with the current state of null sec http://i.imgur.com/yRX4f1D.png (based on blue standings) what chance does a small alliance/corp that wants to be independent of the big boys have in getting a foothold in null?

it looks like you have 3 choices at the moment join cfc/rus join N3 or buy a wizards hat and join provi block.

while i admit my knowledge of everything going on in null is somewhat limited every 1 seams to say the same thing N3 while still got a lot of fight in them is on the back-foot and in full retreat that blue doughnut is getting closer and closer to being complete.

small scale pvp is getting harder and harder to find always seams to be a 30 man fleet getting dropped by a 100 man fleet, and if/when the blue doughnut is complete you may as well say large scale pvp will die as well.

yes its in the nature of sandboxes for people to group together and form massive coalitions but is this really healthy for null sec?

with the current state of null sec http://i.imgur.com/yRX4f1D.png (based on blue standings) what chance does a small alliance/corp that wants to be independent of the big boys have in getting a foothold in null?

0.0 is done. That why CCP have thrown in the towel and stopped developing it, instead opting for completely new space.

with the current state of null sec http://i.imgur.com/yRX4f1D.png (based on blue standings) what chance does a small alliance/corp that wants to be independent of the big boys have in getting a foothold in null?

Its sad that CFC are allowed to own so much of Null. There should be a limit on what can be cvlaimed by a particular corp/alliance.

I would prefer to see an even spread of corps/alliances rather than just one big blob of colour.

with the current state of null sec http://i.imgur.com/yRX4f1D.png (based on blue standings) what chance does a small alliance/corp that wants to be independent of the big boys have in getting a foothold in null?

That map is also nonsense, as CFC and RUS are separate coalitions, and the RUS coalition will dissolve back into Southern and Northern Russians. Right now you have 3 coalitions + provi, and soon you will have 4 coalitions + provi, which is pretty much par for the course for the last half decade. This is around the 7th or 8th galaxy spanning conflict that has involved the vast majority of nullsec, almost exclusively divided into two camps; each time the chicken littles have cried about about falling skies and blues donuts, and each time they've been proven wrong.

Absolutely no chance whatsoever.

Wait till all these new players we keep hearing about realise this.

Maybe someone will conquer all of nullsec one day, and maybe some game will directly "kill" eve on another, but in both cases right now all signs point to the same old rehashed bullshit as the last five years.

coalitions will will stop out who ever goes out there since in order to claim a system you would need far more numbers to claim it by force where we end up with another R5. other than that for real null and not npc space you will have to rent like the rest of the "little guys" so to speak and generally siding on one side or the other. Id recommend NPC space if you are a heavy pvp group, as when i ran through NPC space many people from empire come out and test their ships and if it doesnt work they dock in the npc stations until you get bored.

it looks like you have 3 choices at the moment join cfc/rus join N3 or buy a wizards hat and join provi block.

Its sad that CFC are allowed to own so much of Null.

There should be a limit on what can be cvlaimed by a particular corp/alliance.

Oh, roughly same chance as always.

It never was a GÇ£small allianceGÇ¥/independent kind of arena.

CCP is providing tools for guerilla warfare and subterfuge

If you go back far enough, say 6 or 7 years ago, "small" groups of 50 - 100 actually did hold and keep sov.

Nullsec was better in those days.

The state of nullsec in it's current form should be considered an embarrassment.

Rose colored glasses type thinking. The groups that did that back then were no more than Vassals of larger groups (basically the renters of the day) or inhabited space so useless (before Dominion's system upgrade scheme, people forget the useless desert 90% of null sec systems with less than 5 belts were before that) that no one wanted to shoot 500 POSes to move them.

The whole point of renting is to make ISK off normally empty systems. Hence the "kill everything that moves" motive. You see, if you trespass, they might be a few hundred million short of their rent. That's a neat "system" they got there. High rent that MUST be earned, like having a job, in order to stay out there. If they don't rent out there, they won't be able to call themselves leet nullsec players. So into the hamster wheel of stupidity and ePeenery the neckbeards go...

This paragraph is as silly as CCPs idea that changing anomalies will create conflict lol (the didn't understand that people don't fight over ratting space, and still don't).

"kill everything that moves" (NBSI) exists because CCP made a video game with space ships and guns and outside of high sec nothing bad happens to you when you do it. There is not always some sinister ulterior motive for everything, sometimes people just do things because they are fun. Let go of the tinfoil.

