Talk us through this one..

Nice try.

New players can't afford to be able to PvP for long periods of time, they run out of money then they quit because PvP for most players is an isk-destructive activity, and lets face it, some people just don't enjoy PvE. The only way to solve this very real issue is to make PvP more accessible and rewarding, and that might involve rebalancing other types of gameplay (highsec pve) to make it more viable.

If you read the CSM notes you might find something else:

Prices go up across the board every time CCP adds another risk-free isk faucet to highsec, too.

CCP hired a Ph.D economist several years ago for the express purpose of analyzing EVE economics. He's still there.
I'd say it's relevant.

We do, that's the problem. We want to build our things in our space but we are punished if we do that by the game mechanics.

Point to the nullsec system that can provide 700 slots.

If the facilities are just equal, HS is strictly better. No required capital investment, no shipping costs, and no risk of any type.

Very much so. Only the first small baby steps have been taken (relaxing the restrictions on office slots, adding some more build slots, making outpost upgrades slightly less worthless). The core issues remain. It will take a long time, and CCP are deliberately moving slowly on this.

This is part of what I've been saying.

It's a zero sum game. Neither side will give ground.

But one side (the carebear side) has been getting what they want, over and over again for a while now. It's time they started taking a hit themselves.

Guess where T3 production happens.

Curious to know, what is the maximum refining rate available to POS refineries or player-built outposts in nullsec ? (do the handful of conquerable non-player-built stations have a different refining rate?)

Everyone can agree that botting is wrong and all involved deserve to die in a fire (in game). While we do point out that the bots have left null due to higher earning in high sec I have to say that not one of us miss them.

humour me; how much could i earn in null sec if i were to give it another try?

For a single individual, accounted for as an individual, the upper bounds of income are higher, yes.

But income in nullsec is inherently subtractive as there is never enough of anything to go around. You can't just tell the entirety of nullsec to go do anoms, because there just are not enough.

As opposed to highsec, where their income is inherently multiplicative because there is an inexhaustible supply of L4s.

Sure, 1 in 100 guys in nullsec can get rich doing anoms.

But 100 in 100 guys can farm an L4 all day.

so i'm going to skip all of the waffle and focus on what i asked "how much". 200m/hour high sec incursions, semi afk, uninterrupted make me just shy of that *before* lp conversion.

so you're telling me that for all that extra risk, inconvenience, and interrupted play i can earn basically the same?

i hope you now understand why this thread exists.

confirming you have no idea what you're talking about, so i won't waste my time here.

TVP fleet if you're unaware who TVP are, they're a fleet that isn't particularly shiny, and they're clearing sites every 11 mins.

sorry it took me a while to dig out that screenshot, i genuinely had more important things to do.

i suggest you stop dragging their fleets down then if you only manage 1 site every 15 mins.

that screenshot was from my wallet, about 10 mins ago. most of the time was spent trying to figure out what the site payouts were in the filter.

I seriously doubt even smartbomb ratting with multiple alts will get you that much.

No, there's a tremendous market advantage for doing industry where you actually have the slots and production capabilities of highsec.

Are you completely unaware that selling things in nullsec generally leads to greater profit margins, and depending upon what you sell the trade volume isn't all that low either?

340 slots in a fully upgraded outpost is nowhere close to what we need. You don't know what you're talking about.

This is why I think it might be possible to move a trade hub into Null, if a big Alliance were to commit to a solid 6 month long campaign to make it 'safe enough' for traders to move in that direction. And if CCP makes Null stations a little more attractive for refining. Make it a bread crumb thing. FInd a station in .6 and make it popular by loading it up with great deals and buy orders for everything for a few months. Then, when people are getting used to coming there, move it a few more jumps into .4 space and repeat for another couple months. Then into .1 space. Guard the gates ferociously, popping any pirates trying to hassle traders. In 6 months to a year, it could happen.

I'd like to point something out to the people who are still claiming this can be done.

Nullsec doesn't avoid this because they're stubborn, or whatever. Goonswarm themselves turned into renters recently as necessity demanded. Nullsec as a whole does what it has to, to get the job done.

If this dream of yours were possible, someone would have done it by now.

If you think I'm wrong, prove it. Go do it yourself.

Get a little coalition/alliance going and ask the CFC, or N3, or whoever you feel like, to let you in with that intent. Otherwise you're theorycrafting and claiming it's fact, also known as spouting off.

They don't want it to sell it. They want it to use it.

