EVE General Discussion

Are you saying that missions in high sec are more dangerous than null sec? maybe CCP should increase the risk in null sec PVE?

The face of insanity, ladies and gentlemen.

Except that half, at least, of the destroyed ships resulting from ganking is a result of the most heavy handed safety mechanic in the game.

4500 the last 7 days. or around 117k this year to date... which is less than 10% of high sec kills. Again, know your numbers before you argue.

I don't understand what you just wrote. The data is about ship loss not Concord response.

Firstly, on the last bit there. I'd totally agree with you that kills are kills and ratting is ratting. I haven't seen any alternative to that in this thread, or any other.

On the first part, just to recap:

• this thread proposes that highsec is more dangerous than nullsec because of the raw ship kills data
• the raw ship kills data includes all losses, including pvp, duels, mission loss, faction police, concord, etc.
• therefore, losses to Concord are representative of the danger in highsec
• So suicide ganking is a dangerous activity and not risk free pvp

Which is totally fine. If the raw stats show danger, then this is a great outcome if we can all finally agree on that view. It's the view being pushed in the OP and not a distortion of anything. That would be a really useful outcome of this discussion.

It's not the only outcome, obviously. Just one of the valid conclusions if the original post is a valid way to interpret the data based on the approach taken in the OP.

My own view is quite different on whether highsec or nullsec represents more danger, but I'm happy to concede totally if this discussion actually brings everyone closer together rather than further apart. We don't constantly need threads designed to drive us apart. What's the point of constant division? It does nothing but drive up peoples emotions, which is rarely a way to conduct good discussion.

Doesn't matter. I am dealing with the facts at hand. Anything else would be reckless speculation.

From the OP:

"For example, someone could say that high sec trade hubs are more dangerous than most null sec systems and be correct according to the data."

So the OP draws people to conclude that highsec trade hubs are more dangerous than most of nullsec.

I disagree and have proposed we actually go together and see for ourselves by flying in both highsec (including 2 trade hubs - Jita and Dodixie) and nullsec and see which is more dangerous. I don't personally believe the data is being interpreted correctly and it doesn't account for the additional risk management needed when travelling or operating in nullsec compared to the ease of travel and operation in highsec.

So lets just go test it ourselves and see. The offer is right there in the mail I sent you.

Sure. So lets go test it.

Relax everyone. The umbrage makes us all sound very adolescent.

In terms of player kills, I would actually assume quite a bit is player dueling. Unless that's taken a nosedive lately it probably is constant enough to generate quite a bit of ship explosions.

More to the point, I think this highlights two very important and well known points. First, how important player volume is, because you have a lot of impetus to engage in part time PVP even if you're in hisec. The other is that there is little to no impetus to PVP going on in nullsec, and that's something to be taken into consideration in any potential suggestion. A lot of people might find this data to have a presupposed agenda, but it raises an interesting and important issue.

Something doesn't just need to be done about the game's approach to PVE, CCP needs to fundamentally address how their open PVP castle war is conducted. At present, we are witnessing a lethal stagnation that very few players have a good reason to break. After all, this game is currently driven by player's self interest. Right now, there is an impetus to build, but not spend, ships. I don't know that the current planned changes will drive a change for large alliances to fragment due to infighting nor will it drive corps to engage in more frequent bloody contests.

It can be done, but that might require, ironically, an environmental rather than systematic change.