Felonu

No it's not.  There are no details about what defensive systems will be in place, what offensive systems there are, and how much resources it would take to power/create the means of both.  Those are the only systems we're talking about modifying.  You can't "regulate" a system that hasn't been build yet.  This is talking about how a system should be initially built, and all of these costs have to be something.  The discussion is on what the different costs will be.

See the thing is for a game to be a truly realistic "sandbox" there would need to be permanent death.
 
That's the only way the cost of going on the offensive vs defensive could really be realistically balanced. 
 
Anything short of that is going to require some intentional balancing.  There's no such thing as "not interfering".  It's a virtual world.  The whole thing is designed.
 
By not including permanent death.  They're taking the first step towards something other then totally realistic.
 
Which is good.  But there's going to be more decisions too.  To make the game fun.  Weeeeee

Fair enough.

So over 99% of the game should be for PvPers, and the safezone should be the only place you have a chance to not be always killed?  Like I said you are advocating PvP to be the feature that trumps every other aspect of gameplay.  Remember being in a big org with defenses and protections doesn't actually protect anyone.  How about people not demand that almost noone can play the game without threat of PvP shadowing them constantly.
 
I want there to be a middle ground.  I want the game to have PvP available everywhere outside the safe zone.  I want there to be a possibility of loss if you leave the safety of the Ark ship.  I just don't want to feel like you have to be constantly in PvP if you leave.  

Great.  What is wrong with long battles?  To build a proper spaceship it could take weeks or months to design, and build it.  Why shouldn't a big battle?  You say "that's not going to happen" but it would be one solution, and saying it won't happen isn't a reason for it not to happen. -Edited for clarification-  But my solution is if a ship with a large engine takes about 1000 shots to take out, and accuracy for a common cannon is 70% then you shouldn't get more resources from the broken engine than the similar equivelant of the resources to make 1500 bullets.  The exact numbers, and balance would be determined of course by NQ and be based on their vision.  
 
Now if NQs vision doesn't match that, then I'll be ok with that too.
 
Then I apologize for my mistake.  I assumed since it sound to me like you want the game to be mostly PvP based that you must want to do PvP.  I don't want to remove PvP from the game, I just want a balance.
 

Because that engulfs everything else in PvP.  You are doing the exact thing from a different perspective that you accuse @MookMcMook of doing.  I think we've all put our points of view out there now, though, and we'll have to rely on NQ and their vision to decide how they implement it.

Because that engulfs everything else in PvP.  You are doing the exact thing from a different perspective that you accuse @MookMcMook of doing.  I think we've all put our points of view out there now, though, and we'll have to rely on NQ and their vision to decide how they implement it.

I disagree that it has combat at it's heart.  Yes, PVP will be part of the game, but that doesn't make it the games heart.  Building is this games heart.  When JC talks passionately about the game he talks about coming together to build great wonderful things.  He barely mentions PVP most of the time.  It's the community that try to make PVP the most important part of the game.  I understand that necessity drives innovation, and that PVP will be a large part of the economy.  If you think about the real world though, most people don't fight for their lives daily.  There are parts of the world where they might, but most of the world lives in peace most of the time.  That is because for most people the risk of fighting over a thing is not worth the value of the thing.
 

@Aetherios
 
Yes, a lot of people from Eve are looking at this game for how it can be a better Eve, but a lot of people that have hated there experiences or never wanted to play Eve are also into the idea of this game.  
 
This game can and hopefully will appeal to those of us who won't even consider games that are balanced toward PVP because of our experiences with Eve.  If this game has the same player atmosphere of Eve, then a lot of the interested players will move on.  Those of us who don't like Eve want this game to be more than we believe that game could ever be.  We want it to be oriented toward building and growing a society together.  We don't want the entire game to be about war and destruction.  

You are taking the point off subject through.  He, and I have said Many times now that the balance is applied before the human element.  The power to keep a shield up vs the power of the bullet hitting it, and the cost of the resources of those things.  You keep talking about the incalculable value of the Offense, and Defense as a whole.  If we were talking about that you would be right in that it can't be calculated, but we're not.
 
The point for some of us is that you just burned down hundreds of hours worth of effort by starting a fire with a almost no effort of buying the lighter.  This is a real world example though, and in the real world very few people run around town burning peoples houses down for no reason.  In games this is not only common, but almost pervasive and much less stoppable behavior.