Their end goal is supplies and war materials, not money.

Well, perhaps Goons was the wrong example... The point still stands though.

It would still be cheaper to import the finished product.

We can add a million production slots to each station and get 100% refining efficiency and high sec would still be the cheaper option simply because they have near no costs.

We need to make more JF trips for production in null space. We can only have one outpost per system so we have to move the materials around more as well as still importing low end minerals. I have told you this five times now.

Our costs are much higher than high sec which means high sec simply undercuts us.

We will never have the manpower to mine enough low ends so no its not a choice.

As for convoys, there is a very good reason why everyone stopped using these when the carrier arrived, they are far too easily destroyed. The last alliance to try doing this lost half of their freighters in just two weeks so no, that is not a real option either.

This is true, it is also the other end of the same spectrum when comparing to boring high sec miners who constantly complain that mommyCCP isnt doing enough to stop gankers that they should be organising and planning around stopping themselves.

There is no place for these people out in null right now so they are useless to us. When they become useful to us then we will take them in.

We do however have a very large industry base in empire that supply us.

Terrible

As I have told you seven times now, null sec products are more expensive than importing high sec products. It doesnt matter how many slots you give us so long as high sec has near no costs they will beat us on price and thus, industry in null is not an option.

*Sigh* no its terrible because you say you are going to use figures then through a wild assumtion into the equation

If I was asked to make any call Id say it was closer to 80% free capacity.


Again Ill say, if you think that industry in Null is limited primarily by line availability, you know nothing about Null Sec operations

Confirmed; you can build an Archon with a production line and some minerals

Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Welp. there's another 5% nerf to null income arriving in Rubicon 1.1

You didn't have any real credibility to begin with, but what little you had, just went poof.

That thing is one of the worst, bar none worst designed thing I have ever seen in the game.

It gets better than that.

The isk from the deployable?

Is in the form of "tags" in your cargo bay as best as I can tell. So even if you babysit it with a noobship they can just blap him and take it anyway.

So why is 80% of the population in high sec?

Why would 80% of bots move to highsec level 4s if null was better? We know its much easier to bot in null.

Where did these numbers come from because they do not fit in with what evidence we have gathered.

Right so the first link shows total bounties, no breakdowns.

The 72% quote is NPC's killed, not isk earned. This makes sense given that null is about killing red crosses while high sec haz LP rewards and mission payments.

None of them say the null income is better than high sec. So nothing has changed, the facts still show that high sec offers the best income.

Show us the facts and show us how they prove it. The bolded part is the highsec mindset, "What I don't like is a lie, what I do like is true."

Wrong. When you add onthe mission payout, mission bonus and LP payout you end up with more income than anoms.

If CCP want to nerf isk being injected the should nerf all bounties. This nerf is just going to drive more of us into high sec.

The graphs you are trying to use are useless in working out null income vs high. There is no detail or area breakdown which means you have no data that can be used to work anything out other than how much isk is sloshing about.

I'm just going to rephrase the most important part of what Jenn and Baltec said

You cannot directly compare isk/hour between nullsec ratting and highsec mission running, because the highsec rate is sustainable while the nullsec one is not, and because highsec mission running income includes LP which is used to further increase ISK gain.

Only if you under-estimate the value of things like LP, which you are.

I ask again, why do you think a lot of us (who actually SEE what goes into our wallets) choose high sec over null for isk generating activity when we'd rather have those characters in null? Your math is theoretical, based on assumptions and incomplete. Our math is based on what actually happens to our wallets.

We have detailed records for rewards and time taken for every single mission and anomaly with the mission guides. We also have several detailed threads which have looked at mission, incursion and anoms and how much you can make in each.

It is insainly easy to take this info and work out which area offers the best rewards. Null anoms on average make 90 mil/hr, the most used ship is the ishtar. High sec level 4s offer 100 to 120 depending on where you go and incursions 150 to 200.

Considering which postion you have taken, I find this hilariously ironic.

"As an entitiy" Damn, i better get home so I can get my Entity check in the mail lol.

That's like saying the homeless guy living in the street is doing really well because America has a 17 trillion dollar economy lol.

