These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A High Sec Manifesto

Author
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#181 - 2012-01-06 22:53:51 UTC
I prefer to discuss the manifesto with literate people.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#182 - 2012-01-07 00:06:54 UTC
Yuki 0nna wrote:

Your ploy cannot fix what it does not address: the real problems in Low Sec and more so in Nullsec that lead approximately 80% of EVE players to prefer Hi Sec.


When I read Malcanis' Manifesto, I do get the genuine sense that he is trying to think of ways to deepen and expand the gameplay options available to high sec players. If what Yuki says is correct, and 80% of players prefer to live there, than like Malcanis says, its time for more thought and effort to be placed into the mechanics of what it means to live and work in highsec. Highsec really SHOULD be about much more than simply a place to shoot spaceships or rocks with spaceships while concord watches your back from the "awful wicked nullsec PvPers looking to shove their playstyle down the throats of the innocent"

Yuki and Malcanis are both correct. Far too many players live in high sec because lowsec and nullsec have some core mechanical issues that lead people to live in highsec instead. But to act as though those folks are somehow trespassing on a sanctuary and should have no say in how highsec operates is counterproductive. Many of us like Malcanis have characters in all three security zones, and utilize the unique resources and gameplay options available in all three zones to our advantage and entertainment.

There are many players who think that "casual" gameplay should mean "PvP free" gameplay, and this often overlaps with those that are the ones that are so risk adverse that they remain in highsec constantly. While I can certainly appreciate the desire for casual gameplay, and I can appreciate those who don't care to PvP, the idea that those goals can only be achieved by living in highsec is itself inherently flawed.

Folks like Fazmarai that are bored with the current set of highsec content and want more missions, more loot, more stuff to buy in the NeX store, and more shiny ships to add to a mothball fleet that never sees real danger, and who oppose any change that might be perceived as increasing PvP in highsec are only doing themselves a disservice with this mentality.

Regardless of how any of us feel that highsec, lowsec, or nullsec should represent various levels of PvP activity, that philosophy has very little bearing on the reality of life in New Eden.

Risk-adverse PvE'ers have found plenty of enjoyment in nullsec as they have in highsec, (This is why we have the term "nullbear" to begin with) - and recent Goon activity and events like Hulkageddon have always reinforced a fundamental element to EvE's game design - risk is EVERYWHERE, no one is safe, and with enough tenacity almost anything is possible in any area of the game.

Lets face it - EvE is not, has never been, and never will be a place where you can log in, do whatever you like, and be absolutely guaranteed you will not be attacked, whether its because you live in a magic bubble zone, or because you've rolled a toon on a server where you must flag yourself for PvP. It's time to lay those expectations and aspirations for a game like EvE to rest once and for all.

For those that enjoy gameplay that leans in that direction, there are plenty of options in all three areas of space. What they require is some basic PvP knowledge (defensive scanning, threat assessment, ship fitting advice, travel tips, hauling tips) that is used not to attack others, but to defend ones self from attacks and enable them to enjoy the full range of activities EvE has to offer.

It pains me to see folks complain that there isn't casual content, and isn't more PvE content, when its all there for the taking and can be done more or less PvP-free if one is willing to become a student of those who have survived beyond the boundaries of the Empires and lived to tell the tale. Many players frozen in fear in highsec have no idea what they're missing out on because they're unwilling to learn how to fully play the game, and place themselves in even more danger as a result.

Trying to shape all of highsec around a mythical ideal that doesnt match reality is as much an effort at forcing a gameplay style on the masses as individuals are accusing Malcanis of here.

Just my .02 isk, take it or leave it.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Yuki 0nna
The White Rose Conventicle
#183 - 2012-01-07 00:07:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Yuki 0nna
Malcanis wrote:
I prefer to discuss the manifesto with literate people.

Coward, for all to see.

You mean you have no direct answer you care to give, as it would expose your basic premises and objectives.

It is simple point:

Your grand plan, specific details aside, comes down to devising ways to make Hi Sec less profitable and more dangerous in order to drive players into underpopulated Low Sec and Nullsec, regions that are, objectively speaking, less popular with 80% of EVE players.