I've mentioned this before, but it is worth bringing up.  The power of defensive vs offensive tech is of central importance to the type of gameplay in the game.  One example is if it takes 1 month of resources for an agressor to kill someone whos defenses took 1 day to gather the resources to power, then the aggressors have to have a good reason or overwhelming numbers to attack.  This makes PVP functions more tactical, and meaningful.  When an outpost gets overrun it would take something other than just offensive might.  It would still make sense to attack ships if you know that their cargo would more than make up for the difference in losses, but new players and people just exploring wouldn't be worth the resource cost to destroy.  There would still be people attacking and killing people for no reason other than that they had the resources to spare, but it would reduce it.  
 
This simple mechanic is an intrinsic part of PvP balancing, and depending on where NQ puts the fulcrum we'll see how the game plays. 

I disagree that it has combat at it's heart.  Yes, PVP will be part of the game, but that doesn't make it the games heart.  Building is this games heart.  When JC talks passionately about the game he talks about coming together to build great wonderful things.  He barely mentions PVP most of the time.  It's the community that try to make PVP the most important part of the game.  I understand that necessity drives innovation, and that PVP will be a large part of the economy.  If you think about the real world though, most people don't fight for their lives daily.  There are parts of the world where they might, but most of the world lives in peace most of the time.  That is because for most people the risk of fighting over a thing is not worth the value of the thing.
 

@Aetherios
 
Yes, a lot of people from Eve are looking at this game for how it can be a better Eve, but a lot of people that have hated there experiences or never wanted to play Eve are also into the idea of this game.  
 
This game can and hopefully will appeal to those of us who won't even consider games that are balanced toward PVP because of our experiences with Eve.  If this game has the same player atmosphere of Eve, then a lot of the interested players will move on.  Those of us who don't like Eve want this game to be more than we believe that game could ever be.  We want it to be oriented toward building and growing a society together.  We don't want the entire game to be about war and destruction.  

This is almost never the case.  Because on top of losing the defenses, you lose the structures, and the resources that are taken.  If it is exactly equal, then everyone should always be offensive.  There will be no reason to do anything else, because you will get more every time than what you expend.
 
Anyway to pull it back to the OP.  These ways I describe are ways for what you are asking for.  We don't know yet what the balance will be, but many of us others also would like to see it generally feel safe.

I never talked about adding regulations or anything else.  How much energy it takes to power a shield, and how much metal it takes to make a bullet are all I'm talking about.  You are right that people can be cunning and figure out better ways to do defense and offense, and that makes for better gameplay than the other: I have a 100 bullets that cost 1 unit of a very common metal and that destroys your shield that took 1000 units of rare energy source to power.  This balance exists because there is no way for it not to exist.  Like I said a lot will be determined where NQ puts the balance.  If people come up with good strategy and do a good job then they can shift the power toward their side of the spectrum, and that is what makes for good gameplay.  
 
My point was that we don't know where NQ will put the balance, and we'll have to see what comes from where they do put it.  Hopefully they think about how different resource costs of offensive and defensive measures will affect the game.

I've mentioned this before, but it is worth bringing up.  The power of defensive vs offensive tech is of central importance to the type of gameplay in the game.  One example is if it takes 1 month of resources for an agressor to kill someone whos defenses took 1 day to gather the resources to power, then the aggressors have to have a good reason or overwhelming numbers to attack.  This makes PVP functions more tactical, and meaningful.  When an outpost gets overrun it would take something other than just offensive might.  It would still make sense to attack ships if you know that their cargo would more than make up for the difference in losses, but new players and people just exploring wouldn't be worth the resource cost to destroy.  There would still be people attacking and killing people for no reason other than that they had the resources to spare, but it would reduce it.  
 
This simple mechanic is an intrinsic part of PvP balancing, and depending on where NQ puts the fulcrum we'll see how the game plays. 

I've mentioned this before, but it is worth bringing up.  The power of defensive vs offensive tech is of central importance to the type of gameplay in the game.  One example is if it takes 1 month of resources for an agressor to kill someone whos defenses took 1 day to gather the resources to power, then the aggressors have to have a good reason or overwhelming numbers to attack.  This makes PVP functions more tactical, and meaningful.  When an outpost gets overrun it would take something other than just offensive might.  It would still make sense to attack ships if you know that their cargo would more than make up for the difference in losses, but new players and people just exploring wouldn't be worth the resource cost to destroy.  There would still be people attacking and killing people for no reason other than that they had the resources to spare, but it would reduce it.  
 
This simple mechanic is an intrinsic part of PvP balancing, and depending on where NQ puts the fulcrum we'll see how the game plays. 

I've mentioned this before, but it is worth bringing up.  The power of defensive vs offensive tech is of central importance to the type of gameplay in the game.  One example is if it takes 1 month of resources for an agressor to kill someone whos defenses took 1 day to gather the resources to power, then the aggressors have to have a good reason or overwhelming numbers to attack.  This makes PVP functions more tactical, and meaningful.  When an outpost gets overrun it would take something other than just offensive might.  It would still make sense to attack ships if you know that their cargo would more than make up for the difference in losses, but new players and people just exploring wouldn't be worth the resource cost to destroy.  There would still be people attacking and killing people for no reason other than that they had the resources to spare, but it would reduce it.  
 
