Well, they certainly weren't known for sitting in Delve and twiddling their thumbs. They were the Great Evil long before a BoB Member devhacked to get 5 T2 ammo BPOs and a single T2 Interdictor BPO, if that is what you are refering too. BoB openly stated that their goal was to own all of NullSec and that they were going to kick everyone else out to do it. Not that they were going to be a part of a coalition that was blue to all of NullSec.
It is easy to pick fights when you control the majority of space. BOB and LV controlled what 3/4 of NULL space before starting the first great war?
While I am certain this is an embellishment; I am interested in how you think BoB and LV gained control of as much Null as they did.
I do hope you are not expecting me to believe that 5 T2 Ammo BPO's and 1 T2 interdictor BPO was that was needed to become whatever it is we disagree that BoB was. I'm hoping you'll deliver at least something on par with PL's Sphere rumors.
I do hope you are not expecting me to believe that 5 T2 Ammo BPO's and 1 T2 interdictor BPO was that was needed to become whatever it is we disagree that BoB was. I'm hoping you'll deliver at least something on par with PL's Sphere rumors.
Besides having the developers spoon feed them resources, intel, et cetera? Just as a start, I'd go with their history of shooting things through POS shields.
... But admittedly, looking into the history of BOB there's a whole lot less confirmed cheating than I had always heard. Odd.
They were still terrible, terrible tryhards who had a horrible gaming culture. :P
Well, they certainly weren't known for sitting in Delve and twiddling their thumbs. They were the Great Evil long before a BoB Member devhacked to get 5 T2 ammo BPOs and a single T2 Interdictor BPO, if that is what you are refering too. BoB openly stated that their goal was to own all of NullSec and that they were going to kick everyone else out to do it. Not that they were going to be a part of a coalition that was blue to all of NullSec.
It is easy to pick fights when you control the majority of space. BOB and LV controlled what 3/4 of NULL space before starting the first great war?
While I am certain this is an embellishment; I am interested in how you think BoB and LV gained control of as much Null as they did.
My memory of 0.0 politics isn't strong pre 2007.
But iirc, Bob was the previous owner of the majority of the north around 2005-2006, which they decided to leave and move to the ass end of space aka Delve. Which just than happens to get a buff and become a damn nice place to live ( gets npc stations, way better sec ). They form a nice coalition with MC, and get a lot of renters as buffers. They help out the original Souther Coalition ( LV + junk ) fight RA, while at the same time the north is a horrible collection of alliances forming and dying after .5 disbanded( ascn, e.r.a, oss, and on on on ) and because of all the infighting have no real way to project force into the rest of NULL.
So Bob becomes strong by moving away from conflict and landing in a region that will become the best place to live without any serious conflict. They become even stronger by making sure they if people want to fight them, they have to grind a couple buffer regions held by paying renters. Smartly they always try to invade instead of defending so not to risk the renter income.
There's an article about BoB on the Goonwiki. And yeah, before anyone plays the "bias" card just remember that if even half the shit on there is true (which it probably is) then BoB deserved everything they ever suffered.
"I don't know why people ever, ever try to stop nerds from doing things. It's really the most incredible waste of time." - Tycho
The jokes about the CFC/goons/etc. becoming BoB are for a lot of reasons (being wealthy and successful, people in our alliance talking down others on forums rudely, tinfoil conspiracies around the former goons now CCP devs, and yes, being very successful in removing our enemies from their sov space.) but they're just that, jokes.
I'd probably allow BoB the same grudging respect I have for PL* if BoB, even accepting CCP at their word that those T2 BPOs were the ONLY place where they benefited from CCP favoritism, managed to be as they were without the hilariously broken supercaps online and sov 4 bonuses of that day and age. Alas, IT Alliance couldn't hack it, so if they were capable of that they have not proven it in my eyes.
*yes, I know PL is not nearly as aggressive as BoB was and hides behind non-aggression pacts and whatnot.
On a personal note I love where this discussion is going. This is basically the one part I like about Kugu without nearly as much bad posting. My perceptions could be skewed because of the majority present, of course.
Because everyone who lives in HiSec is a bot? Or because HiSec has bots, so everyone else is just collateral damage in our jihad against bots? Either line of logic is silly.
