low, and wormholes to null sec, just not as much as goons would like.

The people left in high sec, at this moment, are prepared to accept lower income levels than what null sec provides because of any number of reasons, among them that they don't want to live any more under the yoke of the goons than they do now.

Once high sec is nerfed, the calculus is re-adjusted.
With that re-adjustment, there will be 3 groups in high sec:

1. The group of diehards that hate the null sec life and will never go there, but will continue to play the game. goons don't care about that group, as they don't contribute that much to the goon income streams
2. The group of high sec players that will say "enough, I quit Eve". goons don't care about that group either.
3. The group that says, "OK, I have had enough. The difference between high sec and null sec income is so huge, I can't ignore it any longer. My corp is clamouring for us to move to null so we can actually achieve something in this game, even it means we are serfs of the goons."

That last group, that is the group that the goons are targeting with their campaign to destroy high sec.

Every time there is a nerf of high sec, relative to null sec, goons get more people willing to rent from them.

The real question is what goons gain out of a devastated high sec, but what does CCP gain from it?
I have no doubt the great destruction is nigh for high sec, I just have no clue why CCP is buying into the idea.

Which leads me to believe that the destruction of high sec will be two-fold:
1. A direct nerf in income levels in high sec.
2. In the form of simply giving more of the high sec income streams to the goons. I imagine very very soon, as CCP Seagul says "the empires are losing their grip", we will see all low and high sec stations conquerable by player groups, leading to those groups controlling the tax rates, mfg slot rates, refining taxes, etc associated with those stations.

Consider it "null sec light".

No, anoms are not "in place of" anything. There are anoms in all areas of EVE. Compare those. If you were asking for level 6 missions I doubt you would hear so much resistance. But asking for a nerf based on a ridiculous comparison won't get you much support.

The, 'I am a scientist', bit, It is totally irrelevant.

How is 40% earning at best is more ISK again?
When you talk average anoms being 70-90, I must tell you that average missions are 30-35. Try Buzz Kill. 4 battleships and zomgwtfcrapload of elite frigs with 25k bounty. And it's about 3 times more common than extravaganzas and blockades combined.
Anoms are harvestable in Oracles with not even 100mil in ship+fittings. 10% of your bs. And you're virtually safe from gankers being able to dock up on sight, you won't get anywhere near that level of safety in hisec mission hubs.

Another session of goon math and I will follow the advice of not responding to you.

Stop spreading your specgoonlations, they're baseless and you know it.
I can make one with the Buzz Kill mission and get exactly 40% of that without speculating anyway though. Hear that, I don't even have to purposely lower my numbers.

That's the same thinking that killed Diablo 3.

See, it's not about you and your bad luck. It's about the average of everyone that runs these things. Not everyone is as sadly lacking of good drops as you are.

Cherry picking one player's performance to bolster your argument is hardly meaningful of anything. Just a waste of forum space.

Mr Highsec Pubbie

Just out of curiosity, let's suppose no mission in hi-sec paid more than lvl 3 missions currently do, or worse, what do null-sec folk think would be the result?

That hi-sec folk would want to move to null-sec?

That some, perhaps a lot of folk might leave the game?

That more folk, perhaps a lot might, join a leaner meaner Eve Online?

As I run missions to pay for my inevitable, frequent pvp losses, I would simply pvp far, far less than I do now.

I have absolutely no interest in holding any space, not for moon goo, not for the ego trip, not for the alliance building, not for the large fights and so on.

Log in, make isk by mission running, lose said isk in pvp.

CCP allow me to do this to my heart's content.

Funny remark from Mr. Shitposter himself who never provided anything at all, talk baseless bullshit and pure lies all the time and is about to party because he found a conflict averse sissy like this kimmy-gal who invests his/her time to try to prove something that means absolutely nothing in this subject at hand while you laugh your asses off playing forumgames.

Good stuff!

Oh... hold on. No it isn't.

I can do a dozen missions and spreadsheet it too. They'll show me making next to nothing off them, but because that's what I want, I'll keep waving it in everyone's face to prove some pointless theory.

Mr Epeen

Dear Jenn aWhine, the main thrust of my question was, in fact, what do folk think would happen to the game?

Really what you seem to be saying is that you want to screw the income of hi-sec folk, so that null-sec folk earn more, relatively speaking.

That is a perfectly respectable position to hold, but to pretend it is for the greater good of the game is just not on.

I am sorry you do not care about me, or my play-style, but as I am basically a hi-sec player, I do care for you.