You're exaggerating.

Nullsec was nowhere near in the state that it is now. There are only two major entities in all of nullsec at the moment.

There were over a dozen 7 years ago. Maybe more. There was plenty of room to spring up various places.

If you go back far enough, say 6 or 7 years ago, "small" groups of 50 - 100 actually did hold and keep sov.

Nullsec was better in those days.

The state of nullsec in it's current form should be considered an embarrassment.

There are only two major entities in all of nullsec at the moment.

Then will you join me in a movement to make all resources FINITE?

]BoB is going to take over all of 0.0 and everyone will quit any second now.[/url]

if by two you mean four, which is much the same as it has always been. Well, unless you mean actual alliances, in which case there are dozens, which is much the same as it has always been.

You're exaggerating.

Nullsec was nowhere near in the state that it is now. There are only two major entities in all of nullsec at the moment.

There were over a dozen 7 years ago. Maybe more. There was plenty of room to spring up various places.

But the fix is already in.

CCP is providing tools for guerilla warfare and subterfuge

Oh wait.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Verite/20070827.png

Yeah.....Reality is a bit different than your bizarre memories.

No they're not. It's just another thing added to the ever growing list of things CCP say they might possibly want to do sometime in future, which never actually happens.

By two I mean two. Not four.

Siphons were specifically added for this purpose - so yeah, it really is happening.

I'll take you up on that challenge.

This is a verite rendition map from august 2008, 6 years ago.

http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/verite/20080818.png

this is the political map

http://i.imgur.com/Sr0W88o.jpg

At the time, CVA was allied against BOB as well, meaning the only "independent sov alliances" were the soon to be russian renters in the drone regions.

Not really, no. Siphons were added as a means of ninja:ing a bit of income, not as a warfare mechanism (since it doesn't particularly work for that purpose). For guerilla warfare in particular, they're pretty much completely useless.

Now I have heard it all.

Drastically reducing the income generated by a moon or even turning it off outright isn't a form of warfare?



Tippia, please.

Afrer the initial novelty wore off, Siphons seemed to fall into to disuse. I haven't seen any for weeks and weeks. I doubt if even 0.01% of the CFC's moons have a Siphon on them right now.

At best theyre a very very minor irritant.

Now I have heard it all.

Drastically reducing the income generated by a moon or even turning it off outright isn't a form of warfare?

If they were only a minor irritant there wouldn't be agreements to not use them against each other.

If they were anything other than minor irritants, they'd see a massive use from all kinds of entities that have no interest in such agreements because they'd like to hurt the moon holders in any way possible.

This would be true only if they had an incentive to do it.

Siphons suck for ninja-looting, they are better for harassment/destruction of income.

And for that incentive, the only parties with that incentive have mostly agreed to not do it to eachother.

GǪwhich they obviously do since they'd like to hurt the moon holders in any way possible.

Which is why they're not seeing much use: because they suck at the thing they're good for and slightly better at something that makes no difference for either side.

which are meaningless in a world of alts, and would be used en masse if they actually worked for what you imagine they work for. Which they don't. As shown by their lack of use. It's really that simple, you know.

Tippia logic is based on logic and actual usage patterns rather than rhetorical and conspiratorial questions.

But guys remember, it was 245 billion isk and you could build 20,000 interceptors, with the mins that were stolen. We should look in awe at those numbers. Apparently.

I personally laughed at the amount, but hey what do I know?

At their own expense.

This would only be worth it if you were an enemy of the party, rather than just a guy looking to get some ISK.

They aren't used much because the parties with the biggest incentive to use them have agreed to not use them via a handshake deal.

Nothing has shown their lack of use.

So: either they're useful as warfare tools and massively used, contrary to what you're claiming, or they're useless as warfare tools and not used, again contrary to what you're claiming. Your notion that they're both effective and unused is nonsensical.

Lead bullets are effective and unused, because people agreed to not use them.

Parties in war often make handshake deals with things that mutually hurt both sides. In this case, they agreed to not siphon each other.

Parties in war often make handshake deals with things that mutually hurt both sides. In this case, they agreed to not siphon each other.

GǪwhich everyone involved would ignore if they were actually useful GÇö thinking anything else is still laughably na+»ve, even more so in a game where such restrictions are trivial tracelessly to work around. And it still doesn't account for everyone else who have a strong incentive in hurting the moon holders.