You should have more faith in the Security Team. As an aside, according to the Security Presentation at FanFest, a majority of the bots they've banned are ratting bots and in major NullSec alliances. I'm sure they'll come out with a DevBlog that says the same thing soon enough.
Is that "banned this year"? Because last year's security team presentation showed that most bots were in high security space.
This possibly shows a simple truth that the highsec and nullsec forum warriors were too enthralled in their tribal warfare to realize/admit to: botters will simply go to where ISK is most easily botted. Last year that was mission running bots. This year? They're probably doing blaster ratting in hubs like everyone else.
E: I mean to throw the warriors a bone that's probably the trend for whatever sort of RMT groups are trying to make money in Eve, and individual players might be botting in wherever they normally reside and clearly the numbers are thus an indictment on the moral character of said residents as a whole because generalization solves everything etc. etc., but really I'd bet the above mostly applies in terms of the observed demographic shift.
This possibly shows a simple truth that the highsec and nullsec forum warriors were too enthralled in their tribal warfare to realize/admit to: botters will simply go to where ISK is most easily botted. Last year that was mission running bots. This year? They're probably doing blaster ratting in hubs like everyone else.
Er, no. Ice Mining. Target never moves, never expires, and it's simple to automate, because CCP doesn't want to destroy the entire industrial base of EVE like that. They could solve everything with a captcha on miners or undocking, but won't.
Captchas are a dreadful solution to botting, if only because they don't work. Never mind immersion, persecution of actual players, etc etc etc. Just no.
The solution to botting is to make PvE unpredictable and challenging.
0
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
Captchas are a dreadful solution to botting, if only because they don't work. Never mind immersion, persecution of actual players, etc etc etc. Just no.
The solution to botting is to make PvE unpredictable and challenging.
Isn't PvE already unpredictable and challenging to a degree? Or is running missions really that easy to automate?
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
It kinda is. There isn't that much variety that it can't be scripted around. Especially since they all involve destroying everything red. :P
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Captchas are a dreadful solution to botting, if only because they don't work. Never mind immersion, persecution of actual players, etc etc etc. Just no.
The solution to botting is to make PvE unpredictable and challenging.
Isn't PvE already unpredictable and challenging to a degree? Or is running missions really that easy to automate?
Missions are utterly predictable. You can literally memorise them, as I know because to a significant extent, I have. I can whore Sisters LP with about 10% of my attention while I read forums or play Civ V. In fact I quite often do them on an alt whilst I'm in fleet with my main if the op is a structure shoot or something.
0
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
I never ran missions enough to know; I was too busy having fun getting blown up in nullsec. That's kind of disappointing.
Is highsec basically just industrialists and bots supplying the outer galaxy with everything they need for endless war between various corps? Again, I only spent time doing the tutorial and then making beelines for lowsec and beyond, and so I never really noticed if there was anything "fun" in EvE standards to do in empire space.
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I never ran missions enough to know; I was too busy having fun getting blown up in nullsec. That's kind of disappointing.
Is highsec basically just industrialists and bots supplying the outer galaxy with everything they need for endless war between various corps? Again, I only spent time doing the tutorial and then making beelines for lowsec and beyond, and so I never really noticed if there was anything "fun" in EvE standards to do in empire space.
Actually they're just the ones that stand out, those and mission runners in the big mission areas. However I've seen lots of people on my alt in high doing exploration, you've also got RvB or EveUni wars, or lots of courier types running around (or just people hauling their own stuff). It doesn't have the risk element which is what a lot of people count as a critical part of the "fun" of EvE, but it definitely isn't dull in terms of what's going on. It's also easy to not see other stuff going on do to the shear number of people moving around.
+1
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I stand corrected.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Don't forget the pirates wbo prey on all of the above either. If this were in-game, I'd link that time I got killed with 700 millions worth of cargo in my Iteron IV.
It's great because now, everytime someone asks something about hauling, I go "Here is how you don't do it".
Regarding the questions about bots...
Here is the FanFest2013 panel on Botting and RMT. War on Botting starts at 7:20. Type of bots banned (Ratting vs Mining) is at 16:20. And Bots by Alliance is at 18:20. I was incorrect in saying that Team Security said that most of the bots are in Null. They don't give us that information.
Chart at 24:20 says that 48% of accounts banned have been reported as bots by players.
