You are correct in your thinking. R-0-B-0-C-O-P complains that nobody turns up to defend against Pirat. There’s a reason for this. Pirat will always bring overwhelming numbers, force and remote reps. Most players they attack stand little to no chance to even kill one of their ships.
So why bother to defend at all? This exactly what happens, people won’t turn up to defend because it is a pointless and one sided fight.
So what? If you don’t have the strength, through numbers or diplomacy, to retain your stuff, you lose it. That’s integral to the game.
He wants to give groups such as his the tools to claim ownership of hisec and then what happened in null can happen to hisec too. At which point this game will well and truly be done.
That’s also not even close to what he wrote.
So what? He complains that nobody will defend their structures against them. That is their own fault.
So when he complains that people don’t defend means the structure are too cheap, it’s BS. They don’t defend, because defending implies you are losing more.
Context. you should learn how it works.
He wants a hard limit on how many structures can be placed in an area. So yes, it is.
Since there’s now Asset Safety, what exactly is being lost anyway?
Whatever you were doing on that structure. If you were building lots of stuff, you lose the materials, and the isk to start the job(happened ot me once, lost like 10b because I could not connect in time to deliver the jobs so I had to cancel them all)
plus the installation cost, that is : time, some 600M IIRC (yeah the structures on the market are overpriced - that’s why I sold some).
He’s not asking for less ability to defend. He wants to see more conflict, more reasons to fight and a highsec where anyone can build a world they want, in a landscape of conflict and competition.
He’s not saying he’s happy with people not turning up to defend, just that the situation has developed as a natural response to the ham fisted changes CCP have made.
I think perhaps your bias against PIRAT in particular is clouding what you are reading in his words.
Which is 100% BS.
PIRAT and co literally made it this way. Their goal was always to have overwhelming power over their target, and now they claim BS like “it’s not our choice, it’s CCP’s”.
But that’s their goal. So yes he is happy about that.
K. I have no idea cos the only one I lost so far was in a WH, so everything went. Never used Asset Safety except to extract contract wins from stations I couldnt dock at
never lost anything to asset safety in a structure either. You can just bring in an alt in a non wardeccable corp and move things away, eg to a station in the same system.
But that’s when you know you’re wardecced, lost a lot of things in public structures (literally hundreds of asset wraps that I deleted)
He wants fights and a landscape of conflict.
To quote from the original developers (actually the original producer of EVE):
…Power to the players. Nothing compares to a player that is enabled to affect the universe. We create tools for players to create content…
Our strong belief in PvP and a single universe is probably the main differentiator between us and other MMOs. We strongly believe that MMOs should focus on social interaction between people, …
We fully understand the reason behind sharding, instancing and the PvE focus. A lot of players want this kind of experience and these tools are far more commercially viable to fully control the experience and content created. We however decided to take the more difficult path and try to take on those obstacles head-on. It certainly has a lot of unpleasant side effects and EVE will never be a mainstream game. We’re complex, we’re open ended, we’re fully PvP oriented and you can lose six months work in a second. But we believe this is what makes EVE so unique and we’re trying to follow this vision and principles as well as we can…
The founders had two passions which they wanted to join,” explained Richardsson. “The sci-fi feel and vastness of space from Elite and the social interaction of massively multiplayer and player vs. player gaming from Ultima Online . I should also add that they were quite active PvPers in UO and this is the main reason for our emphasis on PvP . We feel that the emotions involved with losing something of value is just as important as gaining something of value, it makes a very immersive experience. There have to be lows to make the highs more enjoyable. PvP allows us to achieve that.”
Everything ROBOCOP wrote aligns with what EVE is, and it isn’t about one group controlling everything, it about players competing for what they want in a pvp oriented environment.
Like it or not, that includes highsec.
Oh I have problems with groups in null and the situation there in general, too. As well as other areas that I find particularly poor. But this thread is not about that. It’s about the situation in hisec, with the mega hisec wardec coalition having essentially managed to hang on to what they were doing before, with blanket decs. Many on small corps who have no chance of fighting back. This certainly is not fun for such players and I have no doubt that it causes players to leave the game.
Then maybe EVE isn’t for you. That’s OK. Not all games are for everyone.
That’s great that he wants fights and a landscape of conflict. That sounds like he wants exactly what null is supposed to be, if it wasn’t utterly stagnant and broken.
I suppose his desire to add features that allow for fighting over hisec has nothing to do with the fact that in hisec there is nobody who can oppose them. It’s purely coincidence that his mega hisec wardec alliance would get send packing if they tried this in null.
Fair point
Though I generally only store in NPC for that reason too
What EVE is supposed to be.
All of it.
Again, that is not what he said. Are you daft?