Your reluctance to engage on that direct issue is an understandable reluctance to let that vast majority of your fellow players understand your agenda in those stark terms.

You are convinced you know better than they how EVE ought to be played, and that the mechanics of the game ought be restructured to penalize them -- one way or another -- into playing your way.
Yuki 0nna
The White Rose Conventicle
#184 - 2012-01-07 00:27:51 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Just my .02 isk, take it or leave it.


Appreciate your points. Well made. I wish I were always as temperate in my remarks!

Though I started commenting in this thread with a rather whimsically declared wariness of all schemes to "fix" Hi Sec, it would be foolish to argue seriously that Hi Sec cannot be improved for all, for the more permanent residents and those that come and go.

And as others have remarked at various points, there really is no hard division between High Sec, Low Sec, and Nullsec players, even without taking alts into account.

But Malcanis's "Manifesto" is no such plan to improve Hi Sec, though I find the transferable bounty idea intriguing. It is in sum, as I have argued, a plan to drive players out of Hi Sec by heating up the pan.

He puts it soothingly at various points, as if he envisioned Hi Sec as some kind of gradual therapy or Re-Education Camp to lead reluctant players, not just new players, slowly through stages of dabbling to the fullness of what he calls the "PvP lifestyle."

But if looked at raw, at the mechanics he proposes, there is nothing gentle about his scheme, nor the helpful suggestions others who share his basic view have chimed in, to make Hi Sec living, less profitable, more dangerous, and generally untenable as a long term playing option.


Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#185 - 2012-01-07 00:34:46 UTC
Yuki 0nna wrote:

Your reluctance to engage on that direct issue is an understandable reluctance to let that vast majority of your fellow players understand your agenda in those stark terms.

You are convinced you know better than they how EVE ought to be played, and that the mechanics of the game ought be restructured to penalize them -- one way or another -- into playing your way.



I have no problem engaging this issue directly, if you want to put it that way.

This isn't about how EvE ought to be played, its about how EvE is and always has been played.

There are a couple of key facts here that need to be restated:

1) There is only one server on EvE, and its a PvP server. You flag yourself as eligible for ganks the minute you create an avatar and hop in your first spaceship. CCP, by design, only penalizes such ganks, it does not and will not prevent them.

2) The set of tools and piloting tips that enable a player to safely mission, manufacture, explore, and do other tasks while minimizing player attacks is the exact same toolset for highsec as it is for lowsec and nullsec. Some may choose not to learn basic PvP self-defense, and survive for quite some time without them by living in highsec by staying lucky, but they limit themselves from the very activities they enjoy in the long run if one is unwilling to learn how to survive in a hostile game environment like EvE.

I absolutely agree that people should be able to play how they want, where they want. But if "playing how they want" means "playing with immunity to danger" , EvE just isn't an appropriate game choice.

The fact that there are those that crave more PvE, missions, rewards, loots, etc than they currently have in highsec, but are unwilling to learn how to engage in those activities outside of highsec, is precisely why Malcanis is suggesting we start nudging them outside of highsec sooner than later. It is for their own enjoyment in the long run to have a greater degree of space and activity available to them.

Highsec today is only a psychological safety blanket , not armor that protects the weak or conflict-adverse player groups. If someone wants more rewards, more variety, more PvE, more resources, and to do them with a minimum of PvP intervention it is to their advantage to shed the tin foil protection living in high sec provides and inform themselves as to how to live and function anywhere in EvE.

Only then will true "freedom of choice" be available to players that seek to play "how they want". If you want to "play how you want" the best thing someone can do is become more aware of PvP risks, familiarize yourself with self-defense, and become comfortable living and working in any area of space. Asking others to simply leave you alone will never be an effective or appropriate strategy for meeting those gameplay goals.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Yuki 0nna
The White Rose Conventicle
#186 - 2012-01-07 00:59:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Yuki 0nna
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Yuki 0nna wrote:

Your reluctance to engage on that direct issue is an understandable reluctance to let that vast majority of your fellow players understand your agenda in those stark terms.