Also; if you are interested in botting as an issue in EVE, then The Nosy Gamer Blog is mandatory reading. The Nosy Gamer spends a lot of time taking bots apart, reading botting forums, and basically studying the botting community. His understanding of botting is much deeper than, say, James315... whose methods seem to be "If they reject a convo and are mining; then call them a bot".
HighSec is also the place for people who can't be bothered to deal with the games and hurdles of being in a Null Sec alliances, the logistical challenges and trust issues of a worm hole, or the constant threat of LowSec. It is popular to categorize such players as lazy or risk averse; but I believe the truth is more complex. While MMO's are inherently social; not all gamers are social. There are plenty of people who live in HiSec because it allows them to be minimally social. My Industry alt, for instance, lives in HiSec because he is what I play when I want to EVE, but don't want to socialize.
If you want to build your own sandcastle; HighSec is a great place to start. In fact, I believe that HighSec has more sandcastles living their complete life-cycle than the rest of EVE. Their stories lack the epiciness and uniqueness of sandcastles else-where, but they are a lot more personal to the people who build and destroy them.
BaidolI will hold him offEscape while you canRegistered Userregular
I like James 315 because it is interesting to see someone run an obvious extortion racket and poking, as I would not classify ganking barges to be outright destroying, sand castles in hi-sec using the mechanics of hi-sec space.
I love James315 as a lolRP'er who is hiding his extortion racket and criminal activities behind a facade of religion and salvation. He and his followers, his acolytes if you will, are creating content in HiSec and engaging populations well known for not being engaged. EVE is a game of drama, and his movement is bringing drama.
But when we are talking game design, we need facts and understanding; not propaganda and RP'ing.
In a timely (and mercifully short!) article on TheMittani.com, James315 responded to the "blue to all of NullSec" theory that Lochiel has been espousing in this thread. Worth a read if you've been following the thread for the past page or so, and cheap shots in the article aside, James315 is right on in his analysis. Almost everything else he writes is propaganda or RP'ing, but this time it's also mostly true.
I seemed to have missed something when I read it... the part where the Blue Donut theory is disproved. Or even disagreed with instead of just assumed to be wrong. I would summarize his entire article as "The only people who believe the Blue Donut theory are people uninvolved with EVE. And that certainly isn't us cool kids, is it?".
Anyways; the Blue Donut isn't so much a theory as a description of observed behavior. As such, it would be simple to disprove. Settle on a metric to measure conflict in Null (traditionally ships destroyed or sov taken), use one of the reservoirs of information (such as eve-census.com or Verite's sov maps) to show what the actual metrics are, and then draw your conclusion.
Jame's failure to use easily obtainable data to support his beliefs is why I don't listen to him seriously.
As an example: According to eve-census.com, which aggregates data from killboards, the following regions have around or over 1k kills week in a single Timezone (Euro, US, Aussie) for the last 3 months.
Region (Empire | 0.0) about how many thousand kills each week
Black Rise (Empire) 2
Catch (0.0) 1
Curse (0.0) 1
Delve (0.0) 2
Devoid (Empire) 1.5
Domain (Empire) 1
Essence (Empire) 1.5
Heimatar (Empire) 1.5
Metropolis (Empire) 2
Placid (Empire) 1
Providence (0.0) 1 (barely, also US TZ was superior; which seems to be abnormal)
Sinq Laison (Empire) 1.5
Syndicate (0.0) 1
The Bleak Lands (Empire) 1.5
The Citadel (Empire) 1.5
The Forge (Empire) 3
Venal (0.0) 1
That is 17 regions, 11 of which are Empire and 6 of which are 0.0. There are 41 0.0 regions and 23 Empire regions. This data doesn't include WH space. The Forge has exceptionally high number of kills a week at 3k/wk, for the obvious reasons. In 0.0 Delve has the most ships destroyed on a regular basis with about 2k/wk, but no need to worry about a sov change there any time soon.
Now, using this data I feel very confident in stating that Empire is home to many interesting things that don't get that much attention. I might even be willing to use this data to argue that Empire has more conflict than NullSec.
The obvious objection at this point is that because 0.0 has 41 regions, so their stuff is spread out. I'll respond by saying that if conflict was happening between alliances then that conflict would be concentrated in just a few regions.
