EVE General Discussion

Lol, no.

How are you going to find out how it works?

Something along the lines of what the OP is asking for is not unreasonable, in my opinion. It's also just an extension of what CCP is doing now.

Since too many people can't put their desire for griefing noobs on hold, CCP needs to step in and ramp up the proactive measures if they want to retain new players. CCP has one unbreakable rule when it comes to griefing. DON'T **** WITH THE NEWBS! Sadly, the OCD driven, risk averse morons that hang out in starter and tutorial areas are determined to ruin the game for everyone else.

Defend griefers at your own risk. I see nothing wrong with furthering restrictions for interaction with new players in a few of the thousands of systems in New Eden. If you can't even give newbs the time to learn the most basic of game mechanics then you are supporting the death of the sand box.

There is no room in EVE for players that are happy to see it die.

Mr Epeen

I wonder if you will be the next terrible troll to post a GD meltdown thread?

I am confident that I used the word that I meant to use, but holy jeebus, you never let up on the lying, do you?

This. +100

I should've clarified my statement about EvE not being a 24/7 battleground to state all of EvE being a constant 24/7 battleground.

I can open up the EvE map statistics section and see that there are very many systems that have zero ships destroyed within the last 24 hours. Meaning that all of EvE is not a 24/7 battleground. Some parts might, Some might sometimes, but there are places where there is no ship battles.

Also, if you're going to use the idea of non-ship "battles", like station trading, then it could also be argued that the competition to acquire the finite resources of asteroid's minerals within the Ultra-Sec system will be a form of "battle", meaning that it too would be a place to partake in "pvp", just not the type that results in "ship losses".

Also the specific risk reward philosophy would still exist within Ultra-Sec because there would still be a risk of dying to an NPC ship if you failed to take the necessary precaution to avoid it, and the risk of asteroids being mined to non-existence by others who've already mined them, and the risk of all production slots being full.

It would remove non-consenual encounters only from the Ultra-Sec systems. The rest of Highsec, Low sec, Null sec would still exist for people to participate in if they so desired.

It's only your opinion that having an ultra-sec would be unfair, and I believe a statement you make based on your personally desired method of gameplay.

Which would be unfair to everyone else (including the people in 'traditional high sec') who have to brave suicide ganks and wardecs to mine.

The other glaring flaw in what you just posted is missions. Mission agents are a infiite resource. 1 mission agent could give a mission to every single EVE character over and over again.

So the 'ultra-sec' mission runner would run missions without any possibility of interference where as mission runners outside of it would face potential non-consensual pvp.



The bolded part is the part that makes the idea insane. EVE is a non-consensual pvp game at it's very core. The people who originally created it were fans of non-consensual pvp and that aspect is ingrained in every single aspect of the game.

The reason why so many people in this thread are opposed to the idea is because it goes against the very spirit of EVE. It would be like someone saying "man, basketball is a fun game, lets play it without the ball" lol.



This is where you go off the tracks. And yes, it's the thing that makes you a liar/hypocrite (and why any discussion involving you eventually comes to this).

You don't know anything about me or how I play other than what I've told you (that I'm a PVE player).

Now, when I (and others) post about what we think about you, you go crazy posting about how we are liars because I don't know you personally and thus have nothing to base my opinion of you on except your posts. Yet here you are, reading one of my posts and imagining that I have some self-centered ulterior motive that concerns my "desired method of gameplay".

A method of gameplay you've never observed, which, according to your own logic, makes you a liar.

I believe the following would normally be interpreted as "asking for it".



To split hairs, I suppose that you could be following an line of reasoning with absolutely no interest in it, but I would find that an odd thing to do, especially considering that you seem to follow the same line of reasoning repeatedly. If you had no interest in the outcome of your train of thought, you would likely be attempting to explore multiple avenues of thought, rather than this specific one. At least from my point of view, that would be the rational way to weigh the various sides of an argument.

It's only your opinion that it would be unfair. Most people are never suicide ganked as is. And there's always an NPC corporation to go into to avoid having to worry about getting war dec'd. Even if the player corporation is war dec'd, they can always disband and reform.

As for missions being infinite, this is correct, which is why it was suggested to have the agent cap set to level 2. Considering the benefit of being able to do level 4's in high sec, it is understandable how the incentive to leave "ultra-sec" to go do level 3 and 4 missions in High sec should be sufficient.

You argue that EvE is a game with non-consensual PvP at its core, but it's also easy to interpret the "core" of EvE being a sandbox with the intention of fostering many different aspects of game play, WITH non-consensual PvP as an option/possibility. There are many more things to do in EvE than "non-consensual pvp", like mining, industry, exploration, and trading. PvP, consensual and not, is just one of the many facets EvE has to offer. You describe it as the core, yet I see how it could be simply an addition/extension from the core.



You are correct, I don't know anything about you. Just as you don't know anything about me.

Yet when I state that your opinions about me are simply your opinions, "you go crazy posting about how" I'm a liar and a hypocrite.

Yet when you state that my opinions about you are simply my opinions, I do the opposite of what you do, what you accuse me of, and tell you "yea I know".

If you really think about it, you'll clearly see that I've been defending myself against aggressors who attack my person, explaining that their opinions are merely opinions. Which causes them to launch into diatribes about how I'm a liar and a hypocrite when in reality I'm simply stating that the opinions labled at me, disrespecting and flaming me, are merely opinions.

Which results in a post that you make yourself flaming me, accusing me of exactly what it is that you are doing, and not me.

This is what I have to put up with. Maintaining the line of sensibility while people who cannot handle having their self-perceived facts exposed as merely opinions flame and project onto me.

A minor hiccup. Narrative correction agents have been deployed to his ("in game") domecile to fix the issue. Please continue munching on cheetos.