Tydeth Gilitae
Magewright Artificers
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.02 06:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello. I primarily operate in high-security, especially for mining and production, but I 'm going to have to disagree with this suggestion to remove PVP from there. As an industrialist player, I could certainly benefit personally in the short term from never needing to worry about PVP in High, but I do not see how it would be at all good for the longevity of this game as a whole.
Events such as Hulkageddon and Burn Jita 1 & 2 could and most likely have drawn in bursts of new subscriptions by acting as irrefutable proof of the cut-throat player-defined game-play unique to EVE. These help reinforce the point that this kind of game-play can happen anywhere, not just LowSec (Battle of Asakai) or Null (S2NC's disbanding, the big Goon/Test war, etcetera). On a smaller scale but longer duration, we currently have that Goon freighter thing and the New Order coalition running amok with its Knights. These activities rely on the presence of non-consensual PVP, even with CONCORD breathing down their necks as soon as they go weapons hot. While they do cause massive amounts of destruction via ganking, this damage serves two very important purposes:
1. It teaches the new and the complacent that you can die anywhere, and that insufficiently tanked ships will die very quickly. Also, anything will explode once shot at enough times.
By the newer players being vulnerable, they can learn about the dangers of space and the necessity of defensive measures on their ship before they start flying anything big and expensive. The sooner they learn, while their ships and clones are cheap or even free, the better. For the older ones, the loss counts as a reminder of these things.
2. It creates demand. Every ship destroyed needs to be replaced, and it is up to the industrialists to provide them. This applies not only to the industrial, transport, and mining ships, but also the ships used to gank them, because of the omnipotent space police who guarantee cost for the attacker.
Granted, we would still have some demand for these things because of new members and the combat in Low, Null, and J-space, but I recall reading somewhere on these boards where people pointed out High-sec is a significant amount of the player base. If that's true, they're also a significant amount of our market. Without them needing replacements, the builders end up with excess stockpile they cannot move, and prices drop like stones. If miners can never be destroyed, the ore and minerals would flood the market, resulting in collapse. Without the ability to make a profit, because of a glut in supply and sharp decrease in demand, High-sec industry will grind to nearly a halt, if not completely. Some suppliers may try getting into Low/Null/WH corps to market their skills and sell products, but plenty others will simply quit.
CCP updated their tutorials I-don't-know-how-long-ago to incorporate ship loss, with not one but two suicide run missions in the advanced military career tutorial. If you have no ship when you dock in a station, they give you a rookie ship so you can get back on your feet. With these two simple features, the developers make it clear that ships going boom is expected, even in High.
High-sec's safety is quite sufficient where it is, and making it perfectly safe will have unforeseen consequences, regardless of whether CCP does anything else to High to account for the invulnerability. If you can never die in High-sec, many of the people will go there. Few if any targets = the PVPers will get bored and leave, and no action or customers = the builders and miners will get bored and leave. Perfectly safe High-sec = death of New Eden, and I can see that as a 2-month-player. |