Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1492
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 01:28:00 -
[61] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Morganta wrote:ganking is 100% risk stuff Chance of failure can never be zero. There is always a chance that lag will mess you up (which the ganker cannot completely prepare against).
Chance of success can never be zero either. Ganking is never 100% risk. I expect that with a few simple precautions (scanning the target ahead of time, picking fleets with no combat drones, picking solo miners or fleets with no orca), the chance of failure will be low single digits.
|
Aooz
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 01:31:00 -
[62] - Quote
Disregard That wrote:baltec1 wrote:Its only risk free because the miners make it risk free. This, a thousand times. Did you know that once a player goes GCC they usually take several more seconds to inflict any damage? Miners could fight back. They choose not to. They choose to post whine threads instead. And occasionally whine spin threads, too. That is why they fail.
Oh wow, "it's the miners fault they don't kill us when we arrive instead of mining lolz stupid miner" |
Delen Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 02:02:00 -
[63] - Quote
Aooz wrote:Disregard That wrote:baltec1 wrote:Its only risk free because the miners make it risk free. This, a thousand times. Did you know that once a player goes GCC they usually take several more seconds to inflict any damage? Miners could fight back. They choose not to. They choose to post whine threads instead. And occasionally whine spin threads, too. That is why they fail. Oh wow, "it's the miners fault they don't kill us when we arrive instead of mining lolz stupid miner"
Yup, and miners aren't risk-averse - it's just that those damn asteroids just won't fight back!
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1011
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 02:28:00 -
[64] - Quote
Delen Ormand wrote:Aooz wrote:Disregard That wrote:baltec1 wrote:Its only risk free because the miners make it risk free. This, a thousand times. Did you know that once a player goes GCC they usually take several more seconds to inflict any damage? Miners could fight back. They choose not to. They choose to post whine threads instead. And occasionally whine spin threads, too. That is why they fail. Oh wow, "it's the miners fault they don't kill us when we arrive instead of mining lolz stupid miner" Yup, and miners aren't risk-averse - it's just that those damn asteroids just won't fight back! Rats spawn... ^___^ in some places, though. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
228
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 03:14:00 -
[65] - Quote
O good, a mining thread I needed somewhere to take a ****.
Im not posting the too annoying and pointless to gank hulk again, cause its simple enough to find. There are however some easy things you can do to make mining much safe.
- Mine In Minmatar, Amarr or Gallente Space. Not only will you not have ECM Caldari Rats, but most gankers roam Lone Trek. You also get better belts in Amarr space, so move.
- Dscan at 1AU on one hulk and at Max Range on your orca. If you see mass of Gankish ships on long range, get set to bail, if they show up on short range, fleet warp to safety leaving the gankers to land on space.
- Fit the tank fit. Sure you lose 18% of your yeild but you get 20K EHP more. 20% Less for not dying = common sense.
- You know those trade routes from market hub to market hub? You know the ones where concord is around that one bottleneck gate 24/7. Yeah, that one. Mine more then 2 jumps away cause you know they scout ****.
- Train for a BB just for ***** and giggles then swap to it as a bunch of dessi's lock you. Though dont ecm it, double LSE II it and chuckle. Then when they are dead, swap to your Noctis and salvage all their wrecks before the scout alt can. Double the troll with a nice loot income.*
- Have 5 Hobs plus 5 Honet EC-300s in your drone bay. The ease in which ec-300s jam cats and trashers is annoying to cat and trasher pilots. OP really, should nerf them.
*Only if you can swap ships after getting agressed, not sure if they "fixed" that from an orca. So swap before someone shoots ya.
Edit - Forgot, you could always mine in null sec too, Null sec is pretty much the safest mining space in EVE now, for must things really. Oceans of blue, a carebears dream. plus they don't mine in belts so harder to find and what not. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1492
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 07:11:00 -
[66] - Quote
sYnc Vir wrote:Train for a BB just for ***** and giggles then swap to it as a bunch of dessi's lock you.
You cannot swap ships when aggressed.
If you want to have fun at the ganker's expense, sit in a long range tier 3 battlecruiser with sebos some distance from the mining fleet. When the blinky reds appear, lock and shoot. You'll get a shot or two in between then going GCC and being popped by CONCORD, and might even save a mining ship or two.