80% of bots are in high sec with most of that residing in caldari space.

curiosity: do you believe the things you post or are you just a really awful troll?

people keep saying this yet nobody has actually provided proof that null sec makes more isk than high sec. until some one starts showing me 50m wallet ticks in anoms, it's quite evident that null sec simply isn't the place to be making isk if you do that by shooting red crosses.

spew nonsense.
disregard actual proof.

yeah and this is why everyone laughs at your posts.

the fact that people in null can't even provide evidence of a comparable isk/hour before we consider the interruptions means it's pretty obvious they can't make as much isk as high sec no matter how many times you want to say they can. repeating the same incorrect statements doesn't make them true.

considering i haven't cherry picked my statistics at all, once again disregarding actual proof because it doesn't conform to your incorrect spewing.

You do realize that fleeting someone doesn't allow them to attack you?
Fleets don't change highsec aggression mechanics at all. To Crimewatch two people in the same fleet look exactly like two people not in a fleet, or two people in different fleets. This might be different as far as jetcans go, but otherwise it's the same.

I never said the risk wasn't there, but it gets pretty exaggerated.

How dare you suggest I have biomassed in shame?

Mate, hisec should be nerfed. It's an area with very low risk, very high income, and thus unbalances the EVE economy.

unfortunately whatever is said gets a bunch of drips completely missing the point yelling 'you're trying to force us into nullsec', 'you nullbears have just been doing it wrong', 'well stop shooting non-blues who try to go to null', 'nullsec is supposed to be somalia' (lol) etc etc etc

Oh, do they now?

What did we manage to figure out about that, anyway? Wasn't it something like 60 billion over 2 stations and 2 systems just to get the production equivalent to an average highsec station(station, not system)?

I honestly don't remember it, but I do recall that the specifics posted made me laugh so hard I choked.

it doesn't really matter if nullsec bounties are a huge faucet in the argument of 'there's no reason to do anoms when you could be doing missions' because you're talking about personal income not economic balance

besides that, the idea that 'sinks are always good, faucets are always bad' is silly

it's also silly to present the fact anoms are a faucet as reason not to buff them as they don't have to be buffed by adding bounty value

Except the ones you omit because they don't suit your argument.

Ergo, it's part of income in highsec.

Furthermore, we're not even talking about total gross.

We're talking about average earned potential.

Only so many guys can chew on anoms per day. They have an inherently subtractive method of income.

But you can cram people in an L4 system until the node breaks, and that mission giver doesn't run out. It's an inherently multiplicative method of income.

There's only one outcome of that equation.

I love how gross keeps coming up despite multiple people telling you it's not about that, but about personal income.

No, it isn't.

Because the 50 guys in null that get to do anoms does not outweigh, regardless of whatever reasoning you can conjure, the 5 thousand or more who do L4s or incursions all day.

That kind of personal income is the issue here. That, and the unviability of industry anywhere but highsec. Anything else is just moving the goalposts.

Like the part where you admit to removing portions of your own data that don't support your conclusions?

Only the numbers do show that high sec income is better. CCP are only nerfing null income again as an excuse for the ESS, they said it themselves.

Its not a case of HTFU, its a case of high sec giving the best safety coupled with rewards better than null.

So in other words you have no data or sources to back anything up and are wildly flinging things at the wall hoping one will stick. No amount of wall of text can fix that problem you actually have to provide sources and data to back up the things you say.

So basically you have no proof to refute the well reasoned arguments presented to you so now you default to spamming walls of text that can be summed up as "lol no." Good to know, you've got nothing.

Paraphrasing...
Newbies, Truesec, number who can live in null, Industry

Sigs will support at most 100 people per region and they would be stepping on each others toes.

I have had 2 officer spawns in 8 years.

Belt ratting is one of the worst activities you can do for making isk.

Your friends tell fibs. Officer drops are insanely rare, which is why the mods sell for the same price as some supercaps. I would also like to point out that some officer spawns will just drop tags and ammo or some officer mod that is useless.

What is missing is you need multiple alts at multiple accounts at multiple mission hubs to game the game for this to happen. you likely need multiple mission ships so cut down on travel. Then there is exaggeraton. In null all you need is one scout if in hostile territory and a sig combat runner. on ot two sigs, roughly one or two hours, easily 500 to 2 billion per day

Not really we just get incredibly tired of dealing with people like you whom will take an anecdote as something that occurs all of the time but, when confronted with reality, denies it.

Yep anything your friends say is an anecdote, the fact that you understand that surprises me considering the highsec posters I usually deal with.

No, it isn't. That dev was also wrong.

Once again, your lies of omission are hilarious.

150mil/hr was the incursion figure.

E: It shows average nullsec ratting income to be ~70m/hr.
.