By this twisted and backward logic, renters would not be able to exist because everybody would just gank them and steal everything they own with their alts.

with the current state of null sec http://i.imgur.com/yRX4f1D.png (based on blue standings) what chance does a small alliance/corp that wants to be independent of the big boys have in getting a foothold in null?

it looks like you have 3 choices at the moment join cfc/rus join N3 or buy a wizards hat and join provi block.

while i admit my knowledge of everything going on in null is somewhat limited every 1 seams to say the same thing N3 while still got a lot of fight in them is on the back-foot and in full retreat that blue doughnut is getting closer and closer to being complete.

small scale pvp is getting harder and harder to find always seams to be a 30 man fleet getting dropped by a 100 man fleet, and if/when the blue doughnut is complete you may as well say large scale pvp will die as well.

yes its in the nature of sandboxes for people to group together and form massive coalitions but is this really healthy for null sec?

GÇ£This logicGÇ¥ being the one you just invented rather than what I said, because what you're describing means you're taking out your own income. That would be like placing (supposedly effective) siphons on your own moons.

Bypassing the handshake to hurt your enemy Gëá bypassing the handshake to kick yourself in your own wallet.

So yes, it is a twisted and backwards logic and I have no idea where you got it from. I prefer my own underhanded, but entirely straight-forward logic.

Remove re-enforce timers. There were no re-enforce timers in WWI, WWII, Desert Storm or any other conflict you care to mention. You can either defend what you claim 24*7 or you cannot.

If you cannot defend what you claim without re-enforce timers, you shouldn't own it and smaller alliances have better opportunity to take it from you.

I suspect the whole notion of re-enforce timers got in as large nullsec blocs and their advocates dominating the CSM, pushed for this mechanic to extend their reach far beyond what they really can assert through force of actual might.

SOV needs a re-do, and doing away with re-enforce timers is a big part of it. IMHO.

It's the same thing.

You're basically dictating a double standard - which logically would not exist.

That's a case of not remembering why a thing exists in the 1st place. Ref timers are important because they from a break on the power of sizable groups to dominate everything by pure weight of numbers overnight. The provide a framework for conflicts (ie, we know this timer is up at this time, so we will form up for it).

The wars you mentioned weren't games, they were real and people didn't have a choice. In a game where people have a choice it just doesn't work and removing something put in place to correct serious problems of the past is begging for unintended consequences.

Ref timers are like gates (gates suck but without something like gates it would be way to easy to avoid fights given EVE game mechanics), a necessary evil that prevents worse results.

Remove re-enforce timers. There were no re-enforce timers in WWI, WWII, Desert Storm or any other conflict you care to mention. You can either defend what you claim 24*7 or you cannot.

If you cannot defend what you claim without re-enforce timers, you shouldn't own it and smaller alliances have better opportunity to take it from you.

I suspect the whole notion of re-enforce timers got in as large nullsec blocs and their advocates dominating the CSM, pushed for this mechanic to extend their reach far beyond what they really can assert through force of actual might.

SOV needs a re-do, and doing away with re-enforce timers is a big part of it. IMHO.

So is sov broken or is sov fine? I can't keep up....

Both, and neither.

Still not buying it. I think a mechanism where all alliances asserting SOV would need to do so 24x7 on their 'core' systems, before expanding outward to claim outlying systems. Today you have large blocs that assert wider dominance because re-enforce timers allow them to reposition forces beyond what they could 'really' have in reserve to defend 'home' systems, ostensibly from smaller alliances who would black ops in behind their lines and zap key assets.

Its a shame really, the whole notion of ongoing defense and proper expansion is messed up by re-enforce timers, and smaller alliances cannot really 'slip behind enemy lines' to wreak havoc, etc.

...
How do you defend against people who can grind through several hundred systems in 72 hours?

...
It gives you time to summon your guys so that you can muster up a proper fight. When otherwise it just comes down to numbers and timezones. And that's not a fun fight, I can tell you. That crap made me quit eve for a couple of years, it was genuinely that bad.

It would just be a WoW battleground writ large. And nullsec deserves more than to just be a PvP arena. There has to be incentive to build and grow, not just to conquer and burn.

Please note, I am not denying that there is an issue right now. There is, there really freaking is. But it's not something a "just take away XYZ" style solution can solve.

Hit them behind their lines while they are doing it? If they launch an offensive without leaving enough active members in reserve behind them they risk getting shot in the back. Actual warefare type stuff?

11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a petition under the Community & Forums Category.