The best part about this is that many of the gankers are KOS in hisec space (they're blinky red all the time) so you can shoot them before they even gain a GCC.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
909
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 07:14:00 -
[67] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Morganta wrote:ganking is 100% risk stuff Chance of failure can never be zero. There is always a chance that lag will mess you up (which the ganker cannot completely prepare against). Chance of success can never be zero either. Ganking is never 100% risk. I expect that with a few simple precautions (scanning the target ahead of time, picking fleets with no combat drones, picking solo miners or fleets with no orca), the chance of failure will be low single digits.
wow you mean that with adequate preparation you might just mitigate the risk of failure, like in literally every other aspect of the game?????? eh |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
795
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 07:23:00 -
[68] - Quote
MasterEnt wrote:When you really think about it, its not the miners who are Risk-Adverse.
HiSec Miners are - Still out there in HiSec flying expensive ships despite the "war"... RISK.
Gankers are - Loading out cheap combat ships to fight non-combat ships that cannot fight back... NO RISK. - Attacking under circumstances where allies cannot always help out due to HiSec mechanics... NO RISK. - Getting paid to make said attacks, which nullifies loss... NO RISK.
It is actually the gankers who are risk-adverse. Bravo to Hulkageddoners on the spin. Well Played
This is why I love EVE. Now lets move on.
You missed a point:
Gankers are - Ganking with help from alts in throwaway trial accounts... NO RISK.
EVE is Serious Business: You shall not feel entitled to being allowed to play EVE just because you are paying it. |
Mme Pinkerton
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 07:57:00 -
[69] - Quote
Morganta wrote:MasterEnt wrote:When you really think about it, its not the miners who are Risk-Adverse.
HiSec Miners are - Still out there in HiSec flying expensive ships despite the "war"... RISK.
Gankers are - Loading out cheap combat ships to fight non-combat ships that cannot fight back... NO RISK. - Attacking under circumstances where allies cannot always help out due to HiSec mechanics... NO RISK. - Getting paid to make said attacks, which nullifies loss... NO RISK.
It is actually the gankers who are risk-adverse. Bravo to Hulkageddoners on the spin. Well Played
This is why I love EVE. Now lets move on. ganking is 100% risk since when is a fully fit DPS tornado cheap? 100% RISK concord always helps out the downtrodden 100% RISK 10% of your losses is getting paid? hell insurance pays more... oh but gankers don't get that, do they? 100% RISK your argument is thusly refuted
in economics/finance risk is usually understood as a measure of the measurable uncertainty of an outcome (i.e. related to statistical variance), it includes upward risks (things going better than expected) and downward risks (things going worse than expected).
A 100% guaranteed loss carries no risk. A bet which will win me either $5 or $10 is risky.
(edit: what do I mean by "measurable" uncertainty? in some contexts "risk" and "uncertainty" are understood as separate concepts: risk is something I can mathematically compute and predict whereas uncertainty is something I cannot predict in any reasonable fashion. Buying a lottery ticket exposes me only to risk, making a bet on the US rate of inflation in 2030 would be dominated by uncertainty. How people make decisions/should make decisions under risk is well understood, how people make decisions/should make decisions under uncertainty is very poorly understood. Usually trading is suspended in times of considerable short-term uncertainty [think 9/11] until - in the eyes of investors - some of it has transformed into quantifiable risk. I use "measurable uncertainty" as I want to avoid that distinction between uncertainty and risk.) An IPO guide (David H'Levi) | Towards a Positive Argument For Investing (RAW23) | Freighter Operations 101 (Kazuo Ishiguro) | Dominion market analysis (Akita T)
|
Cyprus Amaro
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 08:02:00 -
[70] - Quote
MasterEnt wrote:When you really think about it, its not the miners who are Risk-Adverse.
HiSec Miners are - Still out there in HiSec flying expensive ships despite the "war"... RISK.
Gankers are - Loading out cheap combat ships to fight non-combat ships that cannot fight back... NO RISK. - Attacking under circumstances where allies cannot always help out due to HiSec mechanics... NO RISK. - Getting paid to make said attacks, which nullifies loss... NO RISK.
It is actually the gankers who are risk-adverse. Bravo to Hulkageddoners on the spin. Well Played
This is why I love EVE. Now lets move on.
You would think this concept would be pretty simple, but most will disagree with you because they don't understand the concept of "risk". They confuse cost of doing business with "risk".
In the past I was a pro blackjack player. I wasn't at risk since I knew the odds going in based on the individual game rules, my skills, and the law of probability. Losing occasionally wasn't a risk, it was a cost of doing business. The Gankers are exactly the same. But again, they won't ever see past their own delusions to understand the truth. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
909
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 08:03:00 -
[71] - Quote
i agree, remove suicide ganking, there's no risk in it compared to mining, which is done at risk due to suicide ganking eh |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 09:07:00 -
[72] - Quote
Morganta wrote:MasterEnt wrote:When you really think about it, its not the miners who are Risk-Adverse.
