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.
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.
Interesting… but I really don’t agree with EVE being a ‘fantasy’ space ship game… especially when the Lead Producer among others defines EVE as a Living work of Science Fiction. Yes there are physics breakers in EVE, but the game is going on 13 year old now… the core gameplay, including fluid flight mechanics, warping through stuff, no friendly fire effects, etc., were all design decision made 13 years ago… decisions made due to the capabilities of computers and software at the time and for playability. These decisions are being assessed and reworked now as it obvious by the changes CCP has been making. Citadels being one very real upgrade from POS'es which were a major physics breaker from many standpoints.
ReplyDeleteOver all these years CCP has written and created and molded The Lore in order to grant a ‘theoretically possible scientific basis’ for all these and for all of the hows and whys of New Eden. And Asset Safety, which was the basis for this particular BB, it does not break the Lore, cause you can almost always figure out some way, mechanical, technological, etc., for this or that to happen… no, this breaks the Philosophy of EVE. A game where CCP has stated unequivocally that everything should be destructible. Everything… not just other people’s stuff, your stuff too.
And I am a wormholers… and our vote was counted… and guess what? We voted for all destroyable and all risk dropping as loot. All of it… everything. Why? Because that’s the Philosophy of EVE… Risk is Real only as long as it IS. Remove the Risk and you remove the Reward and reduce the value of the game, you nerf the whole game. Asset Safey is a Nerf of the basic Philosophy of EVE.
That said… it is also probably something CCP has to do. Cause while EVE may be a fantastic virtuality, and an amazing game… it is, in the end, a for profit enterprise. CCP needs to make money or no one plays EVE Online. And some players don’t like too much “real” risk in their game it seems… or, at least nullsuc players don’t. Wormholers got no issue with it at all.
PS
An aside, to answer to, btw are they (your crew) all in pods too? No… but they do have escape pods available… Here is the official CCP Lore on Ship Crews.