| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 |
141. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: And WE ARE TALKING about definitions. Defining what Concord is. Concord is a hammer. Not a screwdriver. No, dear, concord is a protector.
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 19:22:00
|
142. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: Oh you mean the people waiting for suspect timers? Yes, because that means that concord are no longer protecting them.
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 19:20:00
|
143. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: See Concord never does anything for me. They will kill me if I gank someone, but nothing for me to protect me. Are concord also not stopping you from shooting everything you see in hisec?
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 19:19:00
|
144. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: I need proof that Concord has protected versus avenged, yes. Undock in a hauler in jita, and sit there for 24 hours. If you don't get blown up, concord protected you from getting blown up. Murk Paradox wrote: Because C...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 19:15:00
|
145. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: Dave Stark wrote: 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. Where did Concord do any of that. ...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 19:10:00
|
146. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
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. N...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 18:51:00
|
147. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
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.
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 18:41:00
|
148. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: Yes, I am saying there is no risk. It's a cost. Actually, there's a risk that the loot fairy won't be kind to you, and that you've wasted that ship for no return. Murk Paradox wrote: I suggest you try some tutorials if...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 18:32:00
|
149. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: There's no risk if there's no cost. It's free to gank in highsec. CCP provides everything to do it. 0 isk lost. If concord's not there, there's no cost. If concord's there, there's a cost, and this deters a vast majority o...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 18:26:00
|
150. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: If I had loot in my cargo hold, that's what they'd be killing me for. With concord, yes. Without concord, no. Without concord, there'd be nothing deterring them from shooting anything that moves. Hence, concord protects.
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 18:24:00
|
151. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: Concord doesn't decide for me what I choose to do or not. It doesn't decide for you, no, because it doesn't prevent, it provides protection. Murk Paradox wrote: It's not a "cost" if the ship is free. No ship is free....
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 18:22:00
|
152. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: Lord Zim wrote: Murk Paradox wrote: Which one do you think best describes Concord. A protector, because they keep you safe from harm or injury. They're not perfect, so they can't protect you against everything, b...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 18:20:00
|
153. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: I'm saying Concord does not protect. And you're wrong. Murk Paradox wrote: My choices in cargo provide a better deterrent to would be gankers than Concord does. The only reason the cargo plays a role in determining w...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 18:15:00
|
154. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: Which one do you think best describes Concord. A protector, because they keep you safe from harm or injury. They're not perfect, so they can't protect you against everything, but they can protect you against the vast m...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 18:12:00
|
155. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: Sure it is. If I wanted to gank you in highsec I could. Yes, you can. You won't, though, because the threat of death by concord is keeping you from doing so. Murk Paradox wrote: Concord would not stop me. Not unless ...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 18:09:00
|
156. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: So far, we have been focusing on highsec, and Concord. A lack of Concord is a nonfactor. Except concord being present turns the risk of getting ganked from near as makes no difference 100%, to ... much, much less. Again, c...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 18:02:00
|
157. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: And my empty hold, by making me less attractive of a target, is a far greater deterrent than Concord. Except if there's no concord, then you being an empty hauler doesn't matter, all that'd matter is that you're a flying k...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 18:01:00
|
158. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: With concord- Empty hauler- most likely safe. Full hauler- most likely dead. You forgot "Without concord", but I'll fill in the blanks for you: Without concord: empty hauler: dead full hauler: dead Concord protects. M...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 17:52:00
|
159. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: Lord Zim wrote: Death by concord, yes. Concord protects through deterrence. Without concord, there would be no deterrence through certain death by concord, and thus no protection . You just literally made 0 sense. Ye...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 17:49:00
|
160. Why risk versus reward doesn't matter - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Murk Paradox wrote: Skeln Thargensen wrote: the pirates are still deterred if their potential gain is less than the loss they calculate. Exactly. And considering lowsec doesn't provide them with any instant losses for ganking anyone, tha...
- by Lord Zim - at 2013.04.08 17:36:00
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |