Hedoran Jaynara I don't think the rewards is comparable to the risks at the moment.

So you either are able to read other peoples minds,
or are projecting your own thoughts onto others.

Highsec is "safer", so why should people go somewhere it's less "safe" ?

Have you considered the idea that you didn't really think this through ?

The rewards are fine, there is less competition and the risk itself is a reward.

Lowsec is fine <3

Has it occured to you that despite you were not there, I might talk to other people? Every one of them said they would gladly go to lowsec for the thrill and if the rewards were greater.

And that my friend is the problem. Do you not agree that if the rewards slightly outweighed the risks more people would go to low sec?

Have you?

I beg to differ. I think that if one decides to live in lowsec you would have other benefits than the risk, wich is nice, but greater rewards would also be a way to get more people there.

You can not mean lowsec is feeling well. I go there occasionally and often find myself alone in local, while the high sec system nearby has over 200 in local.

I can think of a few more reasons why people don't go to lowsec.
For example, because they don't want to get blown up.

This does not necessarily relate to the profit that can be had in lowsec,
because people could be too afraid to lose stuff.

Everything from mining rewards to plex, exploration and mission rewards. I don't think the rewards is comparable to the risks at the moment.

No, this relates directly to the profit that can be had in lowsec. wether you are mining or ratting or doing missions your ship setups are differnt to that of pvp setups and industrial ships are sitting ducks. As against our ships being 'relativley' safe in high sec.

Have you considered the idea that you didn't really think this through ?

I beg to differ. I think that if one decides to live in lowsec you would have other benefits than the risk, wich is nice, but greater rewards would also be a way to get more people there.

You can not mean lowsec is feeling well. I go there occasionally and often find myself alone in local, while the high sec system nearby has over 200 in local.

the risk itself is a reward

However the risk involved is higher:

Everything from mining rewards to plex, exploration and mission rewards. I don't think the rewards is comparable to the risks at the moment.

Nerf Hisec.

Agreed. Don't buff low or null! Nerf high sec instead. We don't need more isk in this game, it is inflated enough.

I started out in high sec and when i got into exploration I started to realize how much better the rewards were in low so I found myself a little region in low sec to do radar and DED sites. Best decision ever! I was able to learn to pvp, watch my back/local, and made far more money that I had before. Those skills transfer to null really well.

I'd also like to see more game mechanics bring people from high to low sec. Some sort of smuggling missions that pay well enough to encourage players to get a little fleet together and haul it out of high sec into pirate infested territory.

I think my decreasing the high sec rewards we could draw more new players, like myself, into low and null sec, which would be good for the game.

Low sec rewards are ****** when compared to the rewards available in high sec for far less risk.

Answer = increase lowsec rewards? No. The answer is to lessen high sec rewards imo. lvl4 missions in low sec only? Sure why not. If you want to grind missions in high sec just run lvl 3's. Let those that take the risk receive the rewards. High sec incursions? From what I've seen and heard they're out of line reward/risk wise.

Nerf Hisec.

Brilliant idea!
I am sure that the 67.6% of Eve players who live in high sec (CCP's numbers) will be thrilled and when they respond by nerfing Eve's subscription base, that will just peachy for you.

Brilliant idea!
I am sure that the 67.6% of Eve players who live in high sec (CCP's numbers) will be thrilled and when they respond by nerfing Eve's subscription base, that will just peachy for you.

Can you please get your facts straight. It is characters, not players according to the CCP data. You can see CCP Diagoras'original image from his tweet here. (https://twitter.com/#!/CCP_Diagoras/media/slideshow?url=pic.twitter.com%2Fr8lRlvtg)

Not all players have a single character and there are several reasons for people who predominantly fly in less secure areas to have alternate characters in more secure areas.

Unless, of course, you have an alternative source from CCP but to the best knowledge I have they have only released data for 18th January 2012 with 5,000,000 or more SP.

Edit: Apologies for the terrible link, but even using the URL option from the editing menu won't allow me to link it directly - BBCODE errors.

It also ignores what is likley a vast majority of helper alt chars or trading alt chars who are likley to be in HS but won't neccesarily have trained to the 5 mill SP point. So it would be interesting to see the proportion below this figure. But i realise the extra problems with introducing those numbers. But I'm pretty convinced that due to the need for higher SP characters to be effective in low and null sec, that the vast majority below 5 mil SP are High sec chars. So as much as the arguments and figures are useful, I think its important to remember what the figures are based on.

As a result it isn't completley clear to afford any assumptions about how the subscription base would be affected.

How many people move to low sec or even null sec so they can make more money? Sure a few do, but most look on those areas and see so many roadblocks to paying the bills they just stay in high. Even people who live in low or null will have a high sec alt to make money. That somehow seems backwards.

The reason to stay in high sec should be because you dislike PvP combat. It should not be because its the fastest way to get rich. People should not be opting out of low or null because they cannot make the numbers work.

Now, oddly on paper low is richer than high. Mission rewards are higher, incursions pay 50% more, there are better roids, you can build stuff you cannot build in high, exploration sites have better drops, and there are level 5 missions. So why so few people? Maybe its not rich enough. Maybe you spend so much time with making up for the lack of CONCORD that you end up making less than a typical high sec dweller.

The best thing that could happen to low is to give it a unique purpose

^^ QFT, + 1

How many people move to low sec or even null sec so they can make more money? Sure a few do, but most look on those areas and see so many roadblocks to paying the bills they just stay in high. Even people who live in low or null will have a high sec alt to make money. That somehow seems backwards.

The reason to stay in high sec should be because you dislike PvP combat. It should not be because its the fastest way to get rich. People should not be opting out of low or null because they cannot make the numbers work.

Now, oddly on paper low is richer than high. Mission rewards are higher, incursions pay 50% more, there are better roids, you can build stuff you cannot build in high, exploration sites have better drops, and there are level 5 missions. So why so few people? Maybe its not rich enough. Maybe you spend so much time with making up for the lack of CONCORD that you end up making less than a typical high sec dweller.