HiSec Miners are - Still out there in HiSec flying expensive ships despite the "war"... RISK.
Gankers are - Loading out cheap combat ships to fight non-combat ships that cannot fight back... NO RISK. - Attacking under circumstances where allies cannot always help out due to HiSec mechanics... NO RISK. - Getting paid to make said attacks, which nullifies loss... NO RISK.
It is actually the gankers who are risk-adverse. Bravo to Hulkageddoners on the spin. Well Played
This is why I love EVE. Now lets move on. ganking is 100% risk since when is a fully fit DPS tornado cheap? 100% RISK concord always helps out the downtrodden 100% RISK 10% of your losses is getting paid? hell insurance pays more... oh but gankers don't get that, do they? 100% RISK your argument is thusly refuted
None of that is risk. All of the above is known. A ganker knows what the cost is before the battle. That is not risk because he/she is willing to lose all 100% in order to kill the target. Why because the target is worth it and it is a sure thing no risk of failure. No calculated risk because they know the target is dead.
Risk would be if the ganker was not sure that the gank would work? What if the gank attempt failed now that is risk. What if the ganker fleet did not know the setup on the target ship? Now that is risk. A ganker fleet can calculate how much damage they need to do to alpha the target before they even attack it. That is not risk. That is the opposite of risk. What if the ganker fleet did not know these things up front. What if they could not use a ship scanner in high sec to determine this before hand. When they can do this they just avoid attacking those hulks that are tanked again that is not risk it is making a choice to attack a known target that can be killed profitably. Totally known risk before they fire the first shot.
What would happen if the ganker fleet did not know the outfit of the target before the attack? Then the question becomes what and how does the ganker fleet outfit itself for the attack? How much damage do they need to bring. What is the cost of the ganker fleet ging to be? Is the attack going to be profitable? Do you take a chance? Risk! Is it going to be overkill? Just to insure the kill because they do not know the outfit of the target. That is risk inducing. What if they had no idea how long the response time from concord would be? Now that is risk inducing for both sides. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
909
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 09:09:00 -
[73] - Quote
let's argue the risks taken by the only players who provide any meaningful risk to other players in hisec eh |
Cyprus Black
Ascension Corporation
218
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 09:21:00 -
[74] - Quote
I find that having a set of ECM drones orbit me while I mine significantly increases my survivability. Twice now it has thwarted would-be gankers. You wouldn't complain about needles when you get a tattoo. So why would you complain about PvP when you play EVE? |
Mallak Azaria
189
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 09:31:00 -
[75] - Quote
Dyvim Slorm wrote:Morganta wrote:
ganking is 100% risk
since when is a fully fit DPS tornado cheap? 100% RISK concord always helps out the downtrodden 100% RISK 10% of your losses is getting paid? hell insurance pays more... oh but gankers don't get that, do they? 100% RISK
your argument is thusly refuted
Exactly the case. Gankers accept the risk in full
So does the miner when they press undock. |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 09:33:00 -
[76] - Quote
Cyprus Black wrote:I find that having a set of ECM drones orbit me while I mine significantly increases my survivability. Twice now it has thwarted would-be gankers.
As far as game mechanics go that is risk inducing because the ecm drone is chance based. Therefore it adds real risk to the ganker attack. You are no longer a sure kill unless they bring in way overkill. Then the value of the target might not be worth the attack. Real risk. About the only way in this game to add the element of risk to a gank attack with the current game mechanics.
|
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 09:41:00 -
[77] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:let's argue the risks taken by the only players who provide any meaningful risk to other players in hisec
Ok what are they? Sec standing loss is not a risk it is known and can be figured out ahead of time. And can be gotten rid of by grinding. That is not risk. There is nothing chance based there at all. What else? A disconnect is not a risk as both sides face the same chance of that happening. Loss of your ship is not a risk because you do not commit to the attack until you know you will win at a profit. There is no chance based failure. The only failure is from noob gankers not knowing what they are doing. So what then? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
909
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 09:44:00 -
[78] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:let's argue the risks taken by the only players who provide any meaningful risk to other players in hisec Ok what are they? Sec standing loss is not a risk it is known and can be figured out ahead of time. And can be gotten rid of by grinding. That is not risk. There is nothing chance based there at all. What else? A disconnect is not a risk as both sides face the same chance of that happening. Loss of your ship is not a risk because you do not commit to the attack until you know you will win at a profit. There is no chance based failure. The only failure is from noob gankers not knowing what they are doing. So what then?
