EVE General Discussion

good question. not 0.0 because itd be perma camped. jita because its caldari trade hub like hek is minnies dodixie is gallente and amarr is amarr ofc but most people started as caldari so id imagine thats why

Why provide even the pretense of safety then. Might as well get indoctrinated to the ahole players in this game from the get go.

Has CCP ever advertised high-sec as a PVE realm?

For instance, here is the description currently on Evelopedia:

Seems pretty level-headed and very careful about its use of the word safety. I don't see where this would give anyone the idea that they are immune from trouble in high-sec and I don't recall CCP making statements inconsistent with this.

Correct me if i misunderstood but are you saing that the excisting playerbase that knows and understands the "harshness" of the Eve universe is now matter how hardened and glorious in its conquests is in the end dependent on fresh meat to keep paying for the servers and staff and thus it needs to lure and bait only to then crush and discard?

I don't judge, i am simply curious.

Is high sec then simply the boot-camp? The grinder that eventually weeds out the weak?

I'm sorry but that isn't saying much as it does not reflect reality at all. Some poor bastard is writing about being ganked repeatedly and losing his hard-earned stuff and the fact that he clearly does not give a crap about the gankers losing their galss cannons to concord and so on and so fourth. Almost everyone posting about their losses is under the impression that high sec means "occasional" encounters and "occasional" losses and that high sec "discourages" pirates and gankers. Wrong. As we all know and see the losses can be made "systemic" and that "safe" activities can be disrupted for significant periods of time and in fact given the will even permanently. It is wonderful that concord "polices" high sec but when was the new player told that concord can be rendered useless?

My qustion is valid: what is the point of high sec? To create a false sense of safety so that new players (except for the ones that quit right away) get a chance (not a guaranteed chance mind you) to maybe possibly "graduate" and stay thus continuing to support the game via monthly sub contributions?

Note that so far i have not suggested what high sec should be. Just listening to opinions.

I think Eve is just about as "harsh" as it can be without going from "niche" to "obscure". That said, the greatest failure in this game is the new player experience and the transition from a theme park mentality to a sandbox one. I don't think CCP sells Eve very well, or at least not as well as it could, and I think they utterly fail at getting into the mind of the average gamer and providing an organic transition of learning and understanding with respect to enjoying a new and innovative style of game.

Is it within the realm of possibility to have an extremely popular Eve game without hisec, where players are thrust knowingly into a dangerous, chaotic, and pitiless world? Absolutely. However, CCP isn't yet prepared enough to steward a game like that, nor is the world of gaming culturally ready to offer up enough of such gamers. I do think as more and more people tire of the "pile in, pile out" themepark model, you will have more and more people ready and willing to take the leap into sandbox gaming. The other necessary element of CCP evolving and maturing enough to steward such a transition is far more questionable and far less inevitable, but that just means other companies will take over where CCP will fail and further develop the sandbox niche themselves.

Who is responsible for these misconceptions? If CCP is not telling them they are safe then I guess it's not CCP, which is the angle you seem to be taking.


Concord are not useless. They are sometimes less effective than you'd like them to be. But anyone reading up on concord knows this and the evelopedia article clearly points it out.


Players seem to be creating their own false sense of security by reading too much into the role of concord or the name "high-sec".

Hi-Sec is like training wheels, it helps you out to learn, but doesnt mean you cant fall over, just helps out till you get a bit more knowledge.

Looks like we all agree on what high sec is at this moment. Now if i may throw in my 2 cents, i suggest that the following is done:

CCP creates a "starter" area for each race with a few stations, an unbeatable secutiry system and a single gate leading to the rest of Eve. No pilot will be alowed to leave this area until they complete a mandatory 2 week period. The area should have enough content to make the 2 weeks enjoyable. However all of the starter missions and tutorials should keep repeating a warning which would both remind the new pilot about what he or she is about to face and increase excitement. Pilots would be able to "challenge" each other ance once the challenge is accepted - fight but would not be able to otherwise attack. Target, fire and get a message stating "you may not fire upon this ship without offering a challenge" or something like this. After the 2 weeks the pilot may now exit through the gate. At this point he or she should receive a big pop-up message saying "You are about to enter the hostilve world of Eve where you can be killed at any moment. Never let your guard down and never assume you are safe. Even the highest security regions are deadly. You can and will come under fire at the time you least expect it" The pilot should then check off the "i understand" checkbox and be allowed to exit the starter area into what we currently know as high sec. Nobody can ever return to the starter area as the exit gate would not be bi-directional. Trying to enter the starter area would simply produce a message stating that this area is off-limits.

Thats all.

Hi-sec is to the city like 0.0 is to the sticks: no one really knows or cares what's going on in the sticks and people are still murdered in the city, but the odds are that unless you're a gang member the cops will catch the killer and if you're hot enough you'll get some air-time on Nancy Grace.