Why not CCP just cancel all High Sec area?

Communications Center General Discussion
106

Except you’re incorrect on almost all these points.

High sec isn’t about safe zoning, because stats show it’s far safer in Null Sec than in high, in many cases.

It isn’t about profit farming, because again, stats show the profit is in Null.

High Sec is about “path of least resistance for someone who isn’t all that committed to EVE”. It’s the place you start in, it’s the place you can do most things in, it’s the place you can go unbothered most of the time without needing to take additional steps. It’s not the “unbothered/safety” part that’s most key, it’s the lack of additional steps/precautions/time spent.

“Crying until CCP nerfs the game” is simply ridiculous. The PVPers have cried harder and longer than anyone. What most PvPers have cried forever for is easy targets, easily accessible. They want the exact same thing High Sec ‘safezoners’ want - they want easy and convenient access to the parts of the game they like the most, in high sec, so they don’t need to take too much extra time or effort to get what they want.

The key difference is that for PvPers, they require other players as a consumable. Thus, they have always been against the way PvE players try to avoid interacting with PvP on the PvPers terms.

CCP isn’t reacting to anybody’s crying, they’re barely in touch with their own player base. CCP is only reacting to their need for more subs and income, since they keep throwing it all away on failed side projects.

CCP is reacting to the well-known fact that in any game featuring asymmetrical PvP in a combined PvP/PVE MMO, the PVE population is going to be double or triple the PvP population. They’re reacting to new player retention statistics and lifetime account expenditures, not to the whining on the forums which they don’t even read.

The simple facts are: there is more PvE than PvP in EVE. PvE drives more subs and gets more active accounts. Nothing CCP or other players can do will ever make core-PvE players into PvP players. It’s not simply a question of “forcing them out of high sec” or making high sec more PvP-friendly. It’s been demonstrated again and again that will simply cause PvE players to abandon playing.

The only way CCP will increase PvP participation is to make it more interesting, more available, less ‘expensive’ and time-intensive, and less one-sided.

To re-phrase your conclusion: “Eve is a business and a human environment that needs to support both a thriving PvE and an active PvP population to survive. Accept the consequences that PvE is as or more integral to EVE than PVP is or stfu.”

26 Likes
107

Isn’t the variety of HS, LS, and NS part of the reasons this game is great? All complaints aside people can pretty much play however they want.

Someone wants to spend their entire EVE life in HS? Let them - who cares to be honest… Someone wants to live in NS? Who cares? Let them - that’s what this game is about right? Choosing what you want to do and doing it… Consequences to those choices have weight…

Nullsec corp? Have fun trying to get in and out of HS! Cost and benefits - wanting to get rid of an entire side of EVE for whatever personal reasons (more people to prey on, without CONCORD blapping your ship) is a little short sighted.

IMHO

PS - I live in null - doesnt bother me that a ton of people stay in HS and never leave. Why would, or should it?

11 Likes
108

Damn fine post.
Alas, I fear it falls on deaf ears.

3 Likes
109

That is the reality of the matter, however, that reality is obscured by lack of knowledge. Stats might show that null-sec is much safer and more profitable, but to these people that does not matter, because all they’re seeing is high-sec and low-sec and null-sec. To them, it absolutely is about safe-zoning, because they very consciously and intently choose the high security space based on the (perceived) definition built into the descriptor.

Everything else you wrote is technically correct, but you’re ignoring one extremely important aspect of this perpetual forum battle, and that is that the PvE population is crying for the game to be changed in their favor via nerfs to PvP, while the PvP population is crying for the game to remain in its original state, or at least to not keep moving further away from its current state. The two are not the same.

2 Likes
110

Many high sec players hate trolls who continually dream up idiotic game changes intended to force people into areas where they can be more easily ganked by these RISK AVERSE people who delude themselves by thinking they must be some sort of digital pirate.