the miner being competent/not a bot eh |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 09:59:00 -
[79] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:let's argue the risks taken by the only players who provide any meaningful risk to other players in hisec Ok what are they? Sec standing loss is not a risk it is known and can be figured out ahead of time. And can be gotten rid of by grinding. That is not risk. There is nothing chance based there at all. What else? A disconnect is not a risk as both sides face the same chance of that happening. Loss of your ship is not a risk because you do not commit to the attack until you know you will win at a profit. There is no chance based failure. The only failure is from noob gankers not knowing what they are doing. So what then? the miner being competent/not a bot
Then I submit you do not know how to execute a proper gank. If you have scanned the miner and it does not have any ECM then it is dead 100% as in no chance if the ganker is skilled in his trade. Only chance under this scenario is if the miner is not there when the gankers arrive. Now again this is not risk because you did not get a chance to open fire and your ships did not get concorded for nothing. You live to find another target. Neither side lost anything.
What else? |
Makkal Hanaya
Drakenburg
82
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 10:30:00 -
[80] - Quote
The ships and fittings used by suicide gankers are an investment if the activity is low risk and a speculation if it is high risk. You might also call it a 'buy-in.'
The risk in suicide ganking seems to be based on the likelihood of the Hulk surviving the attack, the wreckage being valuable, and the chance of someone else absconding with the goods before the gankers or their allies can get it. Risk can be mitigated a number of ways, some of which would lower total profit.
Can a suicide ganker consistently destroy a Hulk before being Concorded and make enough from the dropped modules to recoup their principal and make a satisfying amount of profit? Then it's not a high risk activity.
I don't have those numbers, however. Gankers on this forum can tell us their personal experience, though there's no way to tell if they represent the average ganker.
However, much of this conversation is based on the idea that minimizing risk is bad. It's not. although my eyes were open they might have just as well've been closed
|
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
459
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 10:55:00 -
[81] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Why? There are 30 to 40 untanked hulks to make a profit on. Mine away good sir. Too tough target for you? Well its not called Rokhageddon, is it.
Yes, its too tough a target for the majority of gankers, congratulations on adapting unlike 99% of your peers in their zero-buffer mining ships. May you profit greatly from looting hulk and tornado wrecks when we gank the idiot next to you in the belt! Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 11:32:00 -
[82] - Quote
Makkal Hanaya wrote:The ships and fittings used by suicide gankers are an investment if the activity is low risk and a speculation if it is high risk. You might also call it a 'buy-in.'
The risk in suicide ganking seems to be based on the likelihood of the Hulk surviving the attack, the wreckage being valuable, and the chance of someone else absconding with the goods before the gankers or their allies can get it. Risk can be mitigated a number of ways, some of which would lower total profit.
Can a suicide ganker consistently destroy a Hulk before being Concorded and make enough from the dropped modules to recoup their principal and make a satisfying amount of profit? Then it's not a high risk activity.
I don't have those numbers, however. Gankers on this forum can tell us their personal experience, though there's no way to tell if they represent the average ganker.
However, much of this conversation is based on the idea that minimizing risk is bad. It's not.
Noob gankers do sometimes fail but they learn and become skilled. Skilled do not fail. Goons are outsourcing the ganking mostly so lots of noobs trying out ganking. Ganking is not a risk event for the skilled ganker. They know the outcome and only attack when they have the right conditions. Maybe you want to consider those conditions to be the element of risk, I do not as the skilled ganker does not attack when conditions are not favorable and they do attack when they are favorable and then they do not fail, that is no risk. They do not for example attack and fail and get concorded while the hulk gets away. But the noobs do that sometimes. Rarely even then do they fail because it is fairly easy to do. |
Mallak Azaria
189
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 11:41:00 -
[83] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:Then I submit you do not know how to execute a proper gank. If you have scanned the miner and it does not have any ECM then it is dead 100% as in no chanceif the ganker is skilled in his trade.
This just in! Ganking is 100% successful.
Herr Hammer Draken wrote: Only chance under this scenario is if the miner is not there when the gankers arrive.
But sometimes it's not. |
Heinrich Rotwang
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 13:32:00 -
[84] - Quote
Morganta wrote:MasterEnt wrote:When you really think about it, its not the miners who are Risk-Adverse.
HiSec Miners are - Still out there in HiSec flying expensive ships despite the "war"... RISK.
Gankers are - Loading out cheap combat ships to fight non-combat ships that cannot fight back... NO RISK. - Attacking under circumstances where allies cannot always help out due to HiSec mechanics... NO RISK. - Getting paid to make said attacks, which nullifies loss... NO RISK.