If you were good at understanding scientific testing and data you may want to go back to it because you sure do seem to suck at understanding basic EVE.

Yeah because backing up your statements with facts and proof is for those that disagree with you only.

Nice to see you continue to refuse to provide any data to back any of your claims.


Applied dps would be lowered in your described situation while not achieving the speeds you claimed.



I would like to thank Kimmi for proving my point by listing his/her implants which show no room for what Baltec claimed.

To address the issue about the ESS. I don't see why he shouldn't use all the tools available to null. We're certainly using all the tools available to highsec. At the very least it'd be interesting to see it's real world effect. As last I was aware pretty much no one was using it for the intended reason.



Seems to me that the a simple change to missions to stop blitzing would be enough to fix most of the problem. SOE LP values would still cause those missions to be higher then average and nerfing blitzing would increase the value of the LP. I'm not sure how CCP could adjust the SOE LP to bring it more in line with the rest of highsec without resulting in potential problems. THe least problematic would be to spread the availability of SOE LP. As once more people can easily run LP in systems away from gankers the LP value will decrease. Like stoic said earlier.

The real question is, what field of study did you go through to be able to craft such lovely posts?

It would take me a bit to fly an Ishtar and I'm Caldari. I would not be caught dead in a Gallente ship. Or maybe that's the only way...

La Nariz, forgive my ignorance but what kind of travel time exists for completing these? I assume the "lag" time is the time between completion and bounties actually hitting the wallet? Are you scanning down another or travelling to it before or after the lag time?

If you reduce the amount of LP in New Eden, you reduce the effectiveness of the LP Store sink.

I think blitzing is stupid. But if you remove it and force full clears for all missions you reduce LP/hr which means it takes longer to buy a ship from the LP Store. Everytime someone buys a Nestor from the LP store, that is 100,000,000 of ISK removed from the game forever. Stratios - 20,000,000. Sisters Core Probes 1,200,000 per 10.

That sink must continue to consume ISK. It must. If there is more LP and you put it in Null, the sink continues to run normally AND has the added benefit of making those in Null a little richer and some people in High a little less rich FROM LP ONLY.

You claim to be good at understanding and interpreting scientific data and testing yet you fail at understanding and interpreting basic EVE numbers? What you seem to be doing is trying to manipulate the numbers to make or support your argument as any good forum troll will do.

Here is what I do know to be factual. I have pilots in both null and hi-sec (fact) I use both to make money (fact). I run lvl 4 missions on my hi-sec account (fact). I run anomalies on my null sec account (fact)

I make more isk per hour in null sec than I do in hi-sec even after null nerf (fact)

Regardless of all the facts and all the numbers and all the crying and snotting and sniveling and attempts at manipulating the numbers and data they still nerfed null sec (FACT). Like you I donGÇÖt have to like it or agree with it or think itGÇÖs right or think itGÇÖs wrong, but like you I can either accept and keep subbing my account or NOT.

Like you should I think the grass is greener in hi-sec I can pack my sheet up and move to hi-sec should I feel thatGÇÖs where the money is or not.

Either way should I decide to stay subbed I have to accept the changeGǪjust like you.

ItGÇÖs just THAT simple.

Stop asking CCP to modify everyone else sand box because you donGÇÖt like the part of the sand box you decided to play in..

You fail to see your so called counters are irrelevant. Regardless of my argument or your argument or anyoneGÇÖs argument, data or numbers. It doesnGÇÖt change the facts. Null got nerfed.

I have free choice to play in any part of the sandbox I want. Should I feel null-sec is my place to play itGÇÖs my choiceGǪ.should I choose WH space itGÇÖs my choice. Insert (part of sandbox here) itGÇÖs my choice.

You canGÇÖt expect CCP to modify another part of the sandbox because you donGÇÖt like how it works as compared to the part of the sandbox you chose.

You shouldnGÇÖt need to understand numbers or data to grasp such a simple concept.

La Nariz, out of curiosity, when figuring your bounties paid are you figuring gross or is it only your net after corp tax. Reason I ask is that while you are not getting all of the ISK from the bounties you are earning that ISK whether it goes to you or a player owned corp.

To those who think the data is fabricated. To what end?

There is plenty of PvE to be enjoyed in EVE ~ The better question is why do PvPers care so much about the choices of what others do or where they close to play?

There could be people out there who do nothing but sit docked on a station all day talking to people and you may not like it but for them its a legitimate and worthwhile way to play the game.