The most common of this endless font of bovine scatology is to “shut down high sec.” Thanks for your contribution to this effusion of bandwidth wasting bilge. Most of us, after reading these (to be polite members of the EVE community) are left longing for the days when there were intelligent posts in General Discussion

8 Likes
111

Apotheosis
Apotheosis1506×958 1.06 MB

I believe Genghis Khan used the same argument

112

the worst side effect of niarjas fall is the amount o salt , tears , WOTs and not fun content generated in the aftermath
i think is time to stop
comment_1593632073gK7CxLc4oAvgjPsDN5M6Y2,w400

1 Like
113

You paint PvE players with too broad a brush.

The vast majority don’t want to shut down PvP in high sec, they just want:

  1. Not to have to be forced into direct PvP activites. They fully understand that all EVE activities contain the risk of PvP, they just want to have the opportunity to minimize that risk by proper planning and still do that activity, not be forced to always have to directly do PvP to accomplish their goals.
  2. Keep having CCP create new content that requires direct PvP or, worse, group PvP to obtain.

We all ignore the people saying there should be no PvP; EVE is what it is because of the risk. What we object to is the constant attempt by CCP and the PvPers to cram group activities, active participation in direct PvP, the removal of both old and new content for players who are solo or in small corps, and the constant whining by those who demand that we play with them. Yes, we interact with them , both indirectly and directly, but there should be more options not less when it comes to choosing the method of that interaction.

Anyone stomping their feet on the ground because someone else is playing a game differently than them deserves little respect. Play the game you want to, enjoy what you want to do. Quit the ongoing process of trying to hammer square pegs into round holes. EVE IS supposed to be a sandbox, for God’s sake. Quite trying to turn it into mandated calisthenics where you are both forced to do it and also like it.

5 Likes
114

No.

The vast majority of PvE people plays this game exactly because they can get blown up at any time. You can spot those when they talk about getting blown up and not being mad about it, because it’s the ■■■■■■■ game. They’re the silent majority. The opposite is those who you are talking about. A loud, crying minority.

Think about it. Why would any sane person wish to play this game, when this sane person knows exactly what’s going to happen? No one would. There’s us, who like it how it is, and there’s the narcisstic assholes who think high of themselves, demanding the game is being changed for them.

The existence of the triglavians themselves further underlines that you’re wrong on this. We would have experienced a massive exodus by now (or, well, at latest when Narnia fell : - ), but that exodus is not ■■■■■■■ happening.

Why is it not happening?

Because no sane person ■■■■■■■ plays this game without willingly putting themselves at in-game risk! You don’t walk through the Bronx with in a shiny suit, wearing a golden rolex exactly because you know you’ll get robbed. You’d need to want to potentially get robbed to do that. Seeking thrill and uncertainty.

You don’t get that anywhere else!

I felt that this was very important to point out.

Sorry.

5 Likes
115

But you can’t have one without the other. “Not being forced into PvP” is just the diplomatic way of saying “not being obligated to lose assets to PvP” in some form or another. The aversion to loss is the primary driver for anti-PvP rhetoric. It’s not just that some players don’t want to harm anyone; I can guarantee that if I parked my naked pod in front of one of the big-shot carebears I argue with on these forums all the time, and then went suspect or whatever, they would take the shot. In so many of the wars I’ve conducted, that’s always been the case. In fact, that’s how I got the majority of my kills - by creating the illusion that I was at a massive disadvantage. You will not believe how quickly PvE players that just minutes earlier were talking smack and insulting me for being a “griefer” or whatever from within the confines of their station would suddenly engage, and then quickly start throwing smack talk in local as they thought they were winning, before I reversed the situation according to my plans.

Your logic sounds nice in theory, but doesn’t work in practice, because not wanting to be forced into PvP activities necessarily entails not being susceptible to PvP. The argument that high-sec PvP is fine, you just shouldn’t be forced to engage in it falls apart when you realize that given the option to avoid being forced to engage in it, every single player would choose it, and high-sec PvP would cease to exist by effect.

No one wants to be prey, trust me, I get it (my biggest suicide-gank loss was worth more than most people accumulate in their entire EVE lifetimes), but someone has to be prey, or the entire system falls apart. You can’t just say “let the PvEers PvE, and the PvPers PvP.” The latter need an income stream, too.

