The “unbalanced income” that only exists because idiot highsec players voluntarily hand free ISK to suicide gankers? If you have a problem with this income perhaps you should do something about the idiots giving it away.
and that would be spread and balanced with my suggestion instead concentrated to be taken advantage of by a small group with way to high reward but no risk.
also markets would be way healthier if split up would encorage more trade just like the ore rebalancing is encouraging more trade between high and low.
except that im suggesting that everything should be turned to lowsec. trading split up between more hubs. and newer players spread among others 
afraid to get worse income?
or to actually have some risk involved in pvp?
also code is mostly irrelevant as they are just around a few systems but the income by highsec ganks is way imbalanced between lowsec earnings atm.
A suggestion so profoundly stupid should not be dignified with a response.
Exactly this. One of the best things about EVE is that it is about as far away from being a “theme park” MMO as you can get. It’s like the “limited government” version of online games. The last thing it needs is more top down control.
lol why are they limiting supercapital farming complexes then? 
Good point, we should add risk to highsec ganking. 100% chance of ship loss to CONCORD is certainty, not risk. How about, say, a 25% chance that CONCORD does not arrive to destroy the criminals and they get to keep their ships?
that does not adress balance between risk/reward between high and lowsec the least. making highsec to lowsec and spreading tradehubs do also makes it far harder to manipulate markets.
This is dumber than your drop chance suggestion.
would balance out alot of inbalances in the game. wont solve the nullsec stagnation but would make the game healthier.
Because there is no balance issue. “Some highsec players are really stupid and give out easy ISK/killmails” is a player intelligence issue, not a balance issue.
1 Like
might already be happening as they are making highsec systems low with the trig invasions
putting them all at one place where they are lulled in false security to be preyed upon by one small group is a balance issue
Nothing in highsec forces you to be in one place. That is a choice each player makes voluntarily.
false security
There’s nothing false about it. Highsec is extremely safe if you aren’t an idiot.
one small group
Why is it only one small group? If ganking is so easy and profitable then why aren’t you doing it too?
it is so profitable none can really deny it its more profitable than supercapital farming complexes.
But you’re missing one very important point.
PvP is not balanced. PvP is not PvE. PvP risk is managed 100% by players. Reward between security levels in terms of income is only dictated in PvE situations.
Ganking works in lowsec and nullsec too by the way.
CCP are not responsible for where players choose to fly their officer fit ships. Wherever they are flown they need to be loot piñatas. Have you even considered the impact your suggestion would have on nullsec ratting income when deadspace and officer loot value plummets?
Your suggestion is so dumb it’s also an effective nerf to nullsec income.
PvP rewards are not balanced. Not anywhere. High sec PvP rewards are not supposed to be less than lowsec. The sooner you learn that PvP is not balanced the happier you’ll be.
Then, again, why aren’t you doing it?
No they aren’t. Have you paid any attention to the invasion mechanics? Only the concord response changes. In all other ways those systems are mechanically high sec. Try onlining a capital shipyard in one. Educate yourself.
the amount of targets is far less in both low and nullsec. highsec ganking never involved any real risks but involves the greatest rewards