Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Should High Sec be Safer?

Here we go again, you say. Another dialog on the safety of high sec, where pvpers adamantly proclaim their entitlements, and/or carebears make thin arguments about vaguely expressed ideas.

Would it benefit the game to allow people to travel nearly unscathed through high security space? Should we equip CONCORD with super death rays that blast anyone who so much as looks criminally inclined? Or, should we lighten up the security to encourage more pvp? It is, after all, a pvp game. Right?   


In my opinion, to ask the question of whether 'high sec should be safer' is to think inside of a box--the box that says you must think of EVE's geography in neat little sections that have neat little rules that have been almost entirely unchanged for the past ten years.

High Sec is for safety, industry, mining. Low Sec is for piracy, faction war. Null Sec is for large, blobbing alliances who fight over space. And, we're only allowed to think in these terms, apparently. We're only expected to talk about how to make low-sec more interesting for pirates, and how to fix 'sovereignty' in null-sec, or whether to make high sec safer.

I think it would be fun if EVE wasn't so staged --and didn't have such predictable, set dimensions. I'd like to see some kind of piracy abound in null-sec, and Faction War spill over to high/null, and bigger wars happening in high sec, and Jita-like systems in null-sec with player-run security and commerce.

Imagine 0.1 systems that are 'almost' null-sec --no bubbles, but no station or gates guns.

Imagine systems 'between' high-sec and low-sec where CONCORD 'sort of' responds but are stretched thin so they will only monitor certain places. (Such as gates, or etc.)

Imagine something 'in-between' null-sec sovereignty and Faction War in NPC null-sec --perhaps incorporating the pirate factions in EVE. Moderate sized groups who find Faction War too small, and null-sec too great a leap would have engaging and interesting gameplay.

Imagine if there were more 'pocket's' of different kinds of space, rather then the current geography of high-sec, surrounded by low-sec, surrounded by null-sec. Imagine if every major high-sec trade hub didn't necessarily have a high-sec route between them?

Imagine if 'security' impacted other things, such as cyno placement restrictions or the ability to anchor system-wide cyno jammers. What if system security impacted how hard/easy it was to take a system in Faction War?

Instead of black and white and red, I want fifty shades of every color. I think we need to stop thinking in terms of just 'high-sec' or 'low-sec' or 'null-sec' and start thinking about more in-betweens and acrosses--opening the door to new strategies, new decisions, and a myriad of new gameplay options.


  1. Thinking outside the box is good part of the time...but it's a two edged sword. If you never try anything new, you get trapped in a rut. If you're always trying new things, you never perfect anything. EVE is already an extremely complex world, adding as many new things as you're asking for would be a disaster, I'm sorry to say. The more new things one adds at once, the harder it is to maintain any sort of balance.

    " I'd like to see some kind of piracy abound in null-sec"

    It does, for some sensible definitions of "abound". For other reasonable definitions, it doesn't.

    "bigger wars happening in high sec"

    Bigger than what? How big do you want?

    " Jita-like systems in null-sec with player-run security and commerce. "

    those already exist.

    "Imagine if every major high-sec trade hub didn't necessarily have a high-sec route between them?"

    Those high sec trade hubs which were isolated from the rest would die off. trade hubs are located where they are for a reason, it's not random.

    "Instead of black and white and red, I want fifty shades of every color."

    Bittervet stage 8 reached. 'I want the learning cliff to be fifty times taller, and covered with slippery burning oil!' Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with your perceptions; when a game is begun to be mastered these are natural thoughts to have. I think perhaps you are being a bit extreme with it, though. Just remember, every single thing you are decrying as "too simple" is an example of a broad category that is the only thing new players really understand.

  2. Another well considered post on your part. That's why I follow you.

    I interpret your post as asking why Eve isn't a logical, progressive Universe. You state it's a mishmash of hard-coded segments coarsely banded together.

    I'd like to see a cohesive Universe where, for example, a bandit is logically defined and has a place within Eve. So too a bounty hunter. So too a Gallente or a Mordu navy captain. All these things have logically definable circumstances with an inherent "50 shades of every color." But not in the current Eve.

    The current Eve is spaceship spheres shooting each other; or not.

    So "bigger wars" ... well, maybe not in NPC faction controlled areas (aka high sec) because this defines the start of the game for new players. But certainly as faction influence diminishes more shades of every color should be introduced until it is counteracted by PC entities exerting their own influences.

    You are right. There should be no high, low or null. Just cluster entities, both NPC and PC, exerting their influences to varying degrees. Now the Universe is logical and ordered, and multi-colored.

