In reality, the most efficient and economical industry takes place in stable countries, not in warzones or lawless territories. If we translate this to EVE, industry should be "better" in high sec where it is protected by the established empires; it just makes sense that way. So in the strictest sense, no, Ripard's comment is wrong.
.

We out source most of our production to mexico and china to avoid expensive inefficient industry practices such as high taxes and pesky workers rights.

If we translate this to eve it should be more efficient and cost effective to manufacture goods in null then high sec.

I refuse to read his crap.

And... No.

No, because "everything" covers literally "everything", including security.

People seem to forget that if nullsec was better at literally everything,
it would be the new highsec.

I believe that improving nullsec more and more opens up a whole shitload of issues
which will eventually end in the need of reducing incomes and "betterness",
because CCP can simply not foresee wtf will happen once nullsec starts to become
a new empire space.

And it ses to go that way. People rent space. More people in null will lead to more
security for everybody. It will also meam that more people will make even more money,
which is a problem in itself.

To shorten what I want to say...

Nullsec will eventually become what highsec should have been from the get go.

And THEN the issues go full circle.

BUT there is one thing that might actually help against such a development,
namely the NewSpace people will find by building player made stargates.

Then NewSpace will be what nullsec was meant to be,
while nullsec will be what highsec was meant to be
and highsec will be a ghetto centered around newer players.

And what about lowsec?

Lowsec will always be the redheaded stepchild...

Ok, good metaphor. However, all the stuff and technologies that are made for cheap in Mexico, are developed here in the US. So using your analogy, inventions and research should should be easier/ cheaper in high-sec. Right?

Anybody ever bother to look at a map?

Null has way more security than high sec according to the big red kill overlays.

Just sayin'

Mr Epeen

Gonna invoke godwins law.

Britain was bombed to **** yet led the way in technology on the allies side. Germany was leveled yet led everyone in new tech right till the end.

The map lies.

high sec has a much bigger population in a smaller area than null yet null sees millions more ships killed.

The main stat-lie with highsec is that most days, the largest loss systems are all newbie systems, and the ships being lost are all agent supplied. As an unrepententant PVE focused player, I have killed I think 12 other player ships since I've been out here and a few pods. In years in highsec i killed nothing.

Yeah, the map shows all losses, not only pvp losses. A loss to an NPC also shows in the map under the same statistics.

Couster for example, is a regular hotspot for loss, but it's not happening through pvp.

If Null production lines are 10% faster for example, but cost 10% more per hour. This means that per ship made they cost the same because the lines are faster, but over a month the Industrialist makes 10% more ships so gets 10% more profit. Overall they actually make more, but they don't need the lines to be cheaper as well to achieve this extra profit.

If the lines are cheaper however, that creates a multiplicative effect where they make 110%*110% which goes to 121%. If we then have another 5 110% factors, that multiplicative effect starts to get to really serious size. The larger the percentage difference, the faster the multiplicative effect becomes serious. So, it's ok for certain things in Null to be 'worse' or equal to high sec, as long as the overall profession gains advantages.

The short answer is 'No'
The reason is because of the multiplicative effect of rewards. Lets look at in terms of ships which people understand. If every single module on your ship, and your base ship is 5% better, the end result is not a ship that is 5% better but a ship that is factors better.

However, overall each entire profession (Roughly speaking) should be more attractive overall. Risk vs Reward does apply, but you can't claim it on a penny counting scale without breaking the system long term. Especially since risk vs reward can not actually be properly quantified nor is it a linear scale per CCP's announced design but an exponential scale. (I.E. Double risk != double reward).

What this means is that overall an Industrialist should be able to make more profit (or at least more product as Null industrialists may measure profit in terms of helping the alliance partly also) in the same time in Null compared to high. But this does not mean that every single aspect needs to be better. If Null production lines are 10% faster for example, but cost 10% more per hour. This means that per ship made they cost the same because the lines are faster, but over a month the Industrialist makes 10% more ships so gets 10% more profit. Overall they actually make more, but they don't need the lines to be cheaper as well to achieve this extra profit.

Keep trying Scipio

It was 43.2 before your edit, now it's 42.0909...

I don't think you understand the marginal effect of cost changes on objects with moderate profit margins (like space ship hulls).

A reduction in 1% of the build cost of an object that has a margin of 10% is a ~10% increase in profit. ie if the line cost you are thinking about is 1% of the build cost, then it completely cancels out a 10% increase in speed, -but- I would still have to purchase and cart 10% more materials and completed items, hold 10% more production and completed item inventory and find 10% more buyers, making it a less profitable exercise, and you are still not factoring that null is further away from volume markets and thus all carting costs more even at the same volume.

Whatever it is you are thinking, if it involves raising the base cost to build something for more speed, it probably isn't going to work unless the speed leverage is extremely large (ie a pos have 0.65 multipliers for some jobs, for a reason).

I understand profit margins perfectly. I just didn't word the example perfectly however the example is still entirely valid to illustrate the multiplying effect that occurs if every aspect is better, as well as how one aspect can even be worse while the entire profession still has an advantage.

But essentially, greater risk should bring greater reward, less risk should equal less reward. Don't know why anyone would argue that point.

It is what he said. Read the comments section.

So, I ask, is Jester right? Should EVERYTHING be better in null-sec than high-sec?