|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
AureoBroker
Natural Inventions
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 20:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard. LOL No Risk? They lose their ship every time they gank something. You sound like a moron. Suicide ganking is very dangerous and every time you even try it you lose something even if you are successful or not. And this, good sirs, is why pvpers are more often than not hilariously bad at economics. When i build a ship, i'm not "risking" my minerals disappear. It's not an hard concept. I can understand defending the right to suicide gank as a balancing and sandboxy factor in EVE, but thinking that suicide ganking is an activity that could be classified under "PVP" is hilarious. |
AureoBroker
Natural Inventions
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 09:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
While i hold no hope about honorable engagements and such (it's part of the EVE beauty having the lack of those), it's SUPPLY DISRUPTION, which would be qualified under "market" and not under "pvp". You're engaging in an activity which is VERY akin to ratting. People won't shoot back in any form. Won't react. The outcome of the activity is expected with less than 1% of variance. Now, excuse me for that, but i thought pvp was about surviving AND killing. The simple fact that you're interacting with another player does not make it PVP, unless any market activity (be it on the supply or demand side) is considered pvp. |
AureoBroker
Natural Inventions
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 12:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
Andski wrote:yes they should make concord chance-based so that there's "risk" by worthless pubbie standards CONCORD can be sweeped up (or annulled) when the system makes more sense. That means: Hulks being tough enough to need a proper assault, uncarriable by two-weeks alts. Sec status lowerings are NOT reverseable in any way or shape, and especially not by ratting. Criminal status means no market/contract access, and no hisec docking. Then concord can be abolished. |
AureoBroker
Natural Inventions
39
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 15:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Katalci wrote:AureoBroker wrote:While i hold no hope about honorable engagements and such (it's part of the EVE beauty having the lack of those), it's SUPPLY DISRUPTION, which would be qualified under "market" and not under "pvp". You're engaging in an activity which is VERY akin to ratting. People won't shoot back in any form. Won't react. The outcome of the activity is expected with less than 1% of variance. Now, excuse me for that, but i thought pvp was about surviving AND killing. The simple fact that you're interacting with another player does not make it PVP, unless any market activity (be it on the supply or demand side) is considered pvp. "Killing miners isn't pvp because they're so stupid that they're effectively NPCs." Did you think before you wrote this horrific post? I'll return the question: did you? The activity is: Pick up ship. Warp to belt Shoot.
Sure, you can organize it better, with baits, orcas and wtz's: but mostly, is done as solo, wandering affairs.
It's not about miners being dumb. Both mining only onscreen and fitting tanks are net economic losses superior to the problem they would solve. The system is engineered this way.
And did you read the rest of the post, or you extrapolated something on the single purpose of whining about it? |
|
|
|