EVE General Discussion

…and still manages to provide more accurate argumentation, facts, and data to the board than you've been able to. But more than that, he doesn't rely completely on fallacies to cover up his lack of those things like you are.

Good, because so far you haven't been able to present any kind of coherent argument that supports your stance — ad hominems, special pleading, strawmen, and true scotsmen do not qualify.

The simple fact remains: highsec is safer. It is so by unavoidable and unalterable design. Anything you can do to do alleviate the risks inherent in null can be done in high as well, and as mentioned numerous times, the requirement to do so only proves that not only do those risks exist, but so does the effort. The only facts you've actually provided are ones that prove the exact opposite of your claim: you have demonstrated that risk and effort describes null very nicely.

…and all you've done there is prove that null is far more dangerous and risky, not the opposite. You don't need any of those to be safe in highsec; you need them in null. You can use all of those to increase your safety in highsec; you must use them in null to have any safety at all.

If you have more risk in highsec than in null, it's because you're actively and deliberately creating risks for yourself — not because highsec is actually riskier. Comparing a case where you actively create safety for yourself and one where you actively create risk, and then making any kind of general claim about risks based on those two is intellectually dishonest.

I said, like, 4 pages back that null sec is made safer by player mitigation, and all things equal, solo pilot to solo pilot, yes, null sec is more risky. But that's not the way null sec actually, is, and hasn't been for a number of years.

Tippia, I've made my point very clear, I'm not going to split hairs with you. I don't have 23k likes, I don't live on these forums.

By definition, yes null sec is more risky than high sec, by many magnitudes.

I was arguing from the point of the average null dweller, that lives there today, who uses the tools available to him. You know, how null sec actually is.

…and no amount of squirming or special pleading will change this. As such, it's thoroughly dishonest to try to claim that highsec is more risky. So just say this and stop trying to sneak in stuff that invalidates your comparison and any conclusions based on it.

Nullsec is more risky, period.

Yes you have: you can't really support your case without resorting to fallacies, because you know very well that risk and effort describes nullsec perfectly, but you don't want to admit your misstep in public.

By that logic, nullsec is still riskier and requires more effort. vOv

…who use them wrong, which is why I keep pointing them out.

…provide more than enough to demonstrate that their unsupported claims go contrary to know reality.

So do the standard test: make a new character, take him in his n00bship out into null and sit on a gate for a week. Since it's not dangerous, I expect that you will be alive at the end of it… right?

AlsoWhat's this in reference to?

Let's be realistic, gank catalysts arnt that expensive, thats the exact reason they are one of the go to ships for that activity, "Random" spaceship violence isnt how it goes in null, when people see you coming from 10-30 jumps away, its ANYTHING but random.

You are confusing game design intent, with how the player base uses the mechanics, the debate isn't about that, by design yes, null is meant to be more dangerous, but thats not how it turned out, such is the case with many things in eve.

Concord getting involved is trivial when you can buy entire fleets of cheap ships to get the job done, people found a way to abuse the system, its really that simple. Im not here to debate the merits of doing that, but im making the point that in a lot of ways, the opposite occured from what was intended, it was the player base that stagnated the idea and principle of null, not ccp.

Same as it was the player base that turned high sec into the exact opposite of that, you can get ganked in empty frieghters "just cuz"

Concord and high sec mechanics tend to work AGAINST new players who dont understand them fully.

The point here is you will often times lose things for little to no reason in high sec which is inherantly more risky than going into null. at least in null you have some warning, time to react, make a plan, or gtfo.

"…and all you've done there is prove that null is far more dangerous and risky, not the opposite. You don't need any of those to be safe in highsec; you need them in null. You can use all of those to increase your safety in highsec; you must use them in null to have any safety at all."


Local is all you need in null, to be honest, and it does not carry the same instant recognition of danger in high sec, period. nuetral alts, constant high numbers in system, etc. all saw to that. So even if you are not a resident of said null system, you will know instantly when youve attracted attention, compare that to high sec, by the time you see something go red, you are already remote SEBO locked, and underfire. Or you undocked from a station and got blown out of the sky almost instantly.


Im not denying that there are things you can do in high to mitigate risks, but no matter the preperations it can still happen. You can make your own life harder for sure, fitting expensive mods and the like, but sometimes even empty frighters and haulers DIAF for no reason, let alone if you actually are carrying something.

No you don't.

If what you said is true then we wouldn't be seeing millions more ships being killed in null than in highsec.

Guys guys NullSec is safer than HiSec.

That's why the people who live there have to have intel channels, coalitions, and other security measures that people in HiSec don't.

You have to be seen to be believed, polly.

The fact that they have to do those things is proof positive that null is not safe, that only player action can make it more so.

Just like how highsec is absurdly too safe, and only player action makes it less so.

+1