EVE General Discussion

Maybe?


You assert that HS is more dangerous because HS residents are more careless than LS or NS residents. I am offering the alternative hypothesis here, where HS is more dangerous not because its residents are more careless than NS or LS residents, rather that people are more often going to be punished for being careless in HS due to the population density. The average player in null is equally or more careless than the average high sec player, just escape detection more often due to distances and population density.

CODE. has like 3-4 chokes to monitor for big kills, the chances of a careless freighter escaping their gaze is small.

How many nullsec systems are there? What is the likelyhood that someone doing something incredibly careless will get away with it, without an embarrassing lossmail and a hole in their wallet? Pretty reasonable I'd say.

If hi-sec is "more dangerous" for miners than 0.0, why aren't hi-sec miners decamping en masse to such wonderlands of safety and unexploited ore as Curse, The Great Wildlands, Syndicate, etc?

If hi-sec is "more dangerous" for miners than 0.0, why aren't hi-sec miners decamping en masse to such wonderlands of safety and unexploited ore as Curse, The Great Wildlands, Syndicate, etc?

What's really funny is someone saying an anology is incorrect then giving an analogy that's isn't even possible (everyone in Times square with a gun lol, someone has never been to New York and dealt with their Draconian gun laws i see).

Good intel doesn't make NPC police spawn if someone shoots you. Good intel doesn't keep you from being pointed by an NPC when someone rolls a wormhole into you system and bad guys come out of it.

"Safety" isn't a feeling, it's a condition (ie your either are safe, or you are not). People confuse this all the time, it's actually a real psychological condition, 50 years ago you had people from my country signing up to go back to a South East Asian warzone because coming back to 'the world' was "too scary".

No, they weren't actually safer in that South East Asian jungle than they were back home, they had just become accustomed to it's dangers, and they could see who the bad guys were whereas at home any old thug on the street could come up behind them and shank them for their wallet (the fact that this wasn't at all common in the 1960s didn't matter, the brain doesn't perceive threats based on relative chance). The the fact was, they were more likely to die in that jungle than they were at home...unless "home" was Detroit of course.

Every single player in this game is provably, mechanically safer in high sec than in null unless under a war declaration, that's just the truth. That physical safety is also scale-able too because of other mechanics too (see the various failed Incursion fleet smartbombing attempts, I was in a TVP fleet when one happened and didn't even get to half shields before CONCORD killed that INIT fleet).

I'd venture to say it is because 0.0 mining requires a certain gameplay style that may be inaccessible or uninteresting to the bulk of high sec players; mainly team or group play. My guess is they rather take their chances than have to answer to a 'higher authority'. But don't take this to be more than just my opinion.

I see what you did there. Trying to invalidate my argument by focusing on the supposed wrongness of my analogy. Cool story bro. It still stands, because there is no way of knowing if people in Times Square don't carry guns all the time. Albeit, in a concealed manner.

Hisec is no safer than lowsec or nullsec. Hisec is only as safe as players allow it. Barring a person being docked, no place is safe in this game. If ever player in hisec decided to gank, hisec would burn.

I really can't believe people are having a hard time getting this. Mechanics wise, yes obviously null is much more dangerous, but in practice, more stuff dies per system of high. So which one really is more dangerous?