I can say the words and I can dumb them waaaaay down, but I cannot make you understand. You have to have the ability and the desire to do both.

You sir have been weighed and measured and found lacking.

Talk about Risk vs. Reward without including *all* risks and *all* rewards is meaningless.

Add in PI to your calculations, say across a month of play in both null and hisec. Then let us compare.

The risk in null is balanced because of total income potential. Not just anoms.

Highsec L4s : ~100m

Forsaken Hubs: ~70m (no ESS)

The ESS test is still going because I got ganked and there's a tonne of roaming gangs going around.

Proof and verification of fit:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqC-BTui2uSGdDlxa2dWOG5ieHB0QXBVWW82bGN5TFE&usp=sharing

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=21728022

That test shows in mid-range PVE activity highsec is not adhering to risk : reward at all and that needs to be changed.

E1: Have to acquire an ESS.

How is it that you keep making the leap from comparing two isolated activities to "highsec has more reward than nullsec"

These are not the only income sources.

Risk versus reward is not compared in isolation to only one activity in each area.

You go ahead and keep trying to make that connection though. We will just pretend all the other income sources don't exist. Sounds like a real solid argument there.

Yes it is passive. Nearly free in fact. The only risk associated is during hauling; which can be mitigated to nearly zero with hauling contracts. I know, it is how I have made a lot of cash in the past.

What they do in the meantime? Well gee, since they have a virtually risk free ISK flow, they can do whatever the hell they like! Why it is assumed that while they rake in passive risk free ISK that they somehow need to now also make more simultaneously as those running missions in hisec who have no risk free PI income?

Why is it, that we are comparing two dissimilar activities and using it as an excuse to ignore all the other isk sources?

If you want to compare, either compare total ISK flow, or compare the same activities.

In null, I had ship reimbursement and passive income that covered my fittings costs from PI alone. I was essentially able to ignore everything except moving around some extraction heads every 3 days. Once a month I would gather up my crap in a hauler and set up a completely insured hauling contract to a hisec hub. I donated 10% of my take for POS fuel to the corpies who ran POSses.

I spent my time PVPing and raiding WH's for FUN. I also ran with a small gang on escalations in case I needed a few billion extra per month. I could gate camp for days just for the giggles. Everything was paid for.

Smart null players do not perform just one activity. Those in hisec who want to shoot PVE ships only have one activity: L4 missions. PI in hisec is pointless.

I have said it once in this thread already: if you want to nerf the crap out of blitzing: I support that. If you want L6 missions in nullsec so that SOV holders can save that dumb damsel 20 times in a week, then by all means I support that too. If you want to *INCREASE* the value of PI in hisec, then lower the income of L4 missions across the board, then I could maybe support that too. Force hisec players to be more diverse is fine. Taking away the only income source they have (if they want to shoot things) is *NOT* a good move, especially when it is being done only to appease some strange desire for nullsec players who demand that all of their income sources are *higher* than the completely different activities in another space.

What I do not support, is comparing two dissimilar activities and then claiming it is justification to nerf one without considering the other aspects of both. Risk versus Reward is not applicable when comparing said activities in a box.

Any numbers or information beyond the fact of being irrelevant would mean even less should they be provided by you.

All the testing from both sides still wonGÇÖt change a thing.

All your crying on the forums wonGÇÖt change the fact CCP nerfed null-sec income.

Should CCP have the numbers they felt they needed to nerf hi-sec. Should they come out tomorrow and decide to nerf hi-sec guess what?..... still wonGÇÖt change a thing.

We will have to either accept it and continue to sub and play or not.

Again itGÇÖs just THAT simple.

Choose the part of the sandbox you want to play in or unsub and pick your crying towel up and go home.

Highsec L4s : ~100m

Forsaken Hubs: ~70m (no ESS)

The ESS test is still going because I got ganked and there's a tonne of roaming gangs going around.

Proof and verification of fit:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqC-BTui2uSGdDlxa2dWOG5ieHB0QXBVWW82bGN5TFE&usp=sharing

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=21728022

That test shows in mid-range PVE activity highsec is not adhering to risk : reward at all and that needs to be changed.

E1: Have to acquire an ESS.

Kimmi, I can totally get behind this idea. I like the concept.


I am also, done replying to the trolls in this thread who continue their little parade of name calling, trolling and other nonsense. I have this account for forum purposes. I primarily live in WH space these days and do not plan to give out any sort of intel. I could care less if you believe my experience or not La Nariz. Your constant attempts to label people and create artificial "US" and "THEM" scenarios offers no value to the community.

