EVE General Discussion

There's politics in high-sec too.



All deserved. On paper, high-sec is safer than other parts of space, therefore, in consideration of risk vs. rewards, it should offer less.



PVE in Eve is designed as content for PVP, either directly (ganking a miner, killing an explorer, etc.) or indirectly (funding PVP). If you've been playing the game simply to amass ISK only to spend in on more-blinged-out mission BS'es, the only endgame for a route like that would be to end up as an ALOD via PVP content instigate by another.



High-sec should boom, but not as much as the other spaces. Risk vs. reward.

There are more active players in high-sec than in null-sec.

You're not supposed to be a lamb. You're supposed to adapt your tactics to allow you to accomplish your goals. Eve is an MMO, a game that allows multitudes of people to play many different ways, not just ways that are convenient for you and your friends.



Don't use such obvious fallacies. Whoever would still be taking you seriously would stop here.

From what I can ascertain, you haven't seem to have much fun playing this game for quite a while. The whole point of playing a game is to have fun. If you're not having fun, why have you still played up to this point?

Eve isn't a game for everyone. There's no problem with that. I love how unique the universe is and how player-driven it is, but that isn't the kind of game experience everyone wants. It doesn't sound like Eve is the kind of game for you, so I'm wondering why you bothered to stick around for so long.

I've reached my quote limit so I can't respond to the last bit of your post, but you wouldn't be, as you referred to yourself, "a loser", if you wouldn't exhibit such a losing attitude. It's fine if you've finally realised that you're not getting any fun out of the game anymore. If you don't enjoy something, you shouldn't force yourself to do it. But making a post like this only invites ridicule on your behalf. If you've really played for that long, then you should know how a post like this would be received.

Heres a few maps

Yep, in January of this year a single system in null saw more destruction than ALL of high sec combined.

Your entire problem stems from the fact that you live in HiSec and refuse to play anywhere else because of some ambiguous "politics" thing. CCP hasn't really nerfed HiSec - they've made it safer, and they've increased the yield of ores (you just have to specialize your skills to get it).



HiSec missions are fine.
People still make lots of money trading and hauling.
HiSec scanning became easier than ever.
You can probably find more opportunities to make ISK with Indy than before.

If you can't adapt to the changes well... adapt or die.

Yes, CCP is trying to encourage people towards emergent gameplay, IE, LowSec, NullSec, and W-Space. You're still free to live and play in HiSec... but it sounds like you're not happy there so why not try a different part of the game?

Or you can just quit. If you decide to quit, you can just contract all your stuff to me.

i can think of an orca pilot who might dispute that

And coming from a Null player in a larger null alliance that owns a very large portion of null. I can go on the record to say NULL is not anymore dangerous than any other part of space.

In fact I think it is more safe when we has the logistical support that we have in place. I know when danger is coming several minutes before it ever shows up in system.
Jabber pings, intel channels that span several regions, hundreds or even thousands of people providing this intel.

I can also make much more ISK with two characters running anoms in true sec than I ever did with the same amount of pilots running with shiny incursion fleets like ISN.

The only bigger amount of ISK was C5-C6 WH sleeper sites running with Caps.
But it was boring as hell and was much more dangerous than NULL.
I would say in order of danger would be
Low sec > WH > Null =\= Hi sec

Only if you are running a personal carrier fleet.

the royal amarr institute owns no space.

Those claiming null is that dangerous is mad, you have intel networks, spys, local, once you get past the "firewalls" or chokepoints, barely any bubbles.

That said, thats for folks LIVING there, if you wander into someone elses space, and wind up on on their intel networks, its a different story.

But heres the reality, high sec you often times have no idea whats even happening before its too late, local is muddled with tons of people, often times you are a newish player, make a mistake and get owned, and YOU NEVER SAW IT COMING.

So no, i dont at all buy the argument the null sec is more dangerous, AT ALL. you can make the argument "more isk gets destroyed in null" when what you should be saying is, "when everyones agreed to escalate a fight, sometimes more isk gets destroyed in null"

But if you join a CTA, thats escalated, and theres tidi, you knew what you were signing up for when you went in,when you roam in null, you knew what you were signing up for.

not the same thing as losing a mission ship, frighter, mining barg,e orca whatever to a gank, or tornado deathtraps camping undocks, all of which is meant to give the target as little time to react as possible, THATS dangerous. i shouldnt feel safer in null than in high sec, it kind of defeats the purpose of lawless space don't ya think?

High sec currently carries far more risk than null imo.

Unless your facts are documented by at least three sources, and verified by the pope, they are wrong. Just ask Tippia, there's no way null is not the riskiest place of all time, it has so much destruction!

lol.

But.... you are a forum warrior.

I think it's clear that, neither side is going to be convinced either way, if it were true it wouldn't have taken 9 pages to get here.

And I'd rather drag my scrotum through a trail of broken glass, salt and mutated african ants than keep trying to convey my side of the argument.