|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dave Stark
2291
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 11:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
March rabbit wrote: Can't agree. [snip] - mining: (before the bots) better than in high-sec (ABC and all this stuff) + officer spawns [snip]
this made me laugh so hard.
null sec mining isn't better than high sec mining by any stretch of the imagination. do the maths. scordite is worth more per m3 than even the most lucrative null sec grav site. you waste time reading this? |
Dave Stark
2291
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 11:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Dave Stark wrote:March rabbit wrote: Can't agree. [snip] - mining: (before the bots) better than in high-sec (ABC and all this stuff) + officer spawns [snip]
this made me laugh so hard. null sec mining isn't better than high sec mining by any stretch of the imagination. do the maths. scordite is worth more per m3 than even the most lucrative null sec grav site. Are you mining scordite? Why? -all you have to do is move to low and do low sec exploration to win billions. Every one should go to low sec, the rewards over there are exponential compared to high sec with minimal risk, no bubbles, no bombs...
what i am or am not doing, is irrelevant.
the fact remains as i stated. you waste time reading this? |
Dave Stark
2293
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 12:13:00 -
[3] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Dave Stark wrote:March rabbit wrote: Can't agree. [snip] - mining: (before the bots) better than in high-sec (ABC and all this stuff) + officer spawns [snip]
this made me laugh so hard. null sec mining isn't better than high sec mining by any stretch of the imagination. do the maths. scordite is worth more per m3 than even the most lucrative null sec grav site. 2 years ago i was mining in 0.0. made lots of money. No one even tried to speak "0.0 mining is bad" that days. What happened next? Maybe ABC came to high-sec? Nope Maybe megacyte, zydrin, etc... do not needed anymore? Nope Market. Supply/demand. Reduce supply and you get it more lucrative. BTW: what about officer/faction/transpost spawns? Do high-sec has better of it?
what happened next? drone poop nerf, meta loot changes, etc. i love how people casually ignore these huge changes to mineral supply as if they didn't happen. it wasn't the market at all, it was CCP ******* around with the game.
what about spawns so rare that it doesn't matter? (tip, it doesn't matter) you waste time reading this? |
Dave Stark
2295
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 12:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
considering veldspar isn't even a profitable ore to mine, you're way off the mark.
4th worst ore in the game, at the moment. you waste time reading this? |
Dave Stark
2302
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 15:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
suggestion: don't join a corp with CTAs.
alternatively, don't set an alarm for them if you don't want to wake up in the middle of the night to attend one. if it results in you being removed from your corp then i think you dodged a bullet. you waste time reading this? |
Dave Stark
2305
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
everyone should be crying about the barge rebalance, it was terrible on every possible level.
to the point where it's actually profitable to feed the gankers untanked retrievers. i sincerely doubt that was ccp's intent. you waste time reading this? |
Dave Stark
2360
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 09:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
if there wasn't any concord in high sec then i'd be fitting a talos with some blasters and i'd be ganking all the miners that didn't get the memo about concord being turned off.
i've always known that training battlecruisers to V was a good idea, even if i am a miner myself... you waste time reading this? |
Dave Stark
2480
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 18:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:
Just ask a direct question. Don't assume.
I'm saying Concord does not protect. It punishes. My choices in cargo provide a better deterrent to would be gankers than Concord does.
Without concord, nothing you could do would stop me from destroying whatever you undock. Its happened before.
beat me to it.
people need to stop thinking they can look at individual mechanics in isolation, it's stupid. Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2480
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 18:29:00 -
[9] - Quote
i have to hand it to him, he might be a complete moron but he's also brilliant troll. Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2480
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 18:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:i have to hand it to him, he might be a complete moron but he's also brilliant troll. Nobody can be this stupid.
you give people too much credit.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Maggie Thatcher. |
|
Dave Stark
2480
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 18:50:00 -
[11] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:My original statement was that Concord is not a Protector by definition. Considering the fact that concord keeps hisec safer than if it wasn't, you're wrong. It is a protector. Not by definition it isn't. Anything further about that you would have to take up with dictionary.com or some crap.
dictionary.com wrote:to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.; cover or shield from injury or danger.
so, concord does protect. Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2480
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 18:54:00 -
[12] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Where did Concord do any of that.
any system 0.5 or higher. Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2481
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:01:00 -
[13] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Where did Concord do any of that.
any system 0.5 or higher. Citation needed please. I've seen Concord punish, avenge and all that. But never seen them repair or shield or help cover any loss. I've even seen Concord blow someone up for shooting a rock.
citation needed? you need to proof that concord exists in 0.5 or higher systems? Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2481
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:15:00 -
[14] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Where did Concord do any of that.
any system 0.5 or higher. Citation needed please. I've seen Concord punish, avenge and all that. But never seen them repair or shield or help cover any loss. I've even seen Concord blow someone up for shooting a rock. citation needed? you need to proof that concord exists in 0.5 or higher systems? I need proof that Concord has protected versus avenged, yes. Because Concord is not a Protector, they are Executioners.
some one shot me once, concord protected me.
there you go. citation provided. Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2482
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:17:00 -
[15] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Where did Concord do any of that.