Highsec L4s : ~100m

Forsaken Hubs: ~70m (no ESS)

The ESS test is still going because I got ganked and there's a tonne of roaming gangs going around.

Proof and verification of fit:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqC-BTui2uSGdDlxa2dWOG5ieHB0QXBVWW82bGN5TFE&usp=sharing

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=21728022

That test shows in mid-range PVE activity highsec is not adhering to risk : reward at all and that needs to be changed.

E1: Have to acquire an ESS.

Personally, I blame the warlord OP and the incendiary language that is used. The word "nerf" has a negative connotation and as such gets people fired up. No one likes being nerfed. Null didn't like it. You can't expect high to just say, "Of course! In fact what took so long?"

The ONLY reason highsec combat PVE is more profitable than nullsec is LP. That's it - there is nothing else. How do you nerf that? Across the board? For the big three corps only? OR can you drop LP in Null? Giving them a non-faucet buff back to close to pre-forsaken nerf levels? Obviously, this would be an indirect nerf to highsec but without the incendiary language.

That is my thinking. I just think it too difficult to balance out how to nerf LP in highsec and still maintain the balance of faucets and sinks. I also think that a currency that is so dependent on market conditions is extremely volatile. The LP itself has no intrinsic value, but the ridiculous price people pay for the items out of that store does drive that income stream that constitutes 69% of a high sec mission runners income..

You know, this thread gets more hysterical every day.

Let' assume for a second that the lies being told by the null sec propagandists are true, and high sec makes vastly more per hour that null sec, and null sec needs high sec alts to finance the multi-trillion ISK losses of 100 billion ISK ships in null sec systems over null sec stations.

Maybe CCP WANTS to force all these destitute null sec players worth hundreds of billions to KEEP their high sec alts.
Otherwise, all those null sec players will just finance their trillion ISK battles with null sec chars, and CCP loses tens of thousands of subs.

Because, clearly, if someone new to Eve read this thread, they would quickly realize that every null sec player paid for their hundred billion ISK ship through high sec mission running, not by running anoms in null, and those high sec alts would be quickly unsubbed if poor poor null sec even gained parity with rich fat high sec, let alone was better.

Yeah null sec, keep spinning your lies.

I'm going to say this as nicely as I can. Since my opinion is of absolutely no value I'll once again step out of this discussion and the rest of you can impotently whine about whatever you want.

o/

The information provided or gathered will always be flawed. Anyone with a basic high school education will be able to know, see or even predict this. This should be obvious even more so to someone like yourself with a self proclaimed scientific testing back ground.

You are missing several key elements to test with. The first being a controlled environment. This is a sandbox with many variables to effect testing.

You are also missing Establishment/Desirability of repeatability/Attribute Agreement Analysis for Defect Databases/Accuracy/Accuracy and Precision/Reproducibility to name a few.

The most important item you lack thatGÇÖs not even scientific in nature is CREDABILITY of which you are -10.

This is why you are wasting your time. Then again I guess rocket scientist have plenty of that.

Features & Ideas Discussion....

La Nariz

I provided very specific answers to your question as to why any data you collected would be erroneous. The first of which isnGÇÖt even a technical reason. First you have ZERO credibility stemming from your inability to conduct testing from a non biased view point.

Next would be for a more specific technical nature.

I listed several KEY areas you are missing.

The biggest is an inability to provide a controlled testing environment. (sandbox)

Next I listed more specific key features Establishment/Desirability of repeatability/Attribute Agreement Analysis for Defect Databases/Accuracy/Accuracy and Precision/Reproducibility. Just to name a few to include but not limited to the before mentioned parameters.

Please feel free to look these up or Google them as I feel certain you have no clue what they are.

I truly hope your lack of understanding why your information will be meaningless is a poor attempt at trolling.

Scientist my AZZ.

Seems perfectly valid to me.

Highsec Pubbie

Highsec L4s : ~100m

Forsaken Hubs: ~70m (no ESS)

The ESS test is still going because I got ganked and there's a tonne of roaming gangs going around.

Proof and verification of fit:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqC-BTui2uSGdDlxa2dWOG5ieHB0QXBVWW82bGN5TFE&usp=sharing

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=21728022

That test shows in mid-range PVE activity highsec is not adhering to risk : reward at all and that needs to be changed.

