EVE General Discussion

i dunno about you but safety for me means "I"M AND MY STUFF IS SAFE". When i got killed or my stuff got destroyed/stolen it is not safety. Yes, aggressor is punished but this won't return ME or MY STUFF in intact state.

It's like killing your killer. Does it matter to you when you already dead? Can you say "i'm safe" because there will be 2 dead persons after aggression and not one?

Then thanks for the comparison on apples and oranges. As I said before, I don't find the fact that mission running hubs generally produce more wealth for individuals than R64 moons produce wealth for alliances relevant. And I would also expect this to be the case.


I have yet to see relevant data showing there is (or will be a problem) where no problem has even yet been identified. The closest I have come to seeing this mysterious data is in the form of comments claiming that the data is in the thread.

Considering that the dishonest attempts to twist figures and obfuscate the issues are coming from the usual anti-hi-sec camp individuals, I have to say, I whole-heartedly agree with you.

But since you're actually directing this to me and/or those that like me, have asked for the data showing there is (or there will be a problem), this does not constitute "enraged denial". Mind you, we're on page 37 with no relevant data to show for, other than "it's in the thread". And just because someone labels his opinions as "fact" or "logical" doesn't magically make them so.

If this was directed at me, you'll have to find another more appropriate quote, as I make the vast majority of my income through moons.

Cute signature, though. How are the scorpions coming along ?

Sure, I'll seek help, as soon as people like you who believe it's some vast conspiracy to get you to the null sec section of a video game check in to the same clinic. The claim you people make is tired and crazy.

You enjoy competitive safety yes.

You don't live in low
You don't live in NPC null
You don't live in a worm hole
You don't live in sov null

You. Are. Safe.

Compared to every other area in the game, and check my recent losses against how much I give a **** about ships getting dead.

Nope. CONCORD does provide safety. In the same way that I do IRL. The existence of Concord means that people don't shoot other people when otherwise they would. CONCORD like real life police forces and laws can't provide absolute safety, but they do deter crime. Places without laws and police forces suffer astronomically higher rates of murder than place that do have them.

The proof of this is EVE online's "murder rate" so to speak. EVERY part of EVE space outside of high sec has much higher rates of ships being killed than high sec. That leads to one conclusion: when given the chance, more people shoot at each other when their is no consequence than when their is a consequence.

Saying CONCORD doesn't give protection is the exact same thing as saying "murder being illegal doesn't stop murder therefore the law has failed." I'm most cases, the law did prevent murder, only the most determined murders actually commit the act.

It would be nice is ccp turned off concord for 20 minute sin high sec to demonstrate this point lol.

Except (& accept) we aren't comparing missions with belts. We're comparing hisec belt rats with null sec belt rats so we use an activity requiring the same parameters and requirements to complete with roughly the same time to completion.

Missions pay out more. But to have equal comparison you'd need a null sec mission rat versus a high sec mission rat.

Also, Hisec anomaly rats pay out the same as nullsec anomaly rats?

And this



Is like this



Great filler, not scientific. Pure opinion.

It's not hard to understand. If the same exact rat (hull class) in a nullsec anomaly and hi sec anomaly pay the same exact thing then the nullsec rat in the anomaly needs to be increased to fall in line with every other rat in game.

But that is one specific situation. It is not a coverall argument for all of null to be buffed or all of highsec to be nerfed. Its not even a good reason to nerf level 4s because missions and anomalies are two distinct things, not to be blurred.

I'd like to see proof though Jenn because quite frankly I think you might be fibbin'. But perhaps there has been an oversight.

Im pretty sure I made clear I was using battleship hulls as a measure. When you go to a hisec belt and kill a battleship youll likely get a bounty of 250k. When you do this in nullsec and even some low sec youll clear about 1000k. I never brought anomalies into the discussion as I knew that there would be some variances. Just as I mentioned true sec variances. I also avoided going into missions because some missions give bounties others don't but you still kill battleship hulls.

And you're wrong, again, because there ARE no high sec battleship npcs in belts. The fact that you don't know this points to a general lack of understanding of the game we're talking about.

The cruiser and frig npcs you'll see in high sec belts pay the same as cruiser and frig npcs in null sec belts. The difference is that null sec and some low sec belts with have BSs in the 1st place.

You're beliefs about income (ie null sec is magically 3-4 times better than high sec) are faulty, and as that's the basis of much of you belief, you should understand that the rest of your thought process is likely faulty. i don't think you are internally honest enough to get to that point though.

The spawnrate on belt rats is so low you can run missions and earn a lot more in the same time. The are one of the worst ways of making isk.