Hit them behind their lines while they are doing it? If they launch an offensive without leaving enough active members in reserve behind them they risk getting shot in the back. Actual warefare type stuff?

Hit them behind their lines while they are doing it? If they launch an offensive without leaving enough active members in reserve behind them they risk getting shot in the back. Actual warefare type stuff?

In real life the lines mean something. In EVE "behind the lines" is Jita.

It's not like their are factories and lines of communication and stuff anyone actually cares about BEHIND the huge blob that is destroying everyhting in site lol.

How do you defend against people who can grind through several hundred systems in 72 hours?

Now I have heard it all.

Drastically reducing the income generated by a moon or even turning it off outright isn't a form of warfare?



Tippia, please.

Nullsec was horrid in those days because if you tried to cram more than a 100 people into a system, it fell over and died. These days, actual large-scale fights can be had and as a result, you need more people not to lose everything..

Why? I mean, yes, sov should have been addressed three years ago and it's a bit silly that it has been left alone for so long, but CCP has been distracted by various irrelevancies so what can you do? And that's more that the mechanics are an embarrassment than null itself.

GǪif by two you mean four, which is much the same as it has always been. Well, unless you mean actual alliances, in which case there are dozens, which is much the same as it has always been.

Both, and neither.

Seems like a tricky one.....

Ha ha, no, that's not why lead bullets are going away.

They're going away because of pressure to keep ammunition out of the hands of civilians(because if they failed with the administration's gun control act, they are going after ammo unofficially instead), with a sub consequence of making hand loading much harder now too, since the available avenues of copper are much, much less than that of lead.

Source: Avid shooter, owns more guns than I have fingers and toes.

If "they" knew how much lead gets salvaged from shooting ranges (I have pulled TONS of it out of the ground myself) and how much the civilian population has in reserve, the EPA greeniacs would crap their skulls out.


It'll take 50 years for the lead to run out and that's IF everybody makes bump-firing the norm too. And copper-plating lead bullets it very easy too (for Glocks).

Herzog, for all your crying about "the blob", you have offered no actual solutions.

If numbers are not to be a deciding factor in warfare, what is?

By this logic I propose that all battle be simplified to the following:

Whoever gets the most Rifters in a system first, wins.



To be honest in terms of sov warfare it probably wouldn't change much.

Again, that's not a solution.

That's just you saying "nerf having friends".

Herzog, for all your crying about "the blob", you have offered no actual solutions.

If numbers are not to be a deciding factor in warfare, what is?

Translation: All hail the blob! Alllll are welcome! Step into the blooooooob!

Translation: Anything that CCP does that does not involve blobs, nullsec, and what Tippia likes, is "irrelevant".

And here we have Tippia math.

I don't cry about blobs.

Hit them behind their lines while they are doing it? If they launch an offensive without leaving enough active members in reserve behind them they risk getting shot in the back. Actual warefare type stuff?

Its sad that CFC are allowed to own so much of Null. There should be a limit on what can be cvlaimed by a particular corp/alliance.

I would prefer to see an even spread of corps/alliances rather than just one big blob of colour.

with the current state of null sec http://i.imgur.com/yRX4f1D.png (based on blue standings) what chance does a small alliance/corp that wants to be independent of the big boys have in getting a foothold in null?

it looks like you have 3 choices at the moment join cfc/rus join N3 or buy a wizards hat and join provi block.

while i admit my knowledge of everything going on in null is somewhat limited every 1 seams to say the same thing N3 while still got a lot of fight in them is on the back-foot and in full retreat that blue doughnut is getting closer and closer to being complete.

small scale pvp is getting harder and harder to find always seams to be a 30 man fleet getting dropped by a 100 man fleet, and if/when the blue doughnut is complete you may as well say large scale pvp will die as well.

yes its in the nature of sandboxes for people to group together and form massive coalitions but is this really healthy for null sec?

Hit them behind their lines while they are doing it? If they launch an offensive without leaving enough active members in reserve behind them they risk getting shot in the back. Actual warefare type stuff?

+1

Its sad that CFC are allowed to own so much of Null. There should be a limit on what can be cvlaimed by a particular corp/alliance.

I would prefer to see an even spread of corps/alliances rather than just one big blob of colour.

It all depends on how diplomatically inclined you are. This could change though if CCP fixes sov and nerfs highsec, it'd be easier for you then.

CFC have, negotiated, earned, or fought for the space they own.

