EVE General Discussion

It's actually one place. Jita. Which happens to be in The Forge.

It's been this way forever and will likely always stay as such.

Mr Epeen

People in null know that they're not safe and plan accordingly, many in hisec think that they are safe and don't, they tend to explode.

TL;DR Hisec is full of people that can't be arsed to look after their stuff.

Unless what you are measuring is ISK destroyed per region. But then, when you use the measure that you want and ignore the rest, it's pretty easy to justify your opinion.

Just sayin'

Mr Epeen

Now scale this by average number of players per region... I doubt most null sec regions have the same numbers as Jita on an ordinary day.

High Sec is not a region. Why don't you add up all the high sec regions. Then the low sec regions. Then the null regions. Then tell me which of those has the highest total isk destroyed and ship kills..

And even though you'd find that the least amount of isk was killed in high sec even taking into account the Forge, that point would be moot,because isk destroyed does not = danger. Danger is measured by "per capita chance of losing a ship" Null only has 15% of the character population, high sec more than 70% last time CCP told us. The 'chance of ship loss" per character in null is many times higher.

It's the same as you would calculate a murder rate in a city If a city has 1 million people and 101 get killed, that city is still statistically safer than the town that has 100 residents and has 10 people killed in the same year.

I remember having this same discussion in 2011, at which point it had to be explained to the "high sec is safer" crowd that Condors blowing up in tutorial missions does not = danger lol.


Again, the important thing isn't the lie itself, it's the fact that you have a game where the average age is what, 27, 28? If people cling to this lie so adamantly in something as trivial as a video game when there is ample evidence it isn't true what happens in real life? Well, seeing some recent election outcomes, we KNOW what happens, don't we? People don't like the truth, they like self serving fantasies, as in EVE, so in real life.

I mean, in absolute terms more stuff is destroyed, and in mechanics terms you have a lot less control over your environment than in Null, so in some senses it is more dangerous.

In absolute per-capita terms though it's not that dangerous and relatively few people get kaploded every day per person in High Sec compared to Null.



Eve is a dystopia that allows open warfare so long as you pay a licencing fee for your violence.

They are maintaining order, it's just a very punitive and dystopic order that doesn't particularly care about individuals or the casualties produced, just about the profits, goods moved, and that the rules are *enforced* rather than actually followed in the first place.

Could also be:

Where highsec is full of more stupid people than nullsec.

Jen A Side has noted that hi-sec has about 70% of character population.

The question then becomes of course, if hi-sec is so awful, not mean enough, ruins the game, too safe and so on (add your own pet peeve about hi-sec to the list), then why does hi-sec have 70% of the character population?

I would argue that it is precisely because hi-sec is, relatively speaking, a lot safer.

My contention is that folk want to log in, have some fun and log out.

Most players it would seem do not want the risk and the drama or indeed, the commitment needed associated with lo and null sec.

Hi-sec seems to be what the players want, so why do some consider hi-sec such a problem for the game?

I don't believe this is quite accurate for a couple of reasons.

First off, under the old metrics any character not subbed doesn't count in the active character stats, and currently any character that doesn't log in for over a month doesn't count, so most of those alts aren't counted anywhere in active character statistics.

Beyond that the claim that most of the activity is in Null is dubious at best. Yes a lot of the character in High are alts of characters that live elsewhere, but that doesn't mean they're only cyno alts or similar. Certainly there's more activity per character there, but that doesn't mean there's more total.

Probably the best statistic we have on this is gate traffic, possibly combined with activity. I'm just going off of a rough estimate here but I'd say the real activity levels are closer to ~50% in High Sec and the rest spread over the rest of the game, predominantly Null and WHs, with WHs probably making up the most disproportionate chunk of activity relative to population.

The reason for this is that there's a fairly large group of people who play in High Sec because they just want to play a big space game and they're happy to do so shooting red crosses or similar. Based on the stats we have on mission activity there are a *lot* of people running missions in High Sec, more than I think most players realize when making these estimates.

Stuff destroyed does not equal danger. If you have 1000 ships worth 1 bil destroyed in one place, and one ship worth 2 bil destroyed in another, the place with the one ship kill still isn't "more dangerous" than the place with 1000 more explosions.



In null people control the environment. in high sec the environment KILLS anything that messes with you if there is no declared war , dual or mutual aggression.




And that's the end of the story. Value has nothing to do with danger. What you said above is like saying"

"Well, 20 gang bangers got killed in the hood last week. But in the same week a guy from the suburbs got shot and he was wearing a Rolex worth more than everything all those bangers had on put together, so obviously the subrubs are more dangerous than the hood..."


There is a history behind "high sec is safer than null". From almost the beginning, high sec people lamented the lack of Developer attention for high sec things, mainly because so much attention is paid to null sec. Destruction in null sec is the engine that drives the EVE economy, even high sec players are dependant on it, and they resent the hell out of it (if they ever realize at all where all that ammo and all those implants they get from LP and where all those ships they make end up going).

As ganking became more noticeable, backwards thinking high sec players started to think "hey, I can't see a gank coming, but in null sec I'd be able to see who is not blue and an intel channel would tell me that bad guys are coming. ipso facto, I'm in more danger in high sec than I am in null!!!". That kind of thinking totally ignores the existence of CONCORD and the fact that in high sec you can literally TANK YOURSELF TO SAFETY (ie if you have enough EHP to last against x amount of DPS for a max of 19 seconds, nothing in high sec except CONCORD can kill you).



Full disclosure time, I deal with this in real life which is why hearing it in game ticks me right off lol. This is a pretty good article that sums up the situation I deal with, well to do people who live in safe areas, who themselves have not ever been victims of violent crime, who don't know anyone who has been a victim of violent crime, who can't remember the last time a violent crime happened in the area they live and I work in, going on and on and on about how dangerous it is for them.