E1: Have to acquire an ESS.

So we're back to one of my suggestions from 30 pages ago?

Seems quite a few mission runners are being ganked in the SOE area lately. As much as that causes risk it further increases the value of LP further skewing isk per hour for those that avoid being ganked. I saw a few golem kills in local the other day while testing SOE blitzing myself.

Seems the simplest solution would be to require all NPCs to be killed in order to complete a mission (excluding some missions where NPCs spawn infinitely such as recon 1 and the tower killing amarr faction mission).

Well quite simply you're not going to achieve the numbers claimed here without stuffing some expensive faction mods on your ship. All it takes is one module for these guys to find it worth ganking you. Since there's such a limited area for SOE mission running it's almost like shooting fish in a barrel.

Out of the population in highsec a relative few are achieving the numbers in question so every gank matters. In the few hours I was blitzing I saw 2x golems and a NM ganked by a group of catalysts (with a thrasher in there for some reason). Extrapolation of that would mean that there's definitely a decent amount of ganks there a day. Unfortunately I cannot remember the number of people in local.

This is very profitable for the gankers even when using the 13 or so ships I saw.

In the end one gank can easily wipe out 30 hours of blitzing. Spread out over a reasonable period of time one can only assume that would be at least a weeks worth of blitzing.

So for every gank that means someone is not making any effective isk for at least 30 hours of gameplay. That means there's a further narrowing in the number achieving the high end.


Basically gankers matter but that doesn't mean blitzing shouldn't be nerfed.

The problem, mister science teacher, is that you spend more time accusing others of not listening when you yourself don't listen and instead go on spouting 13-year-old mantra, like "pubbie" and such stuff.

I have no reason to doubt that Stoic indeed ran 34 missions to average 100+ mill. He provided evidence that it is indeed possible to achieve 100+. BUT, and here is where you fail or do not care to listen, that does not indicate that this is the norm or even sustainable, as has been claimed earlier in the thread.

Other than the small facts that get in the way.
Like Stoicfaux specifically said that 100m was an edge case and not the standard rate as it was reliant on a bunch of factors. And was done using a super bling ship.

And your 70m was actually 90-100m when done properly since you deliberately low balled it as much as possible, and were using a T2 fitted HAC instead. So if you had used the above super bling ship, your income while running would have been a lot higher. And if he had been using a T2 fitted HAC, his income would be lower.

And none of your 'Look at how we can play with individual isk/hr statistics to say what we want' has explained a thing about the gross income of a null player being approximately four times higher per capita pre ESS (So properly leveraged would now be five times higher) than the High Sec per capita income.
Null Earns more isk than high earns in combined isk & LP. Now with the ESS since Goons have taken all of 48 hours to work out how to use it safely, that is going to go up in Null.

So other than deliberately biased figures which don't count, nothing suggests High needs a Nerf in overall income levels.

Or just do said boost to Lvl 2's & 1's which is needed, while not nerfing the lvl 3's & 4's that isn't needed. You don't have to nerf lvl 4's to boost lvl 1's. High Sec is not a major isk faucet.

That's right folks, Stoicfaux did not use the word "edge". He used the phrase "cherry-pick" and pointed out that you have to use your faction standings as a buffer to allow you to simply decline all the missions that you can't blitz for over 100M ISK/hr effective income.

And this strategy fails if too may other people start following it because the ISK/LP drops.

And this strategy absolutely ignores the time cost of converting LP to ISK.

In null sec you get 60M ISK/hr in a heavy drone Ishtar, that ISK is deposited in your walled. In hi sec you get 100M ISK/hr, 65% of which is LP from blitzed missions, which you then have to convert into ISK by buying tags, purchasing LP store items, then nursing market listings. If you include that time, the ISK/hr again goes down: if you pile a dozen hour's worth of LP items into a ship and spend just one hour setting up orders you are going to flood your own market. You have to spread sales out to where they're going to make the most money.

So basically to reach your claimed level of income certain concepts must be met

In order to do so we've established that one must have a bling worthy ship.
Must mission exclusively in one of three spots
Must avoid the gankers who have taken up residence in those 3 spots
Must only run 9 or 10 out of all the available missions
Must have the standing to turn down all the other missions
Must run those missions perfectly for hours/days/months because seconds add up and can hurt isk per hour greatly
Must be able to convert LP to items almost instantly
Must be able to get those items to market without any loss and without spending hours doing it themselves
Must not waste time fighting with the market warriors over sales


Am I forgetting anything?

