good luck, but i'm extremely disappointed burn jita 3 doesn't have a subtitle

I have thousands of hours of video & chatlogs that prove this wrong. What have you got?

please link to your peer reviewed proof that Burn Jita events kills subs.

I know a guy that does exactly that. He hangs around in a boosted dessie and kills PODS of evil gankers. What's really fun is when he pisses off the gankers..they war dec him and he gets in a different alt and starts all over. Basically he must get ganker tears..if they are pissed off enough to war dec him over and over and never get a kill off him.

FYI, the real action will be on the gates.



Traffic control + Burn Jita = Hilarity.

Then people couldn't waste 50 Million for a pointless wardec,
although he could as well just reopen his corp after dropping out.

Anyhow, it seems you are not the brightestbutton in the box.
But you're just a miner anyway.

Doing that during GCC does not.

Anyhow, it's weird, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's dumb or something.
Especially because he's not a miner like you are.
I'm glad you are beginning to accept reality and stop denying it.

I just haven't found my way out of high-sec yet.
And unfortunately, I've made myself an enormous hated target due to my opinions on the Erotica1 issue.

Nonetheless, I hate fking high-sec, and the specifically the people in it.
Hopefully soon I can become an proper angry hermit in a WH somewhere.

And you know this how?

So people who express an opinion on a forum are to be targeted, but it's' their fault if they get ganked because they don't read the forums, yet they are here (where are the threads, BTW?) trying to stop ganking, and therefore will know about this event, and therefore not be the people who want to gank because they went to the forums and insulted your way of life.

I don't think you are going to hit the targets you are looking for.

Does anybody comprehend anything any more?

Hello Baltec, would you please be kind enough to explain to the good folk of Eve, how and why Burn Jita is the fault of hi-sec players?

So watching someone else in distress is amusing to you?

That's good to know, about your personalities and stuff.

I would suggest that to the person who is in distress as well, but also to the person who is deriving enjoyment about being the cause of it and actively seeking an opportunity to cause it again.

Well while you're free to come up with whatever knowledge you wish to extract based on your own misconceptions, it wasn't the intention of my post which should be easily discernible considering the issue I'm clearly addressing is the desire to recreate the feeling