You are convinced you know better than they how EVE ought to be played, and that the mechanics of the game ought be restructured to penalize them -- one way or another -- into playing your way.


I have no problem engaging this issue directly, if you want to put it that way.

This isn't about how EvE ought to be played, its about how EvE is and always has been played.
....

I absolutely agree that people should be able to play how they want, where they want. But if "playing how they want" means "playing with immunity to danger" , EvE just isn't an appropriate game choice.
....

Highsec today is only a psychological safety blanket , not armor that protects the weak or conflict-adverse player groups.

....

If you want to "play how you want" the best thing someone can do is become more aware of PvP risks, familiarize yourself with self-defense, and become comfortable living and working in any area of space. Asking others to simply leave you alone will never be an effective or appropriate strategy for meeting those gameplay goals.


Good. This way we make real progress, when people are frank about what they see and what they desire.

As it happens, I agree with you entirely.

Except that you seem oddly haunted, as a great many EVE players are, by this great bugaboo that there are "foreign" elements lurking out there -- the dreaded carebears -- who want to turn EVE into a safe PvE universe.

Where in EVE is it safe? Tutorial instances. That's about it.

Everywhere else there is danger. Everyone knows that. And if they don't, they find out right quick. Everyone who ponys up for the game basically understands that and, further, that it is an outlaw world where crime is praised and lying, cheating, stealing, backstabbing and double/triple-crossing are often the most celebrated order of the day.

There aren't any real "carebears" here.

I've been in and out of EVE since 2005, 2007 with my surviving set of characters, and I have not met a single player who fits the caricature of a "carebear" trying to turn EVE upside down into something it is not and that I would be the first person to protest.

So let's lay to rest the paranoid fear that EVE could ever be made someplace pleasant, and talk instead about accommodating the maximum diversity of playing styles and niche livings that this single shard virtual universe can offer.
Yuki 0nna
The White Rose Conventicle
#187 - 2012-01-07 01:24:16 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

This isn't about how EvE ought to be played, its about how EvE is and always has been played.

Just wanted to point out, lest anyone forget, that EVE has also always been played as a mining, manufacturing, marketing, exploration and game of political intrigue, not just a space cowboy PvP shoot-em-up.

Its lasting strength has been bringing all those elements and player interests together, often uneasily, but never one or two to the exclusion of the others.

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#188 - 2012-01-07 03:00:24 UTC
Yuki 0nna wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

This isn't about how EvE ought to be played, its about how EvE is and always has been played.

Just wanted to point out, lest anyone forget, that EVE has also always been played as a mining, manufacturing, marketing, exploration and game of political intrigue, not just a space cowboy PvP shoot-em-up.

Its lasting strength has been bringing all those elements and player interests together, often uneasily, but never one or two to the exclusion of the others.




I agree. Did I miss the part where Malcanis suggested the entire game become a combat arena?

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Yuki 0nna
The White Rose Conventicle
#189 - 2012-01-07 03:56:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Yuki 0nna
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

I agree. Did I miss the part where Malcanis suggested the entire game become a combat arena?

Just to be provocative, I'll say, Yes, you did.

Throughout if you're reading closely, but here's a gem:

Malcanis wrote:

Personally I think all Empire systems should be "FW" systems, and sustained victories by one faction should be able to change system sovereignty by gradually lowering the sec of a system all the way to 0.1

His agenda is just not helpful.

It garners a lot of applause from the Nullsec/Lowsec and Hi Sec ganker crowd that are most active in this forum, but we're still talking 80% of EVE players -- the real player base -- who, though they may not be here, simply do not want to AND won't play, in any way, shape or form, in a 0.1 or Nullsec environment.

If we're here discussing player ideas for improvements to EVE, we simply can't ignore that 80% or pretend we can gradually re-educate or convert them to whatever are our personal preferences.

My personal preferences may be different than yours, but that's entirely beside the point.

Improvements to EVE, to be considered such, must not only make it "better" for you and me, but must make it more financially sustainable and expandable for CCP.

