Sunday, 29 November 2015

BB69 - Nitpick about lore or delve into core philosophy?

Blog Banter 69 - Because of Space-Magic

Because of Space-Magic

CCP sometimes get stuck between a veldspar 'roid and a hard place when they try to blend realism with sensible game mechanics in our sci-fi simulator. Sometimes they create a scientific answer such as 4th dimensional drag to explain our 'submarines in space'. Other times, not so much. When a null-sec Citadel is destroyed players 'stuffz' is to be magicked to another station. Why should a citadel be different to a titan? Should CCP ensure that 'space magic' always has a plausible explanation or do we need just to say "Well, its only a game!" and engage the willing suspension of disbelief? How should it work when a citadel goes boom, how do we balance risk with reward, and how should any "space-magic" be explained?

TL;DR I'm not too concerned about the lore.  I am troubled by the philosophy and can only answer that it depends...

At its core I am not certain whether this months banter is about lore or about the risk reward philosophy in EVE (specifically citadels cited here).

The lore part I find fairly easy.  At its heart EVE is a fantasy space ship game and as such not realistic from a current scientific frame of mind.  I like the lore, and the lore makes the story, but once you accept that it is a video game with certain amount of fantasy you accept that you have to make some allowances towards mechanics that may seem fantastic.  I am ok with that.  

If one wanted to, there are a lot of holes to be poked into the lore - everything from the fluid mechanic model of our flight, the shooting (and warping) through structures.  The crew of our ship (btw are they all in pods too?).  

But ultimately this type of thing makes me think of the video below on how the Lord of the Rings should have ended:

No mess no fuss, logic and straight forward right?  

Right.  And no story either.  So it is with EVE - logic and straight forward as far as possible, but rigid logic would leave us only with things that are currently possible - like lets say Call of Duty, or some kind of flights sim, with the caveat that once you get shot, or crashed that is it.  You are dead, no more - because that is reality.

So I can let it go.  Yes lore is nice.  Lore is the story.  And please lets explain everything with lore as far as possible.  Citadels and your stuff is easy - some smuggling corp smuggled your stuff out for a 10% fee.  Many explanations will do.  Consistent if possible, but if not for the sake of the story I can let it go.

Where the philosophy is concerned I have to admit that I am stumped.  When a citadel goes pop do you or do you not keep your stuff.  Should you or should you not.  

Yes I'd like to keep my stuff.  Heck who wouldn't.  But I have had stuff trapped in stations that I did not have access to.  Annoying as heck.  I have taken part in fights where my coalition deadzoned some other poor guy's station.  Satisfying as heck.  Wormholers lose their stuff all the time (no rewards for guessing where these guys' votes go!).  

In some risky situations I had to pull stuff out.  Logistical nightmares.  Some situations I only took what I really needed. Fair?  Unfair?  Nice?  Not nice?  Or is that just EVE?

Does the possibility of losing your stuff make you fight harder?  Does the possibility of losing your stuff stop you from entering into a venture?

I don't know.  I like the idea of a safe haven where I can extract to, but at the same time I also like that everywhere is not safe.  Safe havens are essential (to me!) for when real life forces lengthy absences or prolonged periods of little possible activity.  

Unsafe space is essential to me because otherwise we might as well just have highsec.  

In the end I will go smack bang in the middle - a cop out if you will.  Should you lose your stuff when a citadel is destroyed?  

It depends on where it is.