Every EVE player has the obligation to contribute to the stability of the EVE universe and its economy by willingly exposing themselves to loss in some capacity.

2 Likes
116

I suspect I’ll get some stick and possibly abuse from certain evil aggressive types, but for what it’s worth, her’s my view.

I’m a mostly high sec player.

When I was a rookie pilot a few years ago, I flew right out to the rim, just to have a look.

Along the way, as I moved through low security and null-sec space, I came across a fair number of systems that were utterly empty, some that were full of non-chatting people, and some, where people were swearing at each other and being fairly vulgar and obscene (which is not really my thing at all). In the end, I ended up right on the rim and in a -1.0 system

Because I was a newbie, I probably made a fairly naïve and/or dumb mistake when I tried to dock in a player-owned structure, couldn’t and then got attacked by a couple of pilots who were in the system. I tried to talk to them, but they ignored me and just kept plugging away until the finally podded me.

All in, it was pretty dull, especially the empty systems.*

For the record, when I’m in high sec, aside of chatting to people, I tend to do missioning and PvE stuff (if I want to be a bit more full-on and energetic) and I also do industrial stuff, PI, manufacturing and quite a bit of mining.

Now I’m sure there are those reading this who are now are growling, “■■■■■■■ carebear” and to be fair, this might and possibly is justified, but y’know, I’m okay with it.

Here’s the thing:

  1. A game full of aggressors with no high-security space would, almost inevitably, end up becoming very macho, male-dominated, and frankly pretty boring. The thing that makes Eve ‘work’ (for me at least) is the subtleties and the nuance. Get rid of this and you’re going to lose significant numbers of players from the game who don’t necessarily get all their enjoyment from the one-dimensional thrill being the most evil killer out there.
    There is a faint sense of the circle of life here - If in Africa, lions killed off all the herbivores on the plains then they would die out very shortly afterwards due to starvation - While Eve needs aggressors it also needs non-aggressors to be sustainable and the same applies to the different types of space environment.

  2. Given that mining underwrites every single activity in Eve (by virtue of the fact that you need ore to make ships, guns, lasers, rigs, stations, etc, etc) the game needs a proportion of people who are willing to consistently mine in order to harvest enough ore in order to make all of the stuff that people want to utilise (including, somewhat ironically, the ships that gankers will use to blow up miners).

  3. The game is big enough, and sophisticated enough to allow for the co-existence of the three-way mixed environment that we currently have (eg,: high security, low security and null-sec space) without one kind of environment degrading another. It’s not a case of one size fits all, or of one type of space being better than another - they’re all part of an ecosystem that needs all of its constituent parts to be viable and interesting and sustainable.

  4. Personally I find mining, mostly, fairly relaxing and slightly meditative. Given the amount of stress in my real life, it’s quite good to do something that’s not frenetic and madly busy. It might be boring if all you did was mine, but mining allows me, for example, to chat to and help people on B4R (I have counselling experience in RL) which I find really rewarding. If I’m doing something more full-on like PvE, I haven’t got the headspace to be able to check on others to see how they’re doing in real life. And I think if B4R didn’t exist Eve would be much poorer.

I strongly believe that one of the main reasons people play MMORPGs is to reach out and connect with others in a world where we are frequently isolated from each other by the economics of geography, work/life pressures, politics and increasingly, things like Coronavirus.

Online games allow people to connect to others on a fundamental level in an environment that matches their personal interests (for example, science fiction space ship fans in the case of Eve). Making the environment less nuanced and more violent (by removing areas of space that are generally safer - and I recognise as I say this that nowhere is 100% safe) is just not going to work for some people.

15 Likes
117

Wow. I thought saying that PvP was fine, was making EVE a great game, and that we should ignore those preaching for PvP removal would make it quite clear that the objection to SOME of CCP’s development was because they created content that could ONLY be accessed or rewarded through one or two forms of PvP or group activity.