The next, less obvious objection, is about my choice of 1k/week. I searched all of the regional data by hand, and it didn't occur to me that I might want a different metric till now. This is a forum post; not a article that I'm getting paid to write.
My point that James could use data stands. Feel free to use a different metric and post your results
The "Blue Doughnut Theory" as I understand it is the claim that almost everyone in null has a NIP with each other. If you want to test this, you need to look at structure kills. As a proxy for general structures, I looked at IHUBs on eve-kill (http://eve-kill.net/?a=home&scl_id=41). This gives 50+ IHUB kills (~1 region's worth) per month going back for at least a year. I'd say there's plenty of conflict, just not much fighting.
Usually it seems (and in my experience) at best both sides will form up, the FCs will stare at each other's for a while, then one will slink home without a shot being fired, making kills a poor proxy for strategic conflict. Which really seems like something CCP should be trying to fix since staring at a titan for 2h is not fun. Of course it's not an easy problem, and not necessarily related to Dominion sov like some people think.
If you want to look at the relative safety of high-sec vs. null, you need to look at kills/player active and in space, but this would be harder since I don't think the API lets you pull the latter.
Speaking an INIT. guy, I definitely don't feel like I'm any part of a blue donut. We have a few alliances that are close to us as blue, and that's it. Meanwhile we're neutral with TEST, the angry RUS)) in Stain, N3, Goons, SOLAR... you get the idea.
If the blue donut ever was a thing, it's definitely over now.
I grabbed the data from here, skipped out of a hiring interview that I didn't want to be in, and I have this for you
Reported IHub kills from Dec09 to April13.
I'm trying to find a way to pull Sov Changes Data from Dotlan. The website includes all sov changes, including increasing sov levels, on a per-day basis; which isn't very useful.
The "Blue Doughnut Theory" as I understand it is the claim that almost everyone in null has a NIP with each other. If you want to test this, you need to look at structure kills. As a proxy for general structures, I looked at IHUBs on eve-kill (http://eve-kill.net/?a=home&scl_id=41). This gives 50+ IHUB kills (~1 region's worth) per month going back for at least a year. I'd say there's plenty of conflict, just not much fighting.
Usually it seems (and in my experience) at best both sides will form up, the FCs will stare at each other's for a while, then one will slink home without a shot being fired, making kills a poor proxy for strategic conflict. Which really seems like something CCP should be trying to fix since staring at a titan for 2h is not fun. Of course it's not an easy problem, and not necessarily related to Dominion sov like some people think.
If you want to look at the relative safety of high-sec vs. null, you need to look at kills/player active and in space, but this would be harder since I don't think the API lets you pull the latter.
IIRC, the last time we got stats, per actual player in 0.0, you're 8 times more likely to lose a ship in 0.0 to PvP than you are in hisec.
Or was it 16 times?
Call it an order of magnitude. Basically the "0.0 is where the REAL carebears are" line is a bullshit forum talking point that ignores actual facts.
Two posts ago you used ships destroyed per region to argue (with a good deal of hedging) that there's more conflict in empire than in 0.0, and to suggest that there isn't conflict happening in 0.0 - or that where it is happening (Delve), it doesn't count because there isn't going to be a sov change anytime soon.
Looking at any metric is going to show tons of conflict in 0.0, because there's been tons of conflict in 0.0 since EVE was launched. Sometimes things slow down, sometimes they speed up, and there are plenty of good reasons for these patterns. The problem you're having is that, after finding that data, you're insisting on comparing it to meaningless other data. An example: activity in hisec obviously dwarfs nullsec in most areas because hisec has a much larger population. As V1m pointed out, that actually means that hisec ends up being far less active for each individual player.
That's way easier than looking at evekill one page at a time .
I think IHUB kills is a better metric than Sov change, since the latter will also include peaceful handovers. IHUB kills should be pretty proportional to hostile sov takeovers. For strategic-level conflict the next thing I would look at would be large tower kills in null and lowsec -- especially amarr and minmatar towers -- which will likely mostly be staging towers and moon miners. Some entities (traditionally PL and wanabes) have extensive moon holdings but little sov. This will also show aborted invasions like the Deklein headshot that wasn't.
