Are you sure it has nothing to do with the very boring state of the sov game ?

Nothing to do with the "Side with us or be wrecked by thousands of unstoppable caps" ?

Nothing to do with the fact that nullsecs' only interest for structures that can't get more than 200 dudes in fleet is PVE content and the occasional skirmish roam ?

I have never heard of anyone saying "Alright, nullsec is too boring to me, I'll live and have fun in highsec, I'm so excited !". Never ever.

What can one do in highsec ? Missions ? Mining ? Incursion ?

Missions are boring. Really boring. And aren't worth more ISK/H than decent nullsec PVE content.

Mining ? Really ? I don't even need to talk about that.

Incursions ? Yeah, that I can understand, Incursions are probably one of the most interesting thing to do in highsec...

Industry ? Alright, you can build, transport, invent, copy and whatnot in Highsec. And it's a lot more practical to do it in highsec than it is in nullsec. That's the only thing I would nerf highsec on, because on every other front highsec is really boring and doesn't have as much content as nullsec tbh.

So why have 80% of bots moved into high sec?

The numbers are all there. High sec is simply better for earning isk than null sov space.

So why have 80% of bots moved into high sec?

The numbers are all there. High sec is simply better for earning isk than null sov space.

So why have 80% of bots moved into high sec?

The numbers are all there. High sec is simply better for earning isk than null sov space.

I have to had it to you.
You are consistent with your lies.
It does not matter how outrageous and wrong your statement is, you are working from Orwell's and tea party's playbook of "no matter how ridiculous the lie, if you say it long enough and loud enough, a lot of people will believe you".

The little guy has a chance if he submits to the bigger guy.

If you want to be independent in null, go to NPC space where you don't actually have to defend your stations.

Bots are in highsec for the same reason most everyone else is, lower occurrence of interruption and reduced risk of loss.

Bots go where the isk is, much like players. Neither of us have a problem with staying safe in null or interuptions. It has been shown that high sec combat pve will earn more in high sec so it is no shock that most bots are now found clustered in the mission hubs around jita.

Bots go where the isk is, much like players. Neither of us have a problem with staying safe in null or interuptions. It has been shown that high sec combat pve will earn more in high sec so it is no shock that most bots are now found clustered in the mission hubs around jita.

Those factors are the chief reason why highsec income is comparable. Task for task null is superior in raw earnings potential. The only major exception is incursions, which actually has more to do with accessibility and even then not everyone in highsec is doing them. They really can't be as there is an effective saturation point.

Actually it isnt. Anoms for example draw in 70-90 mil/hr while level 4 missions in high sec draw in 100 - 118 mil/hr. This is without interuptions.

Baltec, soloing L4s in hi-sec will not earn you 120 mil/hour. If you are very quick maybe you'll get 50?

Baltec, soloing L4s in hi-sec will not earn you 120 mil/hour. If you are very quick maybe you'll get 50? Now if w'ere talking about multiboxing it, different story. Anyways, I still agree about hi-sec profits overall.

As someone who runs multibox fleets sized 8-15, I can confirm hi-sec is the place to be when looking to earn max ISK/hour over a long period of time. Perhaps as a solo or dual pilot null is better; if you have 2 or more alts, hi-sec wins out.

I do everything from multibox mining to multibox missioning to multibox ganking. All always for profit.

Mining ore I can earn about 100mil ISK/hour
Missioning I can earn about 120mil ISK/hour
Ganking is hit and miss, not to mention I suck at it and lose all my ships half the time

Those mining/missioning profits can be done anytime, without any disturbance. They can be done while semi-AFK watching Youtube or reading a book.

The issue with null-sec is you cannot run fleets this size; you will be shot down too often. The ability to run absurdly large fleets in the convenience and "safety" of hi-sec is what makes the profits as large and consistent as they are.

Wrong bots go where they can consistently and without interruption grind out average isk over long periods of time. Please present your CCP data and also show how you link bots even in a tenuous way to best profitability of sec status.