No if you look at the sheet and the formula it takes ((total bounty isk)/ (time in minutes /wo lag time * (1 hour / 60 minutes)) to get isk / hours. How the hell can you not do conversion factors and understand basic math?

To accurately test he can't use the ESS.

I suppose we could but given its random nature the results will be all over the place.

Stoicfaux provided the proof there is evidence of ~100m isk/hr from highsec missions and I provided proof that ~70m isk/hr for drone hub ratting. All of this stuff has been provided but, you all don't read it and continue to scream as loud as you can that highsec is fine. The only one of you that even attempted to prove this was Kimmi the others are either terminally stupid or shitposting. There's been plenty of proof provided by the pro-nullsec crowd and yet all the pro-highsec crowd, aside from a select few, is scream incoherently.

If removing blitzing isn't enough then the other two ideas that haven't been addressed are stretching missions through multiple systems or adding high HP low isk/LP enemies to missions.

We killed every single ship that tried to mine caldari ice in high sec for a month.

The more I think about it the best solution is redistributing income from higher end missions to lower end.

Take some of the reward from L4 and L3 then split it and give 1/4 of it to L5s, 1/4 of it to L2s and 2/4s of it to L1s. It'll aid newbie retention because it will be much easier for them to fund their activities and it will nerf mid-range highsec combat PVE income.

You notice you are te only one talking about a "major isk faucet"?

Why do you refuse to even understand what is being said?

I don't think nerfing hisec will solve anything. There exists a segment of the eve population that wants nothing to do with pvp or the large social structures in Eve. I don't pretend to understand their motivations, but they exist all the same.

These people won't move to null to become renters, fleet members, or targets. It won't happen. Nerfing hisec will alienate these people, nothing more. So we know the cost of this hisec nerf, alienating existing subscribers and maybe making some of them leave. Fine.

But what would be gained? I just don't see it. I see the downsides well enough, but I don't see the upsides.

Fair enough. Now add another 5+ù people to the mission system and another 5+ù to the anomaly system.
Then do it agan.

You're smart enough to know that I'm getting at the fact that availability and scalability varies between the two mechanisms and will matter a fair bit for how much the individual can get out of any given system. I'm sure you can get a lot out of a single nullsec systemGǪ but that's just you, and your 50 buddies have to stay away. Or they could just all fit into a single mission system since it is infinitely scaleable (wellGǪ GêP - TiDi).

Even if the anomaly pays more than missions, which situation will people feel offers the better payout: the one where one guy earns 80M ISK and 50 guys earn 0, or the one where 51 guys GǥmerelyGǥ earn 60M eachGǪ?

That would be perfect. It won't happen because the high sec cartels that control CCP will never allow that to happen because it would threaten their secret RMT operations that lets them all drive BMWs in real life.

-Signed

-Pinsdale Dirahnna

P.S. happy opposite day

Congrats for reading it wrong lol. Most of the destruction still happens outside of high sec despite high sec having the bulk of the games character population. That means high sec space as a whole is safer than all other space in eve per capita.

But don't let facts deflect you, no one else in high sec will...

I notice you didn't say that to the person I was replying to. Or did you not notice the whole "high sec is more dangerous" part.


Null has 10 or so % of the character population. The graph shows 3 things:

Null sec is more dangerous (that graph is proof that the oft repeated lie that null is safer is just that, a lie). We already knew that from the 2011 devblog that demonstrated how little pvp happened in high sec but of course the high sec status quo defense league dismmised that as old news.

and

Since destuction drives the EVE economy, null (and low and WH) residents are doing more than their fair share in keeping up the demand that drives the economy, while high sec (where the vast majority of EVE online characters reside) isn't coming any where near pulling it's own weight

and

Industry outside of high sec is futile. The combination of easy travel (jump engines) and the damn near free and hugh capacity of high sec means it's stupid to do anything else but buy stuff in empire and ship it down.

It doesn't seem like CCP is serious about wanting people to be able to live in null sec. The current situation is so broken null is about nothing more than gudfights and rental opportunities.

There are no structural reasons why people can't access 100m/hr average, and the same fundamental skillset that is required for me to shoot 60 in hubs or 100 in missions (even same equipment).

There are very real structural reasons in null why all people can't access all content.

IMO the time taken to earn the isks to fit out my ihub with arrays, get it out here etc > than time taken to run up sisters rep, so even that is kinda moot at least for someone moving a corp to null.