Two posts ago you used ships destroyed per region to argue (with a good deal of hedging) that there's more conflict in empire than in 0.0, and to suggest that there isn't conflict happening in 0.0 - or that where it is happening (Delve), it doesn't count because there isn't going to be a sov change anytime soon.
Looking at any metric is going to show tons of conflict in 0.0, because there's been tons of conflict in 0.0 since EVE was launched. Sometimes things slow down, sometimes they speed up, and there are plenty of good reasons for these patterns. The problem you're having is that, after finding that data, you're insisting on comparing it to meaningless other data. An example: activity in hisec obviously dwarfs nullsec in most areas because hisec has a much larger population. As V1m pointed out, that actually means that hisec ends up being far less active for each individual player.
And more to the point, people form their opinion about 0.0 from the game media (whether TMDC, Kugu, EN24 or even god help us, CAOD posts). If they don't hear about a campaign, they assume nothing is happening = blue donut = nullbears!!! I myself have been involved in month long campaigns about which the hi-sec population was totally unaware unless and until something "newsworthy" happened.
Indeed there's close to zero awareness that I have seen of the Stain campaign (and by "Stain" I mean "Stain and the bordering regions"), where 300-500 man battles have been occurring several times a week. Or Venal. Or Curse. Or Delve. The blue donut is total bullshit. It's an invented narrative explicitly intended to try and counter the looming and inevitable industry rebalance and to try and drive additional safety buffs for hisec (because hi-sec is so dangerous, you see)
V1m on
0
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
Posts
While I am certain this is an embellishment; I am interested in how you think BoB and LV gained control of as much Null as they did.
Pretty much yes. Not that BoB were above building coalitions, but no one could accuse them of not stirring things up.
Oh oh oh, I know this one, pick me, pick me!
"Cheating."
I do hope you are not expecting me to believe that 5 T2 Ammo BPO's and 1 T2 interdictor BPO was that was needed to become whatever it is we disagree that BoB was. I'm hoping you'll deliver at least something on par with PL's Sphere rumors.
Besides having the developers spoon feed them resources, intel, et cetera? Just as a start, I'd go with their history of shooting things through POS shields.
... But admittedly, looking into the history of BOB there's a whole lot less confirmed cheating than I had always heard. Odd.
They were still terrible, terrible tryhards who had a horrible gaming culture. :P
My memory of 0.0 politics isn't strong pre 2007.
But iirc, Bob was the previous owner of the majority of the north around 2005-2006, which they decided to leave and move to the ass end of space aka Delve. Which just than happens to get a buff and become a damn nice place to live ( gets npc stations, way better sec ). They form a nice coalition with MC, and get a lot of renters as buffers. They help out the original Souther Coalition ( LV + junk ) fight RA, while at the same time the north is a horrible collection of alliances forming and dying after .5 disbanded( ascn, e.r.a, oss, and on on on ) and because of all the infighting have no real way to project force into the rest of NULL.
So Bob becomes strong by moving away from conflict and landing in a region that will become the best place to live without any serious conflict. They become even stronger by making sure they if people want to fight them, they have to grind a couple buffer regions held by paying renters. Smartly they always try to invade instead of defending so not to risk the renter income.
"I don't know why people ever, ever try to stop nerds from doing things. It's really the most incredible waste of time." - Tycho
Which comes back to what I was originally saying; If you are the UN, don't compare yourself to the Mongolians.
I don't know how I missed them shooting through POS shields
I'd probably allow BoB the same grudging respect I have for PL* if BoB, even accepting CCP at their word that those T2 BPOs were the ONLY place where they benefited from CCP favoritism, managed to be as they were without the hilariously broken supercaps online and sov 4 bonuses of that day and age. Alas, IT Alliance couldn't hack it, so if they were capable of that they have not proven it in my eyes.
*yes, I know PL is not nearly as aggressive as BoB was and hides behind non-aggression pacts and whatnot.
On a personal note I love where this discussion is going. This is basically the one part I like about Kugu without nearly as much bad posting. My perceptions could be skewed because of the majority present, of course.
Is that "banned this year"? Because last year's security team presentation showed that most bots were in high security space.
This possibly shows a simple truth that the highsec and nullsec forum warriors were too enthralled in their tribal warfare to realize/admit to: botters will simply go to where ISK is most easily botted. Last year that was mission running bots. This year? They're probably doing blaster ratting in hubs like everyone else.
