Someone already posted the numbers, the majority of isk in EVE comes off bounties and if anything, we should be reviewing the current bounties on battleship NPCs.

How much ISK was paid out over the same time period in insurance?
How does that amount compare with the other sources of income we are discussing?

Ship destruction should be an ISK sink, not an ISK faucet.

I realize the implications and issues that would have to be dealt with, but frankly Insurance either needs to go or be completely reworked.

This would bring balance to the force.

Seems like Soundwave just promised us that he won't be nerfing Incursions but will instead focus on bounties via ratting, anoms, and missions. I'm very curious how that's gonna pan out - I suppose that there's (theoretically?) an absolute cap to the Incursion faucet, so it'll really emphasize the income differential between high sec Incursions and other high end activities like L5s and high level WH ops.

I guess the net result is that high sec incursion runners will become even more fantastically wealthy compared to everyone else, and Shiny Fleet will be the only way to make ISK at it?

It'll be interesting!

-Liang

You're aware that we're making adjustments to Incursions right? I've never said we didn't need to look at Incursion income in isolation, the point I made was that in terms of money coming into the economy, bounties are a massive issue. I'm not entirely sure why some of you keep insisting that it's either or.

Do Incursions need looking at? Absolutely, that's already been done and is awaiting deployment. Are Incursions the big issue in terms of isk coming into the economy? Not even remotely.

Yet thanks for yet again pointing how wrong many are about Incursion Inflation. They just don't get it. In my opinion all they see is rage from Incursions providing an alternative to broken nullsec.

No, that's incorrect. The massive jumps we see in terms of isk almost always come when we make adjustments to anomalies. The last change we did was pretty drastically increase the isk floor across the board on anomalies and the isk coming into the economy jumped after that.

--- Thread

You honestly consider LP conversion to ISK to be enough of a PITA that you don't include it in your personal ISK calculations, yet that's exactly how all the "high level missions" make the high level ISK they report. In other words, you can't make a lot more ISK in missions.

On that note though, I'd like to point out that the LP conversion for FW and Pirate missions in 0.0 is arbitrarily more irritating than high sec LP conversion. If these mission runners followed your personal philosophy regarding ISK vs LP, they'd make less ISK/hr than your average trit miner. They are essentially ISK neutral and require large quantities of external ISK to jump start the LP conversion process - and in the end both of them actually operate as large ISK sinks.

For reference, I'd estimate that including LP conversion and looting tags via a Marauder, its hard to make more than ~60M/hr running pirate missions - despite the fact its hostile/NPC 0.0 and you wreck your empire standings. ;-)

-Liang

I don't care if you think I am biased or not. All I care about these days is if you are going to start actually using the report bot function or just blame something else.

As for numbers that is likely waiting for a dev blog. Or a tweet. And how will you factor in the Anom nerf and boost? How will you factor in bots and bot growth?

You would need a hell of alot more data than a couple of before and after charts. I only care about the fact that as of recently bounties are injecting several times the isk as Incursions and that in my opinion a large chunk of that is bot based. If all I cared about what "NERF IT ALL!" Why am I not supporting the rumored bounty nerf? As an incursion runner I should be jumping for joy at the thought of nullsec folks getting punished no? I am not because while large alliances do need a change the bounty nerf will harm legit players a hell of alot more than bots.

Here is an ASCII bar graph contrasting the relative enjoyment of these activities:

Mining: =
Missions: ==
Incursions: ================================================

So not only are Incursions an order of magnitude more rewarding than other ISK-generation activities involving flying in space, they are orders of magnitude more entertaining. When it comes to "utility" in the economic sense, Incursions have it all: they provide the income, they provide the player-interaction utility, and the player-competition utility (when you contest other people's sites, you have fun when you win).

--- Thread

That in fact makes the most sense. The Signature Nerf was paired with an anomoly buff. After that change there was no need to scan down signature Plex, you could do it all from Onboard. It hinged on the desire of the community to prevent ISK making and that desire never came about. Me being willing and motivated to sit in hostile space and lock down thier PvE Ops. Because that never happened, PvE Ops could be run without the PvP glass barriers.

The trouble with building your game on griefer mechanics is, griefers want attention more than anything else and AFK cloaking a system 26 jumps from high sec won't get them near as much attention as blowing up Hulks in .5 high-sec. You over estimated the griefers willingness to work for thier grief.

Not saying that Incursions don't need adjusted, but considering the entire draw of incursions is partially dependent on making the effort of grouping worthwhile, if they don't make more than solo activities, what is the point?