And let us not be mistaken, Incarna was a disaster - not the "Jita riots" and hissy-fit unsubs -- but that "walking in stations" could not be delivered. And the "Apology" and retreat to "spaceship, spaceship, spaceship" pandering is potentially a worse disaster.

None of this is going to expand the player base, or stabilize CCP in the corporate gaming world. Had "walking in stations" been delivered, SWTOR could have been crippled in its crib by this little quirky, niche, dreamy company out of Iceland. Instead, too much now rides on DUST514.

Those of us who have been here a long time, we, with some justice, think of this as our game, our virtual universe -- and beating back the P2W threat of micro-transactions is a heady victory -- but let us keep our heads and look around. It takes a diverse and expanding player base to sustain this magical reality.

Let none of us seek victories in battle, to shape EVE after our personal preferences, that will lose us the war.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#190 - 2012-01-07 05:10:02 UTC
Yuki 0nna wrote:

I've been in and out of EVE since 2005, 2007 with my surviving set of characters, and I have not met a single player who fits the caricature of a "carebear" trying to turn EVE upside down into something it is not and that I would be the first person to protest.

So let's lay to rest the paranoid fear that EVE could ever be made someplace pleasant, and talk instead about accommodating the maximum diversity of playing styles and niche livings that this single shard virtual universe can offer.


These forums are full of such people, sure most of their ideas get shot down, but they keep coming back for more. There is a desire by some to have PvP in EVE be consensual only. Worst part is such posters try to claim to represent all new players, all High Sec players, and all casual players. They don't.

I don't want to see EVE turned into a massive frag fest like Darkfall turned out to be, but I do want EVE to re-enforce it's Sandbox claim and correctly balance risk with reward. Melcanis's manifesto seems largely in line with that. There should be a place in EVE for various non combat focused character professions / playstyles. However, there should be no room made for those that think they ought to be exempt/immune from the actions of others playing in the sandbox while they themselves dig in the sand. Such players should go back to whatever Themepark MMO they came from, and EVE be grateful for their departure.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#191 - 2012-01-07 10:42:19 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
[(...)

Folks like Fazmarai that are bored with the current set of highsec content and want more missions, more loot, more stuff to buy in the NeX store, and more shiny ships to add to a mothball fleet that never sees real danger, and who oppose any change that might be perceived as increasing PvP in highsec are only doing themselves a disservice with this mentality.(...).


I already suggested a way to implement consensual PvP in hisec under CONCORD protection and reasonably free of mechanics abuse.

Also have suggested that lone miners in their Hulks stop being a bullseye and begin getting ships conceived to deal with New Eden and not granma's backyard.

Also have suggested to take null/low minerals to grav sites so bots are left out of the game for lack of an AI and/or the need to hack the client thus becoming pursuable by CCP's lawyers.

Oh and yes, I suggested more NEx and WiS with features that allowed people to log in and have some fun meeting each other, as many veterans curently do.

What i see as completely wrong is to log in to have fun and instead be fukked by some bored bullies whose only way to have fun is to grief people from behind the anonimity and impunity of EVE's rules.

This game seriously lacks risk for people whose only aim is to spoil someone else's fun. Kill your corp buddies, steal from them, dismantle your corporation and leave your corpies stranded in enemy ground and all their assets lost or robbed... it's bloody free. Haves no consequences, zero risk.

So don't come here with that "risk" bullcrap. The most dangerous thing you can be in EVE is a lone casual hiseccer as then eveything is set to spoil your fun and being unable to pay back. This is a game where you can be stolen of 2,500 dollars and nothing happens and nothing can be done about it.

So get all your "there should be more risk for hiseccers" moralization and go preach it to someone buying that EVE is really about risk vs reward and not about risk-free griefing.

I don't buy it. This game is about freely griefing those who sport certain playstyles and so i don't want more free unconsequential griefing for risk-averse bullies.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#192 - 2012-01-07 11:38:05 UTC
ITT: People who quote mine complex proposals for short fragmants in order to suit their prejudices.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#193 - 2012-01-07 11:38:47 UTC
I guess it's like a law of forums that any thread can only be good for a maximum of 8 pages or something.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#194 - 2012-01-07 11:49:02 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


The fact that there are those that crave more PvE, missions, rewards, loots, etc than they currently have in highsec, but are unwilling to learn how to engage in those activities outside of highsec, is precisely why Malcanis is suggesting we start nudging them outside of highsec sooner than later. It is for their own enjoyment in the long run to have a greater degree of space and activity available to them.