E: I mean to throw the warriors a bone that's probably the trend for whatever sort of RMT groups are trying to make money in Eve, and individual players might be botting in wherever they normally reside and clearly the numbers are thus an indictment on the moral character of said residents as a whole because generalization solves everything etc. etc., but really I'd bet the above mostly applies in terms of the observed demographic shift.
Er, no. Ice Mining. Target never moves, never expires, and it's simple to automate, because CCP doesn't want to destroy the entire industrial base of EVE like that. They could solve everything with a captcha on miners or undocking, but won't.
The solution to botting is to make PvE unpredictable and challenging.
Isn't PvE already unpredictable and challenging to a degree? Or is running missions really that easy to automate?
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Missions are utterly predictable. You can literally memorise them, as I know because to a significant extent, I have. I can whore Sisters LP with about 10% of my attention while I read forums or play Civ V. In fact I quite often do them on an alt whilst I'm in fleet with my main if the op is a structure shoot or something.
Is highsec basically just industrialists and bots supplying the outer galaxy with everything they need for endless war between various corps? Again, I only spent time doing the tutorial and then making beelines for lowsec and beyond, and so I never really noticed if there was anything "fun" in EvE standards to do in empire space.
From what I know about it? Basically yeah.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Actually they're just the ones that stand out, those and mission runners in the big mission areas. However I've seen lots of people on my alt in high doing exploration, you've also got RvB or EveUni wars, or lots of courier types running around (or just people hauling their own stuff). It doesn't have the risk element which is what a lot of people count as a critical part of the "fun" of EvE, but it definitely isn't dull in terms of what's going on. It's also easy to not see other stuff going on do to the shear number of people moving around.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
It's great because now, everytime someone asks something about hauling, I go "Here is how you don't do it".
Here is the FanFest2013 panel on Botting and RMT. War on Botting starts at 7:20. Type of bots banned (Ratting vs Mining) is at 16:20. And Bots by Alliance is at 18:20. I was incorrect in saying that Team Security said that most of the bots are in Null. They don't give us that information.
Chart at 24:20 says that 48% of accounts banned have been reported as bots by players.
Also; if you are interested in botting as an issue in EVE, then The Nosy Gamer Blog is mandatory reading. The Nosy Gamer spends a lot of time taking bots apart, reading botting forums, and basically studying the botting community. His understanding of botting is much deeper than, say, James315... whose methods seem to be "If they reject a convo and are mining; then call them a bot".
HighSec is also the place for people who can't be bothered to deal with the games and hurdles of being in a Null Sec alliances, the logistical challenges and trust issues of a worm hole, or the constant threat of LowSec. It is popular to categorize such players as lazy or risk averse; but I believe the truth is more complex. While MMO's are inherently social; not all gamers are social. There are plenty of people who live in HiSec because it allows them to be minimally social. My Industry alt, for instance, lives in HiSec because he is what I play when I want to EVE, but don't want to socialize.
If you want to build your own sandcastle; HighSec is a great place to start. In fact, I believe that HighSec has more sandcastles living their complete life-cycle than the rest of EVE. Their stories lack the epiciness and uniqueness of sandcastles else-where, but they are a lot more personal to the people who build and destroy them.
But when we are talking game design, we need facts and understanding; not propaganda and RP'ing.
Anyways; the Blue Donut isn't so much a theory as a description of observed behavior. As such, it would be simple to disprove. Settle on a metric to measure conflict in Null (traditionally ships destroyed or sov taken), use one of the reservoirs of information (such as eve-census.com or Verite's sov maps) to show what the actual metrics are, and then draw your conclusion.
Jame's failure to use easily obtainable data to support his beliefs is why I don't listen to him seriously.
As an example: According to eve-census.com, which aggregates data from killboards, the following regions have around or over 1k kills week in a single Timezone (Euro, US, Aussie) for the last 3 months.