However, it appears that some people want to tell you what you are espousing, despite the words you wrote. No wonder there is so much confusion both on the boards and in the game. I would like to have an honest debate, but it appears to be most difficult on these forums and I have enough gaslighting in RL with our current President and his cult.

Hope everyone keeps playing and having fun.

2 Likes
118

I don’t think anyone is saying eve would be better without hisec players.

There are people, like myself, that say hisec would be better without carebears.

Why would it be better? Because then they’d stop demanding that the game be broken to suit their entitlement.

To be honest they don’t have to necessarily leave. Just stop whining, playing the victim and making selfish demands based on pure ignorance. OR CCP can learn to ignore them. I’d be happy with any of the above.

4 Likes
119

This isn’t a bad take on highsec. It is really the small group/solo/casual/newbie zone. The rules of engagement and indestructible infrastructure allow you to do at least a version of most things in the game, and as well, to participate in the shared world in some capacity without needing a large player group.

That is however a far cry from what many players safebears either believe, or want highsec to be. Highsec is still very much part of the open world, nowhere-is-safe, PvP Battle Royale game CCP has built. It is more accessible in many ways, but it is still an integral part of the competitive economic, strategic and PvP game.

There is nothing wrong with deciding highsec is your jam and to participate in our shared world however you choose, as a gatherer, processor, transporter, of resources, a builder of items, or someone who uses these weapons of war to take power by force. It’s all good. The issues only arise when you decide you want the game changed so you can engage with New Eden on your terms, enjoying the benefits of a shared universe but with none of the inconveniences.

Eve players love to claim the other side cries/whines more. It’s part of a common culture I guess.

I’ve seen all sorts of self-interested, terrible ideas on these forum and can say no point of view has a monopoly on trying to metagame advantage for themselves outside the game. However, I really don’t think there is a general view that players should not be allowed to “avoid” PvP. PvPers also need resources to fights, and moreso, a large part of PvP in this game is fighting on your terms. So much so, that avoiding PvP is usually really just PvP itself, running a pure evasion fit or strategy that allow you to accomplish your goals while dodging the other players. True, highsec mechanics make it even easier to avoid PvP, generally by imposing a mandatory cost on aggression, but you still have to avoid making yourself a profitable or easy target.

Most Eve players get this, even the ones here talking past each other and putting hardline positions in each other’s mouths. Very few actually want a total safe space as do very few want a restriction-free PvP game. Most just want to play in the wonderful sandbox full of freedom and possibly. The deluded minority who want a safe single player game or a arcade shooter game with no consequences should be resisted as they both have done damage to the game but aren’t really that common. The silent majority of Eve players like the game as it is, more or less anyway, as they are here, aren’t they?

This is a mis-characterization of the situation. PvP provides most of the meaning and value for PvE activities. I’d say not all, but most players who primarily seek activities other than direct ship combat with other players are here to play the competitive capitalism game and seek to accumulate wealth and power. That whole framework of value is only interesting because things can be lost or exploded and some players need tools and weapons to do so.

So PvP and PvE obviously depend on each other. CCP knows this, and while they haven’t been ashamed of pandering to the farmers and grinders, they also know the core secret sauce of the game depends on a healthy war and destruction driven economy. Hence the recent efforts to put things back into the balance needed for a sustainable, long term economic game.

It far to simplistic to categorize players as one or the other given how intertwined destruction and production are in this game.

So OP, don’t worry. Highsec is fine and not going anywhere. Ok, most of it isn’t going anywhere. :wink: There will always be a place for the little guy to play Eve.

8 Likes
120

I think entitlement comes in many forms for what its worth. @Daichi_Yamato

I know plenty of high security space pilots who are most certainly not demanding that the “game be broken to suit their entitlement.” And this includes me.

In fact, and for what it’s worth, the most strident voices that I hear in the game, consistently demanding that the game be changed to suit their playing style are in fact people who tend to dwell in null-sec and who favour PvP over pretty much all other forms of play.

Ultimately, I tend to take a live and let live attitude towards this kind of stuff.

There ought to be room in the game for a multitude of different playing styles including PvP and including carebears, miners and others.