Good for them.

And they've whined and complained to the devs (cough alliance wardec costs cough not to mention many little nerfs here and there) when things threaten to make them play eve on normal mode again.

...
This explains force projection issues pretty well
....

[quote=Tysun Kane][quote=Sarah Nalelmir]Those with merit should be rewarded for their achievement not beaten and broken outside of the rules.. If you don't like it, become a better player, leader, orgainzer.

And they've whined and complained to the devs (cough alliance wardec costs cough not to mention many little nerfs here and there) when things threaten to make them play eve on normal mode again.

Why is this always the answer of some..."Nerf High sec".. How exactly would that change anything? How exactly has it changed anything in the past? Yes, High Sec has been nerfed over and over.... and little if anything has changed. High sec and null sec should be equal but separate experiences. I believe High Sec nerfs have gone too far as it is.

Diplomacy is only one tool that CFC has harnessed to good effect. Yes, they (CFC) can be treacherous but what alliance with ambition does not want strong friends or at least strong temporary NAPed allies?

Its nerf highsec because highsec is too good to the point it depopulated nullsec.

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.

And they've whined and complained to the devs (cough alliance wardec costs cough not to mention many little nerfs here and there) when things threaten to make them play eve on normal mode again.

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.

When exactly do you have 10's of thousands of pilots per region? :)

I do agree anoms could use a buff. Though they're still better than L4s at higher anom levels.

How?

We have the numbers and none show that anoms get anywhere near what high sec level 4s can earn.

Please show us where you are finding these anoms.

Your numbers don't add up because you are comparing multiple account holding multiple ship running missioners who game the system so they only take the best LP offers by using their multiple accounts to spam agents in many systems.

The average missioner has one mission ship and one account and run missions as they come up. If they do decline twice they have to travel to a new agent to do the mission.

In that case your numbers are wrong. I ran missions to get isk since 2003 and there is no way to make 100 million per hour IMO.

Then you are bad at running missions. We have easy access to data that gives the rewards for every mission, how long it takes to run them, how much time is spent in warp and payment breakdowns.

All of this information is easy to find on several sites and in game if you take the time to test this like we have done. We are continuing to gather more and more data so that we can hand it over to CCP in CSM meetings and get them to fix this very long standing balance problem which will help with getting more people in smaller corps/alliances interested in trying to take a bitof null for themselves. Right now there is no reason to fight us for a worthless null system.

After salvage/loot you might get an extra 10-15mil

Some chains of missions, with full salvage/loot however you get quite a bit more.

The problem is that the majority of anomalies in 0.0 are never run because they're ****-tier. I'm sorry but "let's make 2-3 types of worthwhile anomalies and, to balance it out, make the rest so horrible that nobody will run them" isn't good game design.

A fully upgraded system with good truesec should support more than a few simultaneous anomaly runners. Make them more challenging, whatever, but make them worth running.

The problem is that the majority of anomalies in 0.0 are never run because they're ****-tier. I'm sorry but "let's make 2-3 types of worthwhile anomalies and, to balance it out, make the rest so horrible that nobody will run them" isn't good game design.

A fully upgraded system with good truesec should support more than a few simultaneous anomaly runners. Make them more challenging, whatever, but make them worth running.

The problem is that the majority of anomalies in 0.0 are never run because they're ****-tier. I'm sorry but "let's make 2-3 types of worthwhile anomalies and, to balance it out, make the rest so horrible that nobody will run them" isn't good game design.

A fully upgraded system with good truesec should support more than a few simultaneous anomaly runners. Make them more challenging, whatever, but make them worth running.

No the problem is you're renting your space instead of using it. Stop whining.

The ownership model does not affect how many people a single system can support.

It affects how many systems they have to run and that affects how many high end anoms are available in total to run.

Jump-drives and force projection means that there is no "behind the line", there are no "far-away places".

Because of jump-drives, pod-jumping, clone-jumping and bridges of all kinds, the universe is very small.

This is part of why the little guy can't do anything.

Then there is the sov system. Millions of HPs to grind, mails telling the owners what's going on etc.

There is no suprise, no stealth. You can't stealthly attack any sov structure nor any POSes because the owners will receive a mail instantly.

There is no guerilla, because in EVE, the entire US army moves as fast and as effectively as a BlackHawk with an elite SEAL squad.

There is no "small objective", because all structures have millions of HP and there is no possiblity for a suprise attack because you need to tell everyone what you're doing by anchoring and onlining SBUs.