Black Rise (Empire) 2
Catch (0.0) 1
Curse (0.0) 1
Delve (0.0) 2
Devoid (Empire) 1.5
Domain (Empire) 1
Essence (Empire) 1.5
Heimatar (Empire) 1.5
Metropolis (Empire) 2
Placid (Empire) 1
Providence (0.0) 1 (barely, also US TZ was superior; which seems to be abnormal)
Sinq Laison (Empire) 1.5
Syndicate (0.0) 1
The Bleak Lands (Empire) 1.5
The Citadel (Empire) 1.5
The Forge (Empire) 3
Venal (0.0) 1
That is 17 regions, 11 of which are Empire and 6 of which are 0.0. There are 41 0.0 regions and 23 Empire regions. This data doesn't include WH space. The Forge has exceptionally high number of kills a week at 3k/wk, for the obvious reasons. In 0.0 Delve has the most ships destroyed on a regular basis with about 2k/wk, but no need to worry about a sov change there any time soon.
Now, using this data I feel very confident in stating that Empire is home to many interesting things that don't get that much attention. I might even be willing to use this data to argue that Empire has more conflict than NullSec.
The obvious objection at this point is that because 0.0 has 41 regions, so their stuff is spread out. I'll respond by saying that if conflict was happening between alliances then that conflict would be concentrated in just a few regions.
The next, less obvious objection, is about my choice of 1k/week. I searched all of the regional data by hand, and it didn't occur to me that I might want a different metric till now. This is a forum post; not a article that I'm getting paid to write.
My point that James could use data stands. Feel free to use a different metric and post your results
Usually it seems (and in my experience) at best both sides will form up, the FCs will stare at each other's for a while, then one will slink home without a shot being fired, making kills a poor proxy for strategic conflict. Which really seems like something CCP should be trying to fix since staring at a titan for 2h is not fun. Of course it's not an easy problem, and not necessarily related to Dominion sov like some people think.
If you want to look at the relative safety of high-sec vs. null, you need to look at kills/player active and in space, but this would be harder since I don't think the API lets you pull the latter.
If the blue donut ever was a thing, it's definitely over now.
I grabbed the data from here, skipped out of a hiring interview that I didn't want to be in, and I have this for you
Reported IHub kills from Dec09 to April13.
I'm trying to find a way to pull Sov Changes Data from Dotlan. The website includes all sov changes, including increasing sov levels, on a per-day basis; which isn't very useful.
IIRC, the last time we got stats, per actual player in 0.0, you're 8 times more likely to lose a ship in 0.0 to PvP than you are in hisec.
Or was it 16 times?
Call it an order of magnitude. Basically the "0.0 is where the REAL carebears are" line is a bullshit forum talking point that ignores actual facts.
Looking at any metric is going to show tons of conflict in 0.0, because there's been tons of conflict in 0.0 since EVE was launched. Sometimes things slow down, sometimes they speed up, and there are plenty of good reasons for these patterns. The problem you're having is that, after finding that data, you're insisting on comparing it to meaningless other data. An example: activity in hisec obviously dwarfs nullsec in most areas because hisec has a much larger population. As V1m pointed out, that actually means that hisec ends up being far less active for each individual player.
That's way easier than looking at evekill one page at a time
I think IHUB kills is a better metric than Sov change, since the latter will also include peaceful handovers. IHUB kills should be pretty proportional to hostile sov takeovers. For strategic-level conflict the next thing I would look at would be large tower kills in null and lowsec -- especially amarr and minmatar towers -- which will likely mostly be staging towers and moon miners. Some entities (traditionally PL and wanabes) have extensive moon holdings but little sov. This will also show aborted invasions like the Deklein headshot that wasn't.
And more to the point, people form their opinion about 0.0 from the game media (whether TMDC, Kugu, EN24 or even god help us, CAOD posts). If they don't hear about a campaign, they assume nothing is happening = blue donut = nullbears!!! I myself have been involved in month long campaigns about which the hi-sec population was totally unaware unless and until something "newsworthy" happened.
Indeed there's close to zero awareness that I have seen of the Stain campaign (and by "Stain" I mean "Stain and the bordering regions"), where 300-500 man battles have been occurring several times a week. Or Venal. Or Curse. Or Delve. The blue donut is total bullshit. It's an invented narrative explicitly intended to try and counter the looming and inevitable industry rebalance and to try and drive additional safety buffs for hisec (because hi-sec is so dangerous, you see)
PSN = PessimistMaximus
There is! https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=e97a80c7-be48-482a-b58e-00741437897a&action=buddy
(I feel guilty that I stopped lurking to post that.)
Jees, PLEX has jumped in price in a year!