Edited by: Swynet on 08/02/2011 09:15:40
Originally by: Serge Bastana
Creating areas of increased safety will just increase the forum posts from people either wanting more and more safety or upset because they got caught outside the safety net, that's if they ever actually go beyond it into what is currently EVE. Some will become accustomed to pretty much zero risk and just as high sec is filling up compared to low and null, so will these havens of safety become full up compared to the rest of high sec.
Somewhere you are right, but I still think that if NPC corp taxes in high sec were higher (under oc extreme security), minerals and bountys/missions rewards were lower the idea of being able to have more must be associated with joining players corps and accept to learn and play pvp. Here we can see risk vs reward take some sens where atm can you seriously tell me where's the risk for the killmails runner in high sec? -none, all gratification.
One of the core tenets of EVE is that your actions have consequences and if people can either stay in these safe pockets or run to them when in danger then that removes some of the underlying premise of the game.
Yet the ganker, the killmails runner has 0 or so small consequences for his choices that nothing encourages thes ones to live in low sec, create alliances and wars creating more pvp, destroying ships.
All this because risk =0 vs reward=100% (OC high sec rats, not real pvp mens
Flagged people shouldn't be abble to run in safety poquets and certainly not when your corp/alliance in under war. I'm pretty sure this is a matter of some code lines.
EVE has been growing steadily for the whole of its time, 8 years now, which says to me that there are plenty of people out there who like and enjoy the game's edginess. Yes, some do feel that they should be safer, but to be honest they are indulged and have a bloated sense of entitlement generally and don't appreciate the game for what it is so wish to change it to suit themselves.
Well I would say it like this, if you don't like pvp then you should be abble to take care of your business without being forced to do it, it's a matter of freedom a matter of choice that has consequences: low profit, low rewards, very expensive to live in.
The pve'r is not a bot or some stupid guy he wants to profit the whole game and he will soon be aware that if he wants those expensive, very expensive faction ships/mods and stuff to make his industry progress then he must learn to pvp and learn to be able to survive in "wild zone" or pvp zone. Doing this he should be aware that no way back is possible for his assets and this choice will have consequences.
Now can you seriously tell me what consequences has the pvp'r taking the bigest profit of the safty argument when he takes 0risk to 100% reward? -he has none, he made a choice knowing he has 0 risk consequence
If we created these havens of total safety we would draw in more of these types of players and increase the forum whines further that the game doesn't suit their pampered play style. As mentioned above and in other posts asking for high sec to be safer, it would have adverse effects on the economy as more players fill up these safe areas and never risk or lose ships. Plus they would become a new target for gankers who would hang around the gates leading out of these areas providing more risk for those attempting to get out into the rest of the game, thus increasing the danger for those huddled up inside and possibly forcing them to become trapped as some players feel they are in high sec when they look at low sec. This mentality is bad enough as is without creating another level to deal with.
Not has I've demonstrated above. Eve is about choices you make and the consequences of your choice, atm security means nothing but be abble to farm your killmails with no risk.
Does this helps low sec being like it is, empty, ore belts with rats in but no miners, no strong tradehub? -yes