Currently ganker profitability isn't much of a factor when "tears" are so valued. IF you want 100m an hour though you're going to need some bling.

Which company covers +2b in items? Since we're talking monthly that's a guaranteed minimal.

Yeah except for the fact that the last time I ran missions for SOE I saw three ganks in an hour. I only ran missions for two due to real life concerns. I'll keep you posted on how many I see next time I get a chance to run more.

I don't care about null I stopped caring about it years ago. I only go there for giggles. I'm trying to make sure I'm doing stuff the right way so that I can maximize my isk per hour while conducting the experiments.

Moving goods once a month in a ship that warps as fast as interceptors and aligns like a frigate is not going to impact your isk/hr at all. It comes with a cov ops cloak and cannot be scanned.

You havent shown shat. What I have seen is a nerf from CCP to Null. Think they did this for the null bear tears? I would suggest they did it because they had the data to support it not the fabricated shat that us as players could provide.

You're wrong because of risk/reward/faucet/sink/highsec/nullsec/lowsec/wormsec/supercap/moongoo/pi/highseclogistics/hamburger.

I WAS SPECIFIC SO YOU ARE WRONG.

As I stated so clearly before on a level my nine year old could comprehend. You data means nothing not because your a goon but because you have zero credibility. I could make a spread sheet and manipulate the test and the data to support any argument.

Even if your data supported my argument (which at this point donGÇÖt know donGÇÖt care ) it still doesnGÇÖt change the simple fact you have zero credibility.

It doesnGÇÖt change the fact you lack very specific base controls and key testing parameters.

Are you really that stupid or arrogant to think you could go out and set up any kind of credible test in a few days much less a few hours?

It seems more likely you think the players base or people on the forums are stupid enough to place validity in your so called data.

So please keep your flawed data as its worth exactly as much as the source that prepared it.

I'll give that a shot next time thanks. I was having issues getting people to pick them up before but that's probably because of my prior location.

LMAO you need to stop drinking your own koolaide

Nullsec was nerfed because the bounties from anomalies, sites and rats was far too large an ISK faucet. Having no better tools than "nerf bounties" or "reduce anomaly spawn rate" available to them, CCP nerfed the bounties and the spawn rate. The first instance I remember of this was in the middle of FanFest 2011 when Greyscale made the very unpopular choice of reducing the availability of certain anomalies to certain true-sec with the intent of getting people to fight over "more valuable" space. My memory is cloudy, all I really recall is lots of angry null sec dudes crying into their beer guts.



They're crying about it because the higher income comes from the safer space. They feel that being willing to stake a claim on space and hold it against all comers should entitle them to higher rewards from exploiting PvE in their space. They sometimes characterise this as "risk vs reward" which I feel is a poor statement of the issue.

What I'd like to see is the value of the loot and salvage from those sites that La Nairn posted. 68M ISK/hr just from bounties? You'd expect the loot and salvage to be worth another 60M ISK/hr on top, right? It just takes someone with an all-5s Noctis to pick that stuff up: I salvage The Blockade in a few minutes. It's not like your arse is going to be hanging in the breeze like the ratter's was. A Noctis can even fully salvage the site while being aligned at full speed. You even have the advantage of using salvage tackle rigs and expanded cargo holds rather than trying to tank your Noctis against suicide ganks, thanks to the safety of null sec

Its painfully obvious by now you posses zero scientific back ground that you claim. If you did I wouldnGÇÖt have to keep giving you even the basic areas where you fail in testing parameters much less the very specific areas you choose to ignore.

Should you want the answer to this question that you keep asking and that I keep answering please go back to the posts where I provided those areas. I have answered this multiple times for you but like your testing you fail to comprehend.

There are to many variables that you have no control over to allow you provide accurate data. If I wanted to waste my like you have I can produce a spread sheet that will clearly show I make more isk/hr in Null (which I already know to be the case).

To many uncontrollable variables, no base data, lack of specific monitoring and testing parameters and like I have posted previous there are very specific missing parameters. All these are only a testing level that you are missing.

All that aside even if you over look all the specific areas that you fail to address with your so called test the biggest road block for me is your total and complete inability to conduct a test not only from a proffesional and knowledge level but from your inability to conduct any test from an unbiased perspective.

Nothing you could sayGǪnothing you could do would grant you the credibility that you lack. This lack of credibility isnGÇÖt something that someone has done to you but its something you have done to yourself.