In other words, things you might find "useful" or "productive" or something?

i said 22m on the ship, if you were half as smart as you pretend to be you could have easily know that the mack would drop in average half that.

also, 1m catalysts are possible, i use 1.4m isk thrashers.

stop fitting t2. and stop pretending your fleet is compromised of "real" people.

Because he has valuable he doesn't want to lose, nor does he want to take the time and effort to defend them properly, thus he needs CCP intervention.

In other words, he lives in High Sec. I heard the "Highsec" is Old Aramaic for "Land of Entitlement and Welfare". it's in the bible, look it up.

Your inability to see any point of view other than your own never ceases to amaze. I actually have multiple accounts in three areas. Hi-sec low/null just not wormholes. I donGÇÖt know everything about the game or even as much as others. I do know how I see things and have the ability of being even brained and can see things from multiple points of view. I may not always agree with those views but I will state my case and stand for what I believe to be right and what may help others.

"i consider suicide ganking a cheap playstyle, so it should be removed from the game"

well, I consider AFK mining a cheap playstyle since it involves the most minimal interaction with the game possible

as a result, I support the scourging of those engaging in that gameplay

I'm an angry NAP aspirant. I want to scourge people. I am obsessed with hi-sec miners.

well, I consider AFK mining a cheap playstyle since it involves the most minimal interaction with the game possible

Sure, point taken, but you are wrong about it, because there are more profitable and less interactive play styles. You then cannot kick miners out of the game, because you need the minerals, but you can well kick gankers out of the game, because they are not needed for anything.

So it still needs a good argument. Miners have all the good arguments. Why cannot those cheap gankers have good arguments?

Next time you see such a creature, do not ask yourself, "why should I kill him". Instead, ask yourself - "what right do I have to let him live".

Sure, point taken, but you are wrong about it, because there are more profitable and less interactive play styles. You then cannot kick miners out of the game, because you need the minerals, but you can well kick gankers out of the game, because they are not needed for anything.

So it still needs a good argument. Miners have all the good arguments. Why cannot those cheap gankers have good arguments?

i too overestimate my own importance and ...

You still do. I do not. I ask and still have not seen an argument as solid as any of the miners. So I keep asking. You keep overestimating.

Fellow capsuleers, look now to the highsec miner among us. So corrupted is he by bot-aspirant gameplay that he can only see things in terms of passive ISK/hour - that is, profit. Concepts like "fun" and "social bonds" are completely alien to him. Day after day, his kind proliferates in the ice belts, asteroid fields, mission hubs and incursion areas. Protected by the skirts of CONCORD, they pursue the only thing they can see - ISK - rejecting entirely the sandbox concept which we hold so dear.

Next time you see such a creature, do not ask yourself, "why should I kill him". Instead, ask yourself - "what right do I have to let him live".

miners cannot argue why their wealth generation which scales indefinitely needs to be so passive and safe beyond "mining is boring" which is still an awful argument since other forms of wealth/isk generation are also boring and cannot be done so passively

sure you can argue that moons generate wealth passively but they cannot be mined in areas that minimize the risk profile, as anywhere that moon mining is allowed also allows sieging of towers without the need for a wardec, and high-end moon mining does not scale indefinitely as the number of those moons is very, very limited - for example, there are less than 400 tech moons in the entire game, while there is no limit to the number of afk retrievers/macks that can operate in a single ice belt

After we destroy the miners who make passive isk, we must destroy the traders who make isk while not even being logged in. Death to traders.

After we destroy the miners who make passive isk, we must destroy the traders who make isk while not even being logged in. Death to traders.

"afk mining is a valid playstyle" is an oxymoron since "afk" and "gameplay" are fundamentally incompatible but continue to defend your quasi-botting, it is amusing

gankers are important because they add a dimension of gameplay to the staleness that is hisec, the fact that it's only relatively safer than other areas of the game and not to the point where you can expose the entirety of your wealth in a single ship and not risk losing it in one swoop

I do know how I see things and have the ability of being even brained and can see things from multiple points of view. I may not always agree with those views...

gankers argue that ganking is pvp, then how come ganking should be profitable when pvp isnt?

I always imagine Tippia standing in front of a brick wall while saying these things lol. Because that's how effective it is at convincing the other party that their beliefs are unfounded.

In fact the wrong is that PvP isnt.

I have played other PvP games where I never had to stop PvPing to earn a lot of money by killing scores of people. That was fun and profitable.

EvE PvP should be profitable too. That'd be also an excellent "Joe The 0.0 Grunt" bottom up income.

Just because something is PvP does not automatically make it good PvP. It is the dumbest thing one can do just after hating PvP itself. It is important to ask for the reasons why a play style exists and to see why it is good and why it is bad, because it can be used to improve the PvP experience.

I think that ganking should only be profitable when the correct target is found. Such as someone who is carrying a massive amount of isk in goods or mods, silly enough to be flying around advertising themselves. General ganking of any-old person should not be profitable. If it were, they'd be even more people claiming to be elite "PvPers" in highsec than there already are. True PvP should be found in low and nullsec space, where is suppose to be going down. But the highsec ganker crowd have found their easy-mode, with their risk-free completely one-sided carebear targets. Why risk an actual PvP battle when they can get their kills and loot so easily from targets that don't shoot back?

Most of them wouldn't know PvP if it came up and slapped them in the face!

I'd argue that pirates are a victim of their own success. They've taught highsec players over and over, the hard way, that coming to lowsec often results in a quick death, often in the jaws of a waiting gatecamp. Now they've succeeded in turning lowsec into a wasteland, seems only logicial they'd move to highsec to continue the slaughter. Who cares that it harms the game as a whole, and prevents newer players from making the natural progression to low and nullsec space? As long as they're getting their easymode, the gankers will continue to defend their niche, and continue to yammer their highsec-hating rhetoric to justify their position.