EVE General Discussion

Nobody wants highsec to be like nullsec, they just want the people in highsec to be exposed to some level of actual risk when doing hugely profitable activities and to face in-game consequences for social activity that other players want to beat their faces in for.

And that kind of thing is the exact opposite of the increasingly safe, consequence-free environment that CCP is creating in highsec. Conflict between players is increasingly discouraged via penalties, costs, increasing difficulty and badly designed mechanics and nothing is being done to balance it back out.

That isn't what several people in this thread have indicated. The reason people are fighting the introduction of that "risk" is that the normal means people suggest are either making highsec pointless by moving everything into low or null (read: more helpless targets for pirates) or a return to the days when a single person in a destroyer can gank anything in a belt (as dumb as the "GSC shields" from a setting perspective, and another "I want helpless targets"). It may not seem that way to those making the suggestions, but that's the way it comes across.

Okay, when I read the details on the new Crimewatch, it looked like they were priming highsec for more player enforced law not NPC laws. Maybe I read it wrong?

They are not changing the "NPC laws" at all. Only adding PC law enforcement to the mix.

So in a sense, you read it wrong. Criminals got no breaks in terms of NPCs with this deal.

Look, it doesn't matter what definition the word "sandbox" has. It comes down to following one of two different game design philosophies:

1. Playstyles are segregated. People who don't want to interact with others are able to avoid interaction. Miners can mine in peace; mission runners can do missions without the threat of interference; anyone who wants to attack other players can only do so with the other party's consent. This would also imply that people who want to do pvp should have access to ships and modules without having to grind in order to avoid interacting with the miners and mission runners who "produce" the wealth.

2. Interaction is entirely open-ended. This means that while someone is forced to contend with others for resources or be subjected to the market rules set by other players, he is also able to affect everyone and anyone with his actions. Sure, one player might have to to buy a ship from a manufacturer, but that manufacturer isn't immune from the actions of others. No matter how you look at it, the actions of the "peaceful miner" you want to protect from other players affect everyone else in the game. Logically, it follows that that miner should in turn be able to be affected by all the people who are affected by his actions.

Neither style is wrong, and different games can do well with either. For example, I've played WoW for quite a bit, and I can tell you that it follows the first style I outlined above. You can play through the whole game and not be affected by other people, save for the incompetence of the raid groups you have access to. In fact, with the last two expansions, you can even get pvp gear by running low-end pvp content. You never need to use the auction house to progress, unless it benefits you somehow. You don't need to do pvp, unless you want to. Seriously, you can get through the entirety of the available content with just a small group of friends. All the gear comes from drops or tokens, and while you can craft something with materials acquired by others, you're by no means obligated to, since you can collect those materials by yourself. And it works fine for WoW; the game isn't any worse off for following this style.

What exactly is EVE, then? I can't buy a ship without putting money in the pocket of another player. I can't make my own without competing for limited resources. I can't see high-end content without exposing myself to risk from interference from people who want to kill me. I can't go into a wormhole or a 10/10 and be safe from exposure to hostile elements. I can make a million such examples, but I'm sure you get the idea.

So tell me, how is it fair that people who live in high-sec should be free from the risk of any non-consensual player interaction? Why should people be able to mine and run missions in peace, when I can't go on a nice 0.0 sightseeing trip without getting my rear-end shanked by the second door I open? Is EVE truly a sandbox? Should people be able to turn that sandbox off when it suits them?

You can't have both at the same time. Either it's a competitive environment that everyone is subjected to, or it isn't. You want people to mine and run missions in peace? Fine, I can accept that. But I also demand that those people be barred from using the general market and contract system, among other things.

You can't have people playing for money and people playing for just for entertainment in the same poker game. It just doesn't work like that.

Destiny Corrupted - Okay, we are getting to someplace where we can actually talk, here. Both of us need to dial down the rhetoric.

As to what you said - the problem I see is that Eve seems to exist between your examples. The setting created dictates that there will be varied degrees of law. It simply doesn't make sense for the far reaches of space to have the same level of law as the centers of the empires. In that sense, it isn't a pure sandbox and should not be. There are limits imposed by the setting. The sandbox has shallow spots where the toy bulldozers aren't allowed, if you will.

As far as the profitability of activities are concerned, as I see it they also follow the setting. The richest mining (in theory) is pushed further from the civilized centers, while manufacturing stays in those centers. The largest scale pirates and outlaws (the NPC's) are attempting to encroach and operate inside the bounds of civilization: ever hear of someone trying to lead a rebellion or rob a bank in a deep forest alone? The largest actions always take place around population centers and major capitols (in this case, in Empire space). In that sense, the higher level missions belong in empire space from a setting point of view. Conversely, I also do think that CCP is pandering a bit to the risk-adverse, simply to broaden the subscriber base. Some people may not be thrilled by that, but CCP does need to turn a profit, and I seriously doubt they could do it by hardcore PvP'ers alone without pay-to-win microtransactions. I may be wrong, but I am entitled to my opinion. Besides, all the richest probe sites, complexes, and belt-rats are in low and null, as well as the pirate corps that one can run missions for. It often seems to some of us that people who want high sec nerfed are sitting on the more lucrative areas themselves.

Bring back mines

Yes, will solve the perceived problem by destroying the game, no game, no problem. If you don't like hi-sec, move to low or null and leave hi-sec alone.

Haha, using this defense in an interconnected EVE.

No.

I don't have to defend anything, I am happy with the way things are. You people who want to destroy hi-sec are the ones who need defend your position and I have yet to read a valid arguement, it all boils down to spoiled children upset that others enjoy a game in a different manner than themselves, failing to realize that it won't force people into low and null, it will cause them to simply leave. A game as fragile as EVE (as far as subscription numbers) cannot afford to alienate any of their player base.

Coming Soon to and EVE Online near you.