|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 14:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Jack Dant wrote:Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Andski wrote:Very few "PvPers" sell GTCs for ISK to fund themselves. true but the/an they are not pure PvPers, they got at least one alt attached to making iSK, which makes them EVE players. As i stated few posts above. An EVE Player is someone who plays EVE. That's the only valid definition, not the one you invent yourself. Thats the whole point. EVE player is one who plays EVE as you wrote. Yet somehow some people feel that they play-style is only way how to play EVE.
Not only that.
EvE is a PvP-game and that makes every EvE player a PvPer even if some are in a state of denial. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jack Dant wrote:Montevius Williams wrote:Outta curiosity if the enemey brings 50 BS's to gank a Freighter full of really expensive cargo flying through high sec gate to gate instead of autopiloting how is that anywhere near fair to the frieghter pilot? You cant fit it better and gate to gate is the quickest way to do it. You cant fly with support against that many enemies and theres no real way to know if they are coming for you some times even if you have scouts 3 systems out. I would like to know the answer to this as well. Dont stuff the frieghter to such an extent that it makes it worth ganking.
This ^^
I am amazed that so many are lacking common sense. Maybe you all can learn a real lesson in EvE.
EvE is real.
|
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:02:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.
After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.
And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.
Can I have your stuff?
in EvE everybody PvP. Period. Just because some players focus more on PvE content doesn't mean they don't PvP. Period.
It is just that in hig-hsec there are rules and consequences that do not apply to null and low.
If you don't like it, why not go play another game instead of trying to ruin this one.
|
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Lexmana wrote:Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'. That's why there is lo-sec, null-sec and w-space. It appears to me that those who engage in attacking hi-sec targets (non pvp'ers), don't want to risk losing their ships to real pvp'ers in lo-sec, null-sec, and w-space. Kind of like the school yard bully who only picks fights with the 95 pound weakling, then brags how he knocked him out. That same bully won't pick a fight with the Jiu-Jitsu black belt and risked being choked to sleep... It's very easy to attack ships that are not looking for a fight in hi-security space. A mission runner who has a pve fit gets ganked and now the ganker thinks he/she did something special...not sure I see the 'win' logic in that.
After reading the QEN and finding out that 75%+ of all players reside in hi-sec I realized that there is a reason for that. They clearly DO NOT want to do PvP. Trying to force PvP on them (by being the bully) is a joke. The harsh reality for the gankers (read school yard bully) is that if you want a real fight...go to lo-sec, null, or w-space. Stop complaining that your ganking is becoming less effective, or how you'll have to switch tactics and use SB gangs to gank those who cannot defend themselves.
And those who complain that the game is going down the drain or carebears are taking over, and they are threatening to leave EVE...I have one question for you.
Can I have your stuff? in EvE everybody PvP. Period. Just because some players focus more on PvE content doesn't mean they don't PvP. Period. It is just that in hig-hsec there are rules and consequences that do not apply to null and low. If you don't like it, why not go play another game instead of trying to ruin this one. Hmm, i cant see any logic in your post. Generally every EVE player play EVE. If you dont play EVE why you dont play other game ??? Just cant get it.
EvE is a PvP game. Get it now? |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:58:00 -
[5] - Quote
Anna Hyperthron wrote:Lexmana wrote:
EvE is a PvP game. Get it now?
No, its not.
The fact that players are ganked even in high-sec proves me right. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Richard Aiel wrote:MeestaPenni wrote:Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'.
I'm not sure either. In game yesterday, I opened the star map and set the legend to show me "ships destroyed in the last hour." Now, I don't know if it was a glitch or something....but by a vast majority, the greatest amount of activity in that regard was in hi-sec empire space. Someone else try that and post the results. 'Cause if I were to interpret that I would gather that hi sec is less safe than low or null sec. At least in that hour it was. you know that counts NPC kills too? Like ratting/missioning? I don't think so....otherwise many more systems would show results as a result of ratting.
Try looking at "Escape pods destroyed" instead and you see a different pattern.
Also, to estimate risk you need to standardize your estimate by number of pilots e.g. by calculating a ratio of kills/no of pilots in space. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
43
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Anyone?....quit beating around the bush.
Where are the majority of ships destroyed?
I'll get that....in hi sec and low sec border systems.
The perception that low and null sec is much more dangerous needs to be changed. I'll bet everyone would agree to that. Unfortunately, I don't think the current FOTM will have the best affect. Instead of the focus on the "bad guys" ganking ships in hi sec....maybe the focus should be on raising awareness of how empty low and null really are.
Why not take a trip to null and see for yourself. You can survive in highsec right , so null should be like a walk in the park for you. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
52
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:11:00 -
[8] - Quote
Cearain wrote: The new BCs are new ship hulls that should be fully insured just like the battleship hull. There may be some minor decrease in the cost of the platinum insurance but not much. You would still need to buy the large guns and any mods you put on the ship.
/../ suicide ganking just got effectively eliminated..
If you are going to suicide your BC you don't insure it and it will prob only be marginally more expensive to replace an uninsured BC than a BS with insurance. No big change.
|
|
|
|