  3. Should hisec be safer? Should Nulsec and lowsec be more populated?
    Wrong questions.
    And you make a lot of presumtions without evidence. There is a lot of piracy going on in Nul. Ask any ratter who got ganked.
    Why is there not more piracy going on? GAME MECHANICS. one does not simply walk into DEKLEIN... ^^
    Is Hisec not safe? It is totally safe if some basic rules are respected.
    On the other hand, gankig is still way too easy and cheap because the game mechanics are unbalanced.
    A Freighter is a capital ship, but often it is brought down by destroyers who carry the smallest guns. Seriously? when on the other hand a BS cannot kill a destroyer because range and tracking prevent the large weapons from hitting such small tragets... The cost of ganking is too low, If gankers and eewil iwates whine, then it is because they are morons and slackers. Same goes for "carebears" who complain about not being able to safely missionrun in purple faction BSs.
    Why isn't there more activity in low? Because of profitability. Too much blobs and tech3 gangs. It is ridiculous to see that even shitty tech1 frigs or cruisers get hotdropped by large low/nul alliances...
    So, how on earth do you plan to prevent hotdropping in low?
    Bigger wars in highsec? There are already huge wars going on! Marmite against Goons i.e.

  4. Besides being too easy, gate camping / station camping is about as lame as it gets. Conflict should be moved away from the gates and stations, out to the belts, moons and anomalies while travel between gates and stations should be relatively safe.

    There should be more meaningful consequences for ganking in hi sec. Like for starters losing docking privileges or having assets confiscated on a system by system and faction by faction basis.

    It shouldn't be at all easy for gankers to repair faction standings either, especially not as more crimes have been committed and standing gets even lower. Once faction standing is low enough, they should be a free target that increases their killers standing. Criminals should be kill on sight for faction police / concord who will see them (even when cloaked) if they go anywhere near a hi sec gate or station. Escaping police should be allowed but if they fire back on the police then concord comes.

    The hard lines between hi, low and null should be blurred too. As system security status gets lower the police / concord presence should drop too. For example as system security status gets lower they'd still protect the gates and stations but be less likely to respond to trouble out in the belts. Say 100% in 1.0, 80% in 0.7-0.9, 50% in 0.5 and 40% in 0.5.

    It'd be really nice if there was a chance (even a small one) of concord responding to trouble on the other side of a hi to low/null gate too. Setting up a camp at chokepoints like EC-P8R, Auenenen or Gondista would suddenly be just a little bit riskier.

    1. "What the other guy does is easy, what I do is hard." That's basically your message; and not coincidentally, the gankers say the exact same thing about you, as magically their view of what is easy and hard is 100% reversed. Everyone is going uphill both ways in the snow, and everyone else is going downhill both ways, in a luxury spaceliner. yada yada yada

  5. I would like to posit that high sec should allow players more freedom in interacting.

    Gankers should be free to kill people who are some distance away from gates and stations (logically law enforcement tends to camp trade routes [gates] and urban centers [stations]) without Concorde/Navy/Faction Police intervention.

    Every one else should not have to cower behind Concorde/Navy/Faction Police for protection except within a limited range around stations and gates (say 0.5AU).

    We should allow players to pro-actively defend or attack each other in EvE.

    One example is allowing deployment of interdiction bubbles (by any party) in highsec ice/asteroid belts (bubbles restricted to 30km of belt position).

    This would allow gankers to trap miners.

    This would also allow miner fleet defenses to establish a 30 km defensive perimeter (high sec bubbles are bigger) which would prevent instawarp ganks and force gankers to commit fleets to overwhelm defenders.

    The direction for high sec should be more freedom not less.

    In this sense, war dec requirements should be removed unless the war deccing corp wants to station camp the war dec'ee corp (but that would be pointless and boring)


  7. Maybe highsec should be about gamer choice ie highsec represents civilisation and is governed by rule of law therefore gamers who choose to be in highsec also choose to be under rule of law (even though it is not perfectly enforced). If this is the case high sec does not need to be safer.

    It needs a Constituition and a Bill of Rights to specify the rights and obligations of all who decide to live in highsec.. ganker and carebear alike.

    What highsec needs is better education of players that it is a choice to live in high and to be subjected to its laws and benefit from its freedoms.

    High is not a path to progress to Low or Null. It is a place on its own.

  8. I want a new set of skills that allow players to steal from other players in high sec.

    Steal from cargo holds, from wallets, from stations, etc.

    Skill + Module based chance of getting caught and being made suspect of maybe even criminal.