I have presented my evidence to the forums, in the form of my experiences both running L4 and running combat anoms and have shown conclusively that you can make 10's of billions of isk per month doing several anoms in null sec per day vs grinding crap isk and LP in L4's in high sec all day and not making anywhere near as much.

That you're incapable of doing the same because you blued and rented out all the available space from the bottom of Period Basis to the top of Tenal and choose not to use that space blued and rented does not equal less profitability. All it shows is the majority of Goons and CFC are happy to allow all that isk to go to other people, primarily the heads of your aliances to make their RMT wallets fatter.

While you could probably spruce up some data from someone with no life who plays 23 hours a day running multiple accounts and blitzing tons of agents with multiple ships in multiple systems in high sec and makes as much its a disingenuous comparison vs me who can only play a few hours a day, does the PvE with one ship and one scout.

Wrong bots go where they can consistently and without interruption grind out average isk over long periods of time.

Anoms to missions aren't task for task, missions to missions would be, which means that I misspoke earlier when only listing availability as being a factor for just incursions. And even then, the difference comes out because of the secondary reward that is LP conversion, pointing out that anoms 1) are terrible in their own right in reward:effort and 2) are the reason null "can't be buffed" due to isk injection concerns.

Neither of those are inherently highsec's fault though.

100 million per hour is horrible. That's 10 hours to make 1 billion isk ffs. In 10 hours I can make the same from bounties and OE from running combat anoms. That's not including the very frequent high end drops that can range from 80 million to 1.5 billion isk per site.

I've made 2 billion off one single site, took me 20 minutes - Look at the chat text and that wasn't counting bounties or OE...

They'll tell you its rare but its very common to get half a billion or less in modules and frequent to get +500 million mods.

You mean mission systems?

Baltec, soloing L4s in hi-sec will not earn you 120 mil/hour. If you are very quick maybe you'll get 50? Now if w'ere talking about multiboxing it, different story. Anyways, I still agree about hi-sec profits overall.

Anoms are what null sov has in place of high sec level 4 missions so they are "task for task".

What is high secs fault is that it was never nerfed at the same time that null was, this has resulted in an ever widening gap over the years. Null has slowly gone from the best reward to the worst. This has helped in reducing the amount of players/corps/alliances trying to get out into null sov for the rewards which has resulted in a handful of powers holding vast swaths of mostly useless space with little resistance or attempts by smaller groups to take and hold space.

Does this imaginary scenario include enhanced ESS payouts, the almost complete decline of high-sec LP (with one notable and recent bubble), and/or any of null's other native PVE content? Cause I think you skipped a few things.

It was tested with a single mach, it pulled 118 mil/hr.

50 mil/hr was what a single ishtar was netting in level 3 missions even after the drone changes.

ESS are not widely used because they are just terrible to use. However we have used them for gathering data and high sec still works out as being better.

The other forms of combat pve in null are belt ratting which is just terrible isk/hr and gets beaten by high sec level 3s and complex running which works fine for risk/reward when compared to high secs plex running but it can only support at most 100 pilots per region, so its not great when you have tens of thousands of pilots.

This is also not imaginary, we tell our pilots to make their isk in empire.

Anoms are what null sov has in place of high sec level 4 missions so they are "task for task".

What is high secs fault is that it was never nerfed at the same time that null was, this has resulted in an ever widening gap over the years. Null has slowly gone from the best reward to the worst. This has helped in reducing the amount of players/corps/alliances trying to get out into null sov for the rewards which has resulted in a handful of powers holding vast swaths of mostly useless space with little resistance or attempts by smaller groups to take and hold space.

Actually no, that doesn't put hisec at fault, it puts nullsec content at fault. Which in turn means it can be buffed after first being fixed and in so doing can fix highsec without changing it by directly competing with what makes up the bulk of highsec mission rewards, LP.

Turn anoms into something that gives consistent rewards competitive with or slightly superior to empire LP rewards and the issue solves itself. Highsec isn't too good, amons are just that bad.