It is actually the gankers who are risk-adverse. Bravo to Hulkageddoners on the spin. Well Played
This is why I love EVE. Now lets move on. ganking is 100% risk since when is a fully fit DPS tornado cheap? 100% RISK concord always helps out the downtrodden 100% RISK 10% of your losses is getting paid? hell insurance pays more... oh but gankers don't get that, do they? 100% RISK your argument is thusly refuted
Math obviously isn't your strong suit. 100% isn't risk. It's certainty. Go figure. |
Natsett Amuinn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
106
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 13:44:00 -
[85] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Natsett Amuinn wrote: Is crap. You don't even need to tank a retreiver,
False. The typical retriever (newb) user even with a shield extender will have an hard time suriving a 3 frig spawn at 0.6 sec and 0.5 sec.
You seem to have missed the part were you can do it with 3 drones, and the part were I said .6 and .7.
Know how I know this? Because I did it as a newb miner in a retriever in .6 and .7 belts, and never once lost a ship to a single rat spawn. Those 3 drones were the ONLY thing I used to protect myself.
You can more then enough options to protect yourself from other players in those same systems. You guys are refusing to listen to anything anyone says, and come up with one excuse after another to say that it's not possible, when it is.
I guarantee if CCP came out and said that everything is working as intended and that miners have the ability to protect themselves by either utilizing thier fittings in a way that would make it impossible for someone to suicide gank them, or to start working with others, that you guys would tell CCP they were wrong, that there's no way to stop someone from ganking you, and that CCP needs to make the hulk impossible to be blown up in hi sec or remove the ability to suicide gank.
You guys can deny it till you're blue in the face. The demands to give the hulk more "tank" without having to actually use fittings to do so is just another way of telling CCP to remove suicide ganks from hi sec. |
baltec1
1393
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 17:21:00 -
[86] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: You missed a point:
Gankers are - Ganking with help from alts in throwaway trial accounts... NO RISK.
Thats bannable. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
641
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 18:22:00 -
[87] - Quote
Once again a moron completely fails to understand what it is that players are actually averse to.
Carebears are averse to loss.
Gankers don't care about loss at all. But are averse to failure.
Carebears risk loss, gankers risk failure. |
EVE Roy Mustang
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 18:31:00 -
[88] - Quote
wtf NOT a James315 thread?
And you got it backwards. the gankers are risk averse cause they cant be prevented from doing what they want by being killed first. Also the whole attacking ppl with no weapons.
as far as CONCORD, thats called a business expense. Not a risk. They arent risking their ships as its a certainty that they WILL be destroyed.
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Once again a moron completely fails to understand what it is that players are actually averse to.
Carebears are averse to loss.
Gankers don't care about loss at all. But are averse to failure.
Carebears risk loss, gankers risk failure.
So everyone is risk averse then? |
Disregard That
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
102
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 18:37:00 -
[89] - Quote
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:wtf NOT a James315 thread?
And you got it backwards. the gankers are risk averse cause they cant be prevented from doing what they want by being killed first. Also the whole attacking ppl with no weapons.
as far as CONCORD, thats called a business expense. Not a risk. They arent risking their ships as its a certainty that they WILL be destroyed. They can be prevented from doing what they want, miners just won't do it. Also the whole not bringing any weapons into space thing is idiocy in its own right.
We agree, however, that the risk isn't the destruction of the ship, as that is a given. The risk is in whether or not the cost (ship) achieves the desired effect (another ship destruction). While you may not see this as risk, I assure you it most certainly is.
Did I mention that nobody can stop miners from doing what they want, either, if they would just do it right?
No, not the way I want them to. Right. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1833
|
Posted - 2012.06.09 18:38:00 -
[90] - Quote
EVE Roy Mustang wrote:wtf NOT a James315 thread?
And you got it backwards. the gankers are risk averse cause they cant be prevented from doing what they want by being killed first. Also the whole attacking ppl with no weapons.
as far as CONCORD, thats called a business expense. Not a risk. They arent risking their ships as its a certainty that they WILL be destroyed.
They absolutely can be stopped. Either alpha the dessies as they go GCC or suicide the Nados before they fire (one Nado can kill 3-4 gank Nados before getting concorded itself). Or shoot the outlaw gankers as they land.
Miners are just too lazy to stop their pet gankers
Quote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:Once again a moron completely fails to understand what it is that players are actually averse to.
Carebears are averse to loss.
Gankers don't care about loss at all. But are averse to failure.
Carebears risk loss, gankers risk failure. So everyone is risk averse then?
Nope. You don't actually understand what the word "risk" means. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |