EVE General Discussion

Every time CCP have changed something core to the game, somebody has figured out how to make Scrooge McDuck levels of isk from the change. It is absolutely guaranteed that someone would figure out how to cash in on a change such as ultrasec; probably one of the Goon think-tanks because they're really very good at stuff like that, some of them are employed in the real world to do very similar things.

Yea there have been alot of voiced opinions of people who've said it can't exist without an actual reason behind it. When I've challenged their reasons and offered counters to their arguments, it usually breaks down into insinuating that I'm trying to shape the game to my desired play style, which isn't the case at all, and is in fact them reflecting their own propagation of ulterior motives onto me.

Also in game design. It's why there are no belt rats in 1.0, for instance.

Most of those posters stated that this idea runs in clear opposition to the core tenets of gameplay, hence their opposition.

I might believe that EVE lacks sufficient Tetris related game play. I would not blame people for not detailing their reasons for opposition to a suggestion that all missions include more falling blocks.

which is their opinion of course, an opinion they're allowed to have and share.

It's not twisting your words. You stated that a reason Ultra-Sec should not be introduced is because veteran players would figure out a way to abuse and exploit it, in which I replied that if you're going to use that as a reason to decline Ultra-Sec, then that same logic has to be applied to every proposed implementation of the game. Potential for abuse should be taken into consideration and a plan developed on how to counter the potentials for abuse if it is implemented. If you're going to state that "Ultra-Sec" cannot be implemented because of potential abuse by veterans, then that reason needs to apply to every suggestion meaning "no more development" because someone somewhere might abuse it.

Also, I've never stated a desire to change EvE into any other MMO, that is a conclusion you are reaching on your own.

If Ultra-Sec were introduced, I could see it being beneficial to EvE in providing a firm launch pad for initially tentative players to experience some of the core aspects EvE has to offer before deciding to make the leap into the rest of the game world, providing a boost to the overall number of people who subscribe and pay money to CCP, money that could be used to further develop EvE. Further develop EvE as long as they choose not to subscribe to your logic of not introducing anymore content or game changes because they're afraid someone somewhere might abuse/exploit it.

It's also my opinion that many of you who are disagreeing with the potential introduction of a "Ultra-Sec" because it might create a tentative temporary population of people who get to experience EvE without your ability to blow up their space ships, which blowing up someone's space ship being a big deal to you and some others, being the defining reason why people other than yourself should not be allowed to experience what eve has to offer without your nefarious intentions.

I find it amusing that you're labeling me as toxic, when I've made no toxic comments, and simply have disagreed with you respectfully, while you choose to insult me. I think your actions are a bit hypocritical, considering your performing the action you are labeling me of doing.

The real issue is there are too many new players being attracted to EVE that don't have the "right stuff" for a long learning curve sandbox that requires team play and quit again when they cannot be awesome solo within 6 months like other games :D

Hisec does not help because:
- new players should be teaming up with other new players and forming new corps, highsec encourages them to stay in NPC corps while whining about how none of the "awesome big player corps" will take them
- new players should be finding a niche and working towards it, highsec instead encourages an obsession with battleships for no other reason then they are the biggest ships allowed in highsec and whine about how it takes too long to get a battleship
- the politics behind EVE is based around SOV and bluesec entities with some minor influence by the bigger "noob" hisec entities like BNI and EVE Uni. New Order have some influence but they are more talk than actually effective. Highsec encourages new players to ignore the politics altogether and focus on personal achievements.

Baasically Highsec encourages new players to adopt an "I want to be cool and awesome pay attention to me while I solo about like a badass" attitude that gets old quick ... then they quit.

On the otherhand highsec is necessary for many of the reasons outlined above.

The solution? Stop seeding new players in highsec. Spawn them in lowsec or nullsec schools instead.

I think I love you. Marry me!

You pretty much hit the nail on the head though. CCP is really falling behind the NPE in explaining exactly what real EVE is. They've taken the "typical" MMOG new player training route, which does jack-all to teach the actual aspects of the EVE universe. Also, Rookie Help and newbie corp chat, with it's toxic "never go to lowsec" forever members.

I'd like to see CCP organize off the cuff fleets, based in the newbie corps. Nothing advertised, "big fleet story stuff". Use the ISD newbie team, throw together some fleets, drag them out into low/null for roams. Teach the newguys what EVE really is about, rather than "Go mine/mission, get blown up, throw a fit and quit".

No undocking then.

Better nerf stations too. No stations so there can be no bumping on the undock.

why no undocking because no bumping?

Why no stations because people can't be bumped?