I think you may have misread one of the fundamental tenets of the manifesto. It's not about "nudging" anyone anywhere to get access to hi risk:reward activities. In fact it's I'm suggesting that we bring those activities into hi-sec so that people don't have to leave hi-sec. But you can't have all candy and no brocolli for dinner. Risk needs to balance reward, but it's just that I think people should have a chance to taste the candy without having to give up their job, sell their house and buy a brocolli farm.

Overblown rhetoric and dishonest quote-mining about ideas about a gradual sec change in a very few systems which as many players would have every incentive to contest as would have to enact, and which would be wholly reversable, don't change that fact. Large scale conflict is currently an experience not available in hi-sec, and the faction warfare mechanism I mentioned is one way that it would be. To get a large number of players involved in an event, you need to make the stakes worthwhile.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Jonathan Malcom
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#195 - 2012-01-07 22:48:16 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
DireNecessity wrote:
Excellent stuff


Honestly I wasn't thinking of anything more than the fun of racing to complete a mission before the "bad guys" can notice me, probe me and catch me. I've long said that PvE in EVE needs a radical reform to become more 'PvP-like' (fewer, smarter rats, realistic tactics that require points, webs, ECM, etc rather than simply MOAR DEEPEES etc etc).

But that's for another Manifesto...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Incursion rats treat the original PvEers and any interloping PvPers a lot more equally?


Not that I'm trying to steal your thunder or anything, but I need to get this out.

Wall of Text Incoming:
 
This actually corresponds with an idea I’ve been rolling around in my head for about a year now.
 
One of the most significant divisions separating the  population of Eve is the huge disparity between PvP and PvE. The combat system in Eve has potential for brilliance. This truth is most apparent during small PvP encounters (less than 10 ships on each side). Unfortunately, the PvE  completely ditches all of the dynamics that make PvP interesting in favor of a bland, uneventful grind.
 
I think it would be amazing for the game on pretty much every level if PvE fell much more in-line with PvP. Rather than having (for instance) a room with 15 battleships floating about in a docile fashion, each dispensing token damage as they wait for your guns to pop them into clouds of ISK, have one or two battleships, worth an equivalent sum,  equipped and piloted like players.
 
The AI already exists for this sort of thing, as evidenced by Sleepers and Incursions. Instead of having generic rat-ships, have them pilot actual ships (by which I mean, rather than fighting a Guristas Defender or whatever, you would fight a Megathron battleship that is piloted by a Guristas Defender) with actual fits. Have rats that are buffer tanked (fit damage mods), active tanked (fit a neut), speed tanked (fit a web), rats that neut (fit a cap booster); make use of the entire spectrum of PvP fits. And the most important part, rats that try to warp out if they take too much damage (FIT A POINT). And you wouldn’t know exactly what you’ll be up against. Sure, if you’re running a mission against a group of Guristas pirates, you’ll know they’ll be using Gallente ships and dealing primarily thermal and kinetic damage, but the ship types and fits should be randomized within certain parameters.
 
This would encourage several things. The first and foremost is that successful PvE fits would be nearly identical to successful PvP fits. You’ve essentially bridged that divide.  I think people would be far more inclined to run missions in a dangerous area (say low-sec or even NPC null) if they were in a ship that was fit for PvP combat. I imagine it would also inspire more courage to know that the NPCs that are attacking you could easily switch targets to any potential aggressor.
 