This explains force projection issues pretty well

Let's see what's currently happening in nullsec. CFC vs N3. Won't talk about Proviblock because well, they're kinda irrelevent in the big picture.

CFC bitchslapped N3. What's going to happen now ? What is stopping the CFC from capturing N3's territory ? Nothing. Nothing in this game but DBRB's boring stories and Vily's *******-fueled welps can stop the CFC from capturing anything they want, anywhere.

Alright, let's say something happens. CFC captures N3 territory and resets Russians. Russians split in two. Alright, great, that's 4 coalitions !

No, look again. Russians will eventually fight eachother for no meaningful ingame ressource or anything, just an ego fight or a "I don't like you" kind of thing. Alright.

The CFC won't ever lose territory anywhere because of force projection.

Proviblock will probably stay in Providence until the CFC or the Russians decide that it's enough and they want that place.

Is this what we call "Not stagnant" ?

Map from 2007

Map from 2014

If you remove the usual chokepoint fights from 2007, there were 5 warzones. Yes, FIVE.

Now come 2014, the game has grown a lot, the playerbase has grown a lot too. How many warzones ?

One. Proviblock was told to sit in a corner by the CFC because they dared put up some SBUs in some place the CFC isn't even using or are remotely interested in.

Yes, THIS, IS CALLED "STAGNATION".

LOL..yes, people certainly believe any proof coming from a goon, who set the standard for honesty in the game.
Hey baltec, according to another study with equal veracity as this, you are considered as a safer person for 3rd party super-cap trading than Chribba.

Heh, "how much time spent in warp" Kid you keep talking about this "data" you have, and well I don't really feel like spending an hour or 2 trying to find this misery data. If you'd be so kind, post a link.


Personally I've been missioning for most the whole time I've been play, with the exception of a few months in WH, and a year in null.
Missioning, even with a pimpfit ship (which since the Nado is more of a liability than a benefit) and playing your cards right on LP (Though you can get a little more if you just spammed SOE LP, cause there's always a need for SOE probes. they really need to add a competing brand)
You might be lucky to break 65mil/hr.
If you have a ship set up for a specific mission, and you place yourself in an area with several agents and can get that mission often. In my case, this mission is Angel Extravaganza, and its run with a Golem (back on that whole, pimpfit mach is a liability, T2 golem gets scanning ships in missions but they leave after scanning for deadspace mods and finding nothing worth the cost of the 6 nadoes sitting a jump away that my friend is warning me about)
I might make 75-80mil/hr.
After salvage/loot you might get an extra 10-15mil

Some chains of missions, with full salvage/loot however you get quite a bit more.
#1 I'm pointing to is the Enemies Abound mission chain, which if you blast though in a ship (I used my Golem for it, even before the bastion mod) its not unreasonable in the 1.25-2.5 hours you do the chain, to see a nice 175-225 mil from it. (adjusted depending on local prices for tags, I've managed to get almost 250% over Jita prices by sell-ordering some tags a couple regions over)

During my time in null however, running around with a 100% dps Abaddon, in the drone regions (read that as theres no loot to make it more worthwhile) I was easily getting 100mil/hr + occasional niceties from sentients. Hell I was getting about 50-60mil/hr with a Drake. If only if only I'da had a Nightmare out there.



Yes though they do need to nerf L4s a bit income wise. Changing that though won't fix the bots, and it won't make it all that much better to try and move into null for the little guy because the big guys still have too much force projection.
ALso they jsut need to fix the smaller anoms. There should be the ability for people in null to anom without having to use common nullbear-grade battleships or carriers. Make some incentive for everyone in null to be anoming in their panicfleet HACs and BCs

No the problem is you're renting your space instead of using it. Stop whining.

in fact I advise anyone reading this thread to just ignore whatever Infinity Ziona says because he literally posts complete lies in every thread about 0.0 (such as "I make 100 billion isk per hour in -0.1 systems it's not broken!!!!") and in fact doesn't really have the first clue about the subjects he talks about

I just want to see Goons burn

So, here's your main problem: you salvage and loot. This has a tendency to massively reduce your income, especially if you do it fully.

It was fairly easy to get 75M/h four years ago, when the tools and mission manipulation abilities weren't nearly as good as they are today.

You are also running them wrong. You don't aim for the most isk when running level 4 missions, you go for the most LP.