Now explain how Concord would do this-
pun-+ish [puhn-ish] Show IPA verb (used with object) 1. to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal. 2. to inflict a penalty for (an offense, fault, etc.): to punish theft. 3. to handle severely or roughly, as in a fight. 4. to put to painful exertion, as a horse in racing. 5. Informal. to make a heavy inroad on; deplete: to punish a quart of whiskey. (cocord doesn't drink in game that I know, so I'll concede this one).
why are you defining a word we're not discussing?
oh right, true to form when proved wrong you simply change the subject. Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2482
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:18:00 -
[16] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:They will kill me if I gank someone, but nothing for me to protect me.
is that because you're like, -10 and have no understanding of how concord works? Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2482
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:28:00 -
[17] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Where did Concord do any of that.
Now explain how Concord would do this-
pun-+ish [puhn-ish] Show IPA verb (used with object) 1. to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal. 2. to inflict a penalty for (an offense, fault, etc.): to punish theft. 3. to handle severely or roughly, as in a fight. 4. to put to painful exertion, as a horse in racing. 5. Informal. to make a heavy inroad on; deplete: to punish a quart of whiskey. (cocord doesn't drink in game that I know, so I'll concede this one). why are you defining a word we're not discussing? oh right, true to form when proved wrong you simply change the subject. Who's "we"? Are you just exercising mob mentality here? You aren't really saying anything or being a part of the discussion. And WE ARE TALKING about definitions. Defining what Concord is. Because this thread is about risk vs reward. Concord is a hammer. Not a screwdriver.
we being me and you, it takes two people for a dialogue. or, are you not a person but a poorly coded troll bot of some kind?
we were discussing whether or not concord protects people; they do. wasn't really much of a discussion, but still. Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2482
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:29:00 -
[18] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:They will kill me if I gank someone, but nothing for me to protect me. is that because you're like, -10 and have no understanding of how concord works? Currently my sec standing is 2.6, I'm just being obtuse to counter your vagueness.
in that case you're just wrong; concord does protect you. Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2482
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:38:00 -
[19] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Protects me from whom, or what?
if you're that clueless about concord, i suggest you stop trying to discuss a topic you clearly have no clue about. Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2485
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:47:00 -
[20] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Protects me from whom, or what? if you're that clueless about concord, i suggest you stop trying to discuss a topic you clearly have no clue about. You're the one not answering the question.
oh sorry i didn't think it was a serious question. Maggie Thatcher. |
|
Dave Stark
2487
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 20:34:00 -
[21] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:To which? To the one question in the post. The one I wanted to be so clear to you that I asked it twice. A simple yes or no will do, thank you.
expecting murk to actually answer a question.
silly tippia. Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2490
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 20:59:00 -
[22] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Tippia, let me ask you something....
What's the risk factor in shooting someone in highsec that is based on chance?
You keep saying risk, like there's a chance you wouldn't lose your ship by shooting someone.
Are you insinuating that you can maybe get away without retribution from Concord?
you're ignoring the fact that probability of 1 is still a probability. Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2491
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 21:12:00 -
[23] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:So we've moved on from ignoring the fact concord works as a hisec protector, and on to ignoring what the actual risk in ganking is?
Okay, then.
casually ignoring a fact when it gets in the way of murk's point is the way it works when you're conversing with him. Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2493
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 21:28:00 -
[24] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Lord Zim wrote:The only one pretending the ship isn't a part of the risk calculation, is you. It's a cost ffs. You don't "risk" it as it doesn't come back. It's godamn fuel =P
Tippia wrote:Hint: Risk = Probability +ù Cost.
risk = 1 * cost
risk = cost.
cost is risk. Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2494
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 21:43:00 -
[25] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Risk implies a chance of 2 different outcomes. Cost does not.
actual point of the discussion aside.
i love how you use the dictionary definition of a word when it suits, and random implications associated with a word when the actual use of the word goes against you. Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2494
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 21:50:00 -
[26] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Risk implies a chance of 2 different outcomes. Cost does not.
actual point of the discussion aside. i love how you use the dictionary definition of a word when it suits, and random implications associated with a word when the actual use of the word goes against you. You mean when it's apparent that I need to use a fact to cite my reasoning? Yes, it's called a debate.
no i mean by sidestepping an issue when it's obvious you're wrong.
don't mistake this for me having a go or anything, i think you're an excellent troll. Maggie Thatcher. |
Dave Stark
2495
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 21:53:00 -
[27] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Risk implies a chance of 2 different outcomes. Cost does not.
actual point of the discussion aside. i love how you use the dictionary definition of a word when it suits, and random implications associated with a word when the actual use of the word goes against you. You mean when it's apparent that I need to use a fact to cite my reasoning? Yes, it's called a debate. no i mean by sidestepping an issue when it's obvious you're wrong. don't mistake this for me having a go or anything, i think you're an excellent troll. Finally someone noticed I only post when I'm at work =P Doesn't make me wrong however.
oh i noticed a while ago, the multiboxing/eula thread. hours of fun arguing with you. enjoyable, thoroughly. Maggie Thatcher. |
|
|
|