“Expecting is not consenting” is also just playing with words. You’re pretending EVE really is “Farmville in Space” /lol.
EVE’s professional transporters are frequently used as examples of players who, knowing they are a valid target (much more loot that cost of a successful kill) carefully prepare for attacks. And factor the cost of defense into their fees.
I chose them because I think they’re an example of a class of player that no EVE player (not even a 100% PvE player) would suggest should be immune to PvP.
If your concern about highSec PvP is the value of the destruction, you’re actually in the same situation as Farmer Jonas: you have no reason not to allow highSec pilots in cheap ships the ability to “turn off” PvP.
With respect, if you don’t have a rough idea which systems are highSec, if you weren’t willing to look up the MER yourself (or didn’t even know about it), and if you need other people to do your homework and your numbers for you, then your input in this conversation loses a lot of value.
It starts to sound like “this is my knee-jerk reaction to the idea, off the top of my head, without any supporting data or even broad understanding of the game”.
@Ghost_O_Mo - I do actually agree with you, but at the same time why should I consider that because no one care if I do that activity that it makes it meaningless, it only makes it meangingless to them, not to me.
Dont get me wrong part of me wants to be safe as houses whether I am and part of me wants that rush of excitment too, the 2nd one would make for more interesting, edge of your seat gameplay, but how can it be achieved?
But lets put the question out there, lets say I had the ability to give you control over EvE and it mechanics and what it gives the player. how would YOU change it. There is no right or wrong answer here, I know eve is famed for its community that likes to slag everyone else off (no wonder nothing moves anywhere) but I am gneuinly intersted, what is your vision to make it meangingful, not just for you, but for everyone.
I’d eliminate social corps, or put a cap on how much wealth they can have/ make (to let noobs get started).
I’d introduce 2 tiers of wardecs.
Tier 1: Costs 2 mil for a wardec. You get 1 per month, it lasts a week, and you cannot fly anything better than t1 hulls. Maximum aggressor Corp size of 5 guys. No need for a structure (they wouldn’t be able to defend a structure anyways).
This will downsize and downgun pirates to be beatable.
Tier 2: costs 100 mil. Same restrictions as always. War HQ in effect.
Then I’d make mining 80% less afk by downsizing hulls. This makes people work together to haul and use jetcans. I’d introduce a lower tier of crimewatch for small thefts… which allows the corporation offended to engage without allowing everyone to engage. This will get noobs stealing each other’s stuff and fighting about it.
I’d re-look every pve activity to see if I can figure out a way to make it more profitable if you open yourself up for criminals to hurt you or less profitable if you don’t. That allows the opt out… but incents people to take the risk and mitigate it tactically. Which makes people accept risk, and watch d-scan, work as a team, etc…
I’d give them the option of fighting the criminal in all cases where they are injured.
Oh, and I’d push T3, pirate faction, and triglavian hulls out of highsec.
Whether I perceive meaning is not up to you so much as it is up to me. Your original post seems to suggest to me that we all take responsibilty for playing “in the moment” or not. After all, you may do something amazing and meaningful by some reasonable objective measurement, but in my subjective measurement, I may simply shrug it off. “meh” Would it be you or me who failed? Who would you address a remedy to?
It seems Ghost’s OP is about ultimately trying to change the direction of the game development. If a scope of what “meaningful” includes could be agreed in the community, then development could be changed to focus on that.
However, that wouldn’t change any individual’s right to see meanining in other things, or not to see meaning in what the definition limits itself to. Everyone would still have a right to see meaning elsewhere.
The problem that is going to be faced by this thread, is the same problem that CCP has faced, and that is there is no consensus in the community. We are too diverse and our play is too diverse. So the best place to find out what collectively we prefer, is to analyse the large amount of data CCP collect, because despite what we say, what we actually do provides the truth of things.
It’s possible we all do. Wouldn’t non-gamers wonder what all the fuss was about if your titan got exploded? Wouldn’t they say you were reading meaning into something meaningless?
What you are proposing, without realizing it, is for the community to define some universal reality within the game. Well, that is as fraught with self-contradiction and ambiguity as doing so in the real world. Whenever we take one step forward or one step back, we see the circumstance at a different resolution and it may not have the same significance as it did in our previous perspective. And we can take infinite steps forward or backward.
I appreciate what you are suggesting, but I’m just trying to point out that you are opening up a bigger can of worms than you realize.
We don’t prefer anything collectively. I am not a collective. You are not a collective. We are individuals. You have already begun bending reality before even looking at “what we actually do”. “We” are an abstraction that you are using to approximate a description of reality. So, either the interpretation of what is “meaningful” will have to be be a best-fit approximation in which case, you’re doing this → “best”, or it i will have to have all sorts of facets and caveats and robust flexibility that will probably make it too complicated to be useful.
Your point is valid. +1 for a well written and cogent response.
But the commonality of playing Eve also makes plausible that my point is valid… or correct.
In fact, I’d argue that the idea of developing the game in the absence of this definition makes direction difficult and creates a very confused consumerbase… which is where we are.
To create a consumed prosuct with a clear direction also allows us to be aggregated as a collective… something that can be assumed when the product has clear direction. Sort of an economic application of a survibor’s bias.
I’d compare PvP where both players don’t really care to “small talk”. I think that’s what we get in low sec, for instance…
I’d compare to interaction of struggling and fighting and negotiating to keep assets you don’t want to lose to a real interaction loaded with interest and effort with an engaged conversationalist.
For me, I prefer the deeper interaction where both sides care.
My post was an effort to seek a common ground in what type of interaction makes MMO’s worth the effort… and for me it’s that deeper interaction where we affect each other.
It’s posted on the forums to see if I can affect others with that idea.