No one form of game play should dominate.

Just because another player plays in a different style doesn’t make their play-style better, or worse than yours, it’s just different.

And if Eve is to survive, then we need to ensure that it facilitates a whole bunch of different play styles to make sure that the player base is as solid and as diverse and as sustainable as possible.

5 Likes
121

CCP should remove most of highsec. Just leave concord in a couple school systems where the newbies start

122

theres been tons of content on the gates. you’re missing out

123

naaa
i check the gates
just shot one guy there and he called a 10000330 man frigate fleet law

edit:
first one

Captura de Tela 2020-08-21 às 01.41.02
Captura de Tela 2020-08-21 às 01.41.021892×166 55.6 KB

and ill do more
expect me to shot any enemy of amarr , im a trig ++ to , dont know why you guys are in collusion with the dirty minmatar

1 Like
124

Your posts are generally well-written and authentic. However, there are some parts that I find questionable from a practical perspective.

Diversity is nice, and this is a really nice sentiment, but it doesn’t mesh with the reality of selling a niche product as a business. For example, consider how a fast, sporty car like a Corvette or a Porsche is marketed. Do you see commercials of soccer moms picking up their kids from school and loading it up with groceries? No, right? It’s always some douchey-looking broker type driving at high speed through winding mountain paths. Similarly, EVE has its own target demographic, and trying to make the game appeal to the gaming population at large is neither practical nor feasible.

This game can accommodate some players who are only into shooting rocks and rats and nothing else, but it doesn’t necessarily need them, and in fact can’t function with too many of them. The market inflates disproportionately when there are too many of these players in the game, and the effects can be observed very clearly today. For example, there’s no scarcity in this game whatsoever, with the possible exception of officer modules. If you need an advanced ship, you don’t have to think hard about where and how you’ll source a particular component, or how you’re going to negotiate with someone for a better price; you just go to a hub, and purchase from one of many dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of market orders available. Similarly, EVE no longer has conflicts driven by natural resources or access to desirable space; all of the PvP we have in this game either comes from impersonal, nearly-automated high-sec ganking and blanket wardecs, or from fake/staged campaigns in null-sec.

Play style diversity isn’t the panacea for all of EVE’s ills that some people believe it is.

125

Excellent points as (almost) always, Pedro! Yes. the PvP and PvE depend on and drive each other, and getting that cycle and balance right is the best challenge CCP could tackle, in my opinion.

I’m actually fine with the Triglavian invasions and stuff, I’ve said before they’re one of the best initiatives CCP has taken in many years. Like you, I feel they’ve added more of that old ‘EVE feeling’ recently than they have in years.

I’m also fine with the breaking of well-worn ruts in the travel and trade routes, to shake things up and toss some new wrinkles into the where and why and how of the production/transport/supply/travel equation.

What I’m much less fine with (even though it’s had zero effect on me personally), is the recent tendency towards changing well-established rules in what I consider to be cheap bids to destroy player assets and encourage brief spates of ‘glorious destruction’ on the part of whichever group can throw 50 ships together and smash someone else’s assets.

Changing Citadels to be vulnerable, or having entire high sec systems flippable in roughly 24 hours, those are the things I have issues with. Again, not because they hurt me - I don’t trust CCP an inch, and the moment they started talking Age of Chaos and bragging about ‘yanking the carpet out from under players’, my assets all got tucked away safely.

My issue with those events is because once again, CCP is making short-term hay while letting the barn burn down. They’re showing players you’re either in the game all the time and active and ready to profit from the destruction of others assets, or you’re just wheat for the reaper.

Some players will cheer that on and shout “Yeah man, that’s cool because I’m the freakin’ reaper!”.

But there are 3 times as many growers as reapers in games of this sort, and always have been. And CCP is just shooting themselves in the foot once again, because they’re out of ideas other than “let’s smash things”.

I’m cool with shaking things up. I’m a lot less cool with blowing them up just because hey, the flames are so pretty!

(PS: I only quoted the one line but liked your whole post!)

4 Likes