Well when going for navy or equivalent LPs is really unworth it, and the SOE LPs seems to jsut pull aggro from gankers wever present in those systems. Going for the LPs only really works well for the navies if you have enough friends in lowsec to get you L5s without much danger.

Also I think its silly when people calim that LP is the best goal of missioing. In your isk/hr are you factoring all the extra time in that you search out a good market inwhich to sell your goods? What about hauling time? Or does everyone just live/sell in jita in your world?

I don't count LPs as part of the ISK/hr in missioning because they often require several more hours to get your money out of.
But hey I'm just a casual player and only put a couple hours into the game at a time when I can.

I don't personally loot/salvage any mission other than the EA chain (because thats the only way it becomes profitable)

I fleet up with noobs and let them salvage my missions for free (cause I like noobs). But I always have them give me a listing of what money they made.



Well when going for navy or equivalent LPs is really unworth it, and the SOE LPs seems to jsut pull aggro from gankers wever present in those systems. Going for the LPs only really works well for the navies if you have enough friends in lowsec to get you L5s without much danger.

Also I think its silly when people calim that LP is the best goal of missioing. In your isk/hr are you factoring all the extra time in that you search out a good market inwhich to sell your goods? What about hauling time? Or does everyone just live/sell in jita in your world?
I don't count LPs as part of the ISK/hr in missioning because they often require several more hours to get your money out of.
But hey I'm just a casual player and only put a couple hours into the game at a time when I can.

Also I think its silly when people calim that LP is the best goal of missioing. In your isk/hr are you factoring all the extra time in that you search out a good market inwhich to sell your goods? What about hauling time? Or does everyone just live/sell in jita in your world?
I don't count LPs as part of the ISK/hr in missioning because they often require several more hours to get your money out of.
But hey I'm just a casual player and only put a couple hours into the game at a time when I can.

this thread is not about missions.

this thread is not about missions.

This literally can't be emphasized enough.



https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4159522#post4159522

The dude has no clue about anything he talks about but, really hates us so even if we want a change that is good for the game and to our detriment, supercap/tech/FW/sovfix/drone assist, he'd be against it. Ignoring him is an anodyne for your own mental health.

E: See sig for proof highsec needs a nerf.

They are part of the problem. New corps and alliances arn't going to try to take systems off us if they are not worth it.

I concur. Everyone should only believes Goons because.. Well they're so unbiased and truthful :)

My experience in EvE lately especially in null tells me the opposite of what you propose. I made a number of very deliberately trollish posts recently about how I was out in Fade in multi-billion isk ships, with cargo holds full of billions in loot, even posted screenshots of which system I was in, expecting competent PvP'rs to come hunt me? Guess who came looking? Nobody. No traps, no bait, no anything because they were all too busy, doing what? L4, Anoms, orbiting in plexes...

Even if you thought they were the sov system isn't going to allow them to do so. Between experience, numbers, force projection, and material prep, it's just not going to happen. Also, again, the issue isn't mission, it's anoms being the worst PvE in game.

Even if you thought they were the sov system isn't going to allow them to do so. Between experience, numbers, force projection, and material prep, it's just not going to happen. Also, again, the issue isn't mission, it's anoms being the worst PvE in game.

The few anoms that are gnerally worth the trouble are among the best pve activities in the game. They give liquid isk, can be made to respawn with the upgrade system making them farmable, can spawn faction npc battleships that occasionally have nice things, can escalate to DED complexes and unile missions they never force you to dock or change systems or switch fits. Anoms are pretty much superior to missions in every way.

Which doesn't matter one flipping bit when you can do this in the automated safety of high sec and npc corps.

High sec being too god for isk making dampens the "greed factor" that creates a kind of preassure for groups of pve players (like my original corp) to find ways to make it out to null to get the good stuff. Rather than becoming better militarily or diplomatically (or stealthily, you don't see very many ninja pve corps), they simply rent space from groups who are strong but who don't need the space.

Before the anom nerf (when every system could have 2 sanctums and 2 havens) renting was less attractive because no system could really support more than 3 dedicated ratters, CCPs change had some bad unintended consequenses. It's not all "high secs" fault, but high sec is a component part of why EVE outside of high sec is the way it is.

Death from a thousand pin pricks is a very real threat. Oneof our biggest defences is that most of our holdings are worthless systems so few people bother to try.

They are part of the problem. New corps and alliances arn't going to try to take systems off us if they are not worth it.