This simple mechanic is an intrinsic part of PvP balancing, and depending on where NQ puts the fulcrum we'll see how the game plays. 

This is almost never the case.  Because on top of losing the defenses, you lose the structures, and the resources that are taken.  If it is exactly equal, then everyone should always be offensive.  There will be no reason to do anything else, because you will get more every time than what you expend.
 
Anyway to pull it back to the OP.  These ways I describe are ways for what you are asking for.  We don't know yet what the balance will be, but many of us others also would like to see it generally feel safe.

This is almost never the case.  Because on top of losing the defenses, you lose the structures, and the resources that are taken.  If it is exactly equal, then everyone should always be offensive.  There will be no reason to do anything else, because you will get more every time than what you expend.
 
Anyway to pull it back to the OP.  These ways I describe are ways for what you are asking for.  We don't know yet what the balance will be, but many of us others also would like to see it generally feel safe.

I never talked about adding regulations or anything else.  How much energy it takes to power a shield, and how much metal it takes to make a bullet are all I'm talking about.  You are right that people can be cunning and figure out better ways to do defense and offense, and that makes for better gameplay than the other: I have a 100 bullets that cost 1 unit of a very common metal and that destroys your shield that took 1000 units of rare energy source to power.  This balance exists because there is no way for it not to exist.  Like I said a lot will be determined where NQ puts the balance.  If people come up with good strategy and do a good job then they can shift the power toward their side of the spectrum, and that is what makes for good gameplay.  
 
My point was that we don't know where NQ will put the balance, and we'll have to see what comes from where they do put it.  Hopefully they think about how different resource costs of offensive and defensive measures will affect the game.

I've mentioned this before, but it is worth bringing up.  The power of defensive vs offensive tech is of central importance to the type of gameplay in the game.  One example is if it takes 1 month of resources for an agressor to kill someone whos defenses took 1 day to gather the resources to power, then the aggressors have to have a good reason or overwhelming numbers to attack.  This makes PVP functions more tactical, and meaningful.  When an outpost gets overrun it would take something other than just offensive might.  It would still make sense to attack ships if you know that their cargo would more than make up for the difference in losses, but new players and people just exploring wouldn't be worth the resource cost to destroy.  There would still be people attacking and killing people for no reason other than that they had the resources to spare, but it would reduce it.  
 
This simple mechanic is an intrinsic part of PvP balancing, and depending on where NQ puts the fulcrum we'll see how the game plays. 

I've mentioned this before, but it is worth bringing up.  The power of defensive vs offensive tech is of central importance to the type of gameplay in the game.  One example is if it takes 1 month of resources for an agressor to kill someone whos defenses took 1 day to gather the resources to power, then the aggressors have to have a good reason or overwhelming numbers to attack.  This makes PVP functions more tactical, and meaningful.  When an outpost gets overrun it would take something other than just offensive might.  It would still make sense to attack ships if you know that their cargo would more than make up for the difference in losses, but new players and people just exploring wouldn't be worth the resource cost to destroy.  There would still be people attacking and killing people for no reason other than that they had the resources to spare, but it would reduce it.  
 
This simple mechanic is an intrinsic part of PvP balancing, and depending on where NQ puts the fulcrum we'll see how the game plays. 

@Aetherios
 
Yes, a lot of people from Eve are looking at this game for how it can be a better Eve, but a lot of people that have hated there experiences or never wanted to play Eve are also into the idea of this game.  
 
This game can and hopefully will appeal to those of us who won't even consider games that are balanced toward PVP because of our experiences with Eve.  If this game has the same player atmosphere of Eve, then a lot of the interested players will move on.  Those of us who don't like Eve want this game to be more than we believe that game could ever be.  We want it to be oriented toward building and growing a society together.  We don't want the entire game to be about war and destruction.  

@Aetherios
 
Yes, a lot of people from Eve are looking at this game for how it can be a better Eve, but a lot of people that have hated there experiences or never wanted to play Eve are also into the idea of this game.  
 
This game can and hopefully will appeal to those of us who won't even consider games that are balanced toward PVP because of our experiences with Eve.  If this game has the same player atmosphere of Eve, then a lot of the interested players will move on.  Those of us who don't like Eve want this game to be more than we believe that game could ever be.  We want it to be oriented toward building and growing a society together.  We don't want the entire game to be about war and destruction.