In addition, this change would give people an experience that, while not perfectly identical, at least roughly approximates PvP combat. This would make the transition from PvE to PvP much smoother, and might give people confidence to engage in PvP where previously they had no desire to do so
 
It would also greatly improve the PvE aspect of the game. PvE would be fun. Of course, the effectiveness of NPC ships would vary with the context in which they are encountered (by which I mean that level 1 mission NPCs would be roughly analogous to a T1 fitted frigate with minimal combat skills and no fancy tricks, whereas level 4 mission NPCs would be T2 fitted HACs and Battleships that run the gamut of fits).
It would also discourage people from getting so attached to their ships. In a PvE environment like this, you’re going to lose ships, just like PvP. Not as frequently, perhaps, but it’s not going to be the sleep-walk that it currently is today.
 
TL:DR – Make fighting NPCs just like fighting players. Much fewer, more dangerous rats worth a lot more a piece. This would be good for everything ever.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#196 - 2012-01-08 01:00:15 UTC
EvE's PvE is disappointing to say the least. The plain fact is that CCP just don't do gameplay very well. Pretty much everything that's wortwhile in EVE is due to CC giving players tools to interact with each other ine way or another. Sleepers are a good start, but they're still rather stupid and unreactive compared to NPCs in other games.

That said, I agree wholly with what you say. If EVE's PvE was actually fun in and of itself, and challenging in a PvP-like way, then great swathes of the game would be revolutionised for the better.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#197 - 2012-01-08 01:05:53 UTC
Yuki 0nna wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
I prefer to discuss the manifesto with literate people.

Coward, for all to see.

You mean you have no direct answer you care to give, as it would expose your basic premises and objectives.


What's the point in trying to discuss economics with someone who won't concede that halving player A's cost-to-build gives the same competitive advantage as doubling B's cost to build?

What's the point in trying to discuss my "premises and objectives" with someone who has decided what they are in advance and uses cheap tricks like quote-mining and outright lying to support their twisted premises?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Jonathan Malcom
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#198 - 2012-01-08 01:27:24 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
EvE's PvE is disappointing to say the least. The plain fact is that CCP just don't do gameplay very well. Pretty much everything that's wortwhile in EVE is due to CC giving players tools to interact with each other ine way or another. Sleepers are a good start, but they're still rather stupid and unreactive compared to NPCs in other games.

That said, I agree wholly with what you say. If EVE's PvE was actually fun in and of itself, and challenging in a PvP-like way, then great swathes of the game would be revolutionised for the better.


Well, hurry and post your manifesto so that I can voice my support. In my opinion, aside from the terrible, immersion-breaking, window-laden, squinty UI, this is the single biggest problem affecting the game as a whole.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#199 - 2012-01-08 01:35:42 UTC
It's posted. It's not about making specific game proposals to buff this ship stat or nerf that module, it's about a change in the way we view hi-sec.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Yuki 0nna
The White Rose Conventicle
#200 - 2012-01-08 03:10:06 UTC
Jonathan Malcom wrote:
Well, hurry and post your manifesto so that I can voice my support.
You might well have missed it. It's kinda buried in those two entries at the top. Well, top of the first but mostly in the second, as the first page is largely devoted to speculating on the reasons something like 80% of EVE players stubbornly prefer Hi Sec. So that, having been "considered and taken into account," their reasons can be all the more thoroughly discounted and ignored thereafter, as Malcanis goes on to propose penalizing Hi Sec production and, by various means, making over swaths of Hi Sec to be more dangerous, more like Low Sec. All to the end of inducing more players "to slowly and gently dabble in the life of the PvP-aware, high risk:high reward lifestyle."

Sorry, now this is unfair "quote mining" unlike every other quote Malcanis whines about being unfair. But when I first read that line -- "to slowly and gently dabble in the life of the PvP-aware, high risk:high reward lifestyle" -- I nearly choked on my coffee. Couldn't help but think of that Ricky Gervais fat joke: "For being gay to be the same as being fat, you'd have to be born, be straight, grow up knowing you're straight, but gradually and consciously wean yourself onto ****.... Go on, have a go. You might like it." http://bit.ly/xOTXXF Malcanis' plan for Hi Sec player lifestyle change in a nutshell. Sorry for being unfair this time, but once you arrogantly set yourself up to prescribe proper "lifestyle" behavior for other people, in life or in games, you're laying yourself open for all sorts of well-deserved abuse.