EVE General Discussion

Always bubble the undock.

Now in lowsec...

That's simply a lie, that or the more unlikely idea that you can't even understand what you are writting.

You (incorrectly) think null sec is "safer" than high sec. Their is solid, empirical, "would win in a court of law" evidence as well as common sense reason why what you want to believe is untrue (you try to rationalize it with "knowing intentions of others" equating danger, a position no rational person would hold).

If you want to argue something then do so rationally and convincingly (and with facts, not BS), or be quiet. You high sec partisans almost never do that, then get mad at those of us who actually require evidence to form an opinion.

been there. done that. got bored.

Next?

"Safe" = you don't explode.

There's no way you can avoid exploding once you undock, all it takes is somebody willing to kill you enough.

Too safe for what?

You're the new King of the Cop Out. Now we go from "null is safer than high" (which is again provably untrue to anyone interested in facts) to "they are both safe, which is also provably untrue.

"High Sec" isn't perfectly safe, because guns dont magically disapear when you enter high sec. The only 2 ways to be perfectly safe are to never undock or never play EVE. That is never up for dsipute, no place in EVE is perfectly safe.

But high sec has consequences and mechanics that discourage unwanted pvp aka danger. So while 3 out of 4 EVE characters reside in high sec, only 1 in 11 ship deaths occur in high sec (according to the numbers provided by CCP).. THUS high sec is "safer" than any other area of the game, in total terms and per character.

Sure, there are tools in ALL areas of space that players can use to make themselves safer (tanking their ships and grouping up in high sec, local chat and intel channels in null and low sec etc etc), but those tools are themselves imperfect (ie local in null doesn't prevent awoxing or wormhole raiders), so much so that their existence don't insure safety at all. Your argument that "you know the intentions of everyone in null sec" (an assertion that is also provably wrong, made reds and neuts just pass through null systems without attacking) isn't just wrong, it's been completely discredited.

TL;DR, you are wrong in what you believe, I can and have proven it and denying it only makes you look foolish. You have 2 options: be mad at me for being right about the particular issue under discussion and continue to cling to provably incorrect opinions, OR look at yourself and examine the thinking that made you wrong about the issue so that you don't be wrong on issues in the future.

I already know the option you'll chose btw.

Is this a stealth "Allow me to anchor 200 bubbles in high sec" whine? I like it!

To which you replied

Which is what I replied to, by demonstrating that what you said in totally wrong, complete with evidence of that fact. Are you saying you still can't understand what what you want to believe is wrong?

You actually believe that null sec is safer (but only if you are paying attention?) than a place (high sec) where you don't even have to pay attention, despite the fact that null has 7 times more player involved kills than highsec (even though high sec's population is 6 or 7 times higher than null sec)? What a twisted mind.



As i said (and as everyone can see simply be reading this thread), you are lying. it's right their in plain English, in your own words that you typed and I responded to with facts.

Where are your facts? Where are the empirical "would stand up in a court of law" facts from which you base your opinion? Do you have a single shred of evidence to suggest that "even if you're paying attention in high sec, null is still safer"?

Or do you (as I believe you do) merely form facts from ideas because they suit you or benefit you?

One good point of evidence would be numbers of ships killed in high sec by players being higher than then same circumstances in null sec. Please provide a link.



Not true at all. You could be a single ship in a null sec anomalie that gets scramed by an npc when a wormhole raider enters system and gets lucky enough (or skilled enough) to warp to the right anom (this has happened to me), no local or intel chat would give you any warning.

Upmteen million folks could emerge from a wormhole in high sec and unless you are wardecced or you consent to an engagement or the like, they can't do anything to you BUT suicide gank you,.... AFTER they use probes to scan down your mission site (something they don't need to do in null sec where anom running is more popular) or luck up on the right belt you are mining in.

Or the bad guys could BLOPs/regular cyno drop on you via an awoxxer with a cyno who has cloaked in your anom.

That's just a couple examples (both of which happened to me), there are many more that demonstrate why null sec is less safe for players than high sec (not that more examples are needed, again I have linked PROOF). Also Again, I await you link to actual evidence that supports the claim that you are doggedly sticking to. I won't wait long as know no such evidence exists.

That's fine, we both know what the truth is, only one of us cannot admit it. Since that was too long, lets make it short: please present evidence of your contention that null sec is safer than High.

I'm going to go on a limb, and say the idea of "safe" is relative. Each sec has different threats and dangers.

Highsec, you're expected to "play nice", local is full of neuts and worthless as intel. CONCORD punishes, but doesn't protect, so it's enough to scare off a casual gank

Null has organized intel channels, blue lists, hotdrop o'clock. Local is a great intel tool (local spike safe up!).

Both high and null have different threats, and different ways to adapt.