Since you kindly asked for other’s thoughts, and as this is an ongoing discussion point in EVE Online, and has been for some time, I will take you up on your offer:
I disagree, with your assessment, your conclusion, and your proposal.
For these reasons:
Reason One:
Story takes place in 2016. Our hero Scooter McCabe gets hired to redress a wrong done to a lady. In the course of carrying out his commission, he discovers a web of lies and deceits perpetrated against hundreds of new players.
Rather than carry out his commission to the letter he takes a step back, and makes a decision to contact his employers…and the Goon Berrets were born. Hundreds, if not thousands of players, were impacted, all over an insult offered to a lady.
Mr McCabe had high security status, as did our villain. Nothing in your proposal regarding criminals would be applicable to one of the most heinous crimes ever seen in EVE Online.
Reason Two:
The origins of this story go back, for some of the participants, to 2017/2018. The villains employed gankers, and various other tactics to subdue/subborn opposition in their quest for isk domination in their region of highsec. The villainy continued, apparently, until in 2019, a number of groups, acting not in concert, but separately, made a stand against this group’s actions. This stand precipitated the biggest battle ever seen in Highsec. Fought tooth and nail, hundreds of players participated in the overall conflict in an effort to upturn the “might makes right” ethos of the antagonists.
Security status covered the spectrum in this conflict, from high to low.
On both sides.
Reason Three:
Good guy versus Bad guy, a classic tale. But who…is who? The answer to that depends entirely upon where you stood in this conflict.
Religion, sexism, save the newbies, it was all there.
Both sides in the end ganked.
High security status on all sides, and minus 10’s, at least on one side.
The Protected Criminal, at least some of them, took a stand in this story.
Security Status in EVE Online is not a good indicator of maliciousness or morality; it is, rather, a good indicator of how far a player is willing to go, in his actions, in this game.
And now, I come to……
Reason Four:
Right now, @Githany_Red , is standing up and fighting minus 10s. She is writing her story, post by post. She is recruiting and creating content for dozens of players, who participate and or witness her actions.
She and all those others referenced above have become part of EVE Online’s living work of science fiction. They have embedded themselves in the player’s story of EVE.
And I worry that proposals such as yours, however strongly felt, would in the end diminish, or perhaps entirely end this player versus player conflict.
Security Status is an indicator only, not a guarantee of a player’s intent. Players who choose a low security status life in Highsec can be fought, bargained with, change allegiance.
As the voiceover in the EVE Online trailer states……”the empires are losing their grasp.”
Chaos reigns, invaders run roughshod over highsec. Invaders that cannot gainsay their…coding…attack capsuleers every night in highsec. They never miss. They never stop.
They cannot be argued with or bargained with, or banter in local.
And, as Highsec must provide it’s share of “Destruction”, I fear more of….this…is the future your proposal, and proposals like yours would gift every Highsec player. The unstoppable, entirely silent…opposition.
And I would rather face a fallible player, who types in local, than…code.
These are my thoughts and my opinion on your post. If game mechanics in Highsec continue to diminish the attractions of playing as a criminal, in Highsec, the need for Destruction will propel CCP into coding infallible npcs, which will be introduced over time until the npcs entirely replace the diminishing pool of players willing to play as agents for destruction in Highsec.
Thank you for providing me an opportunity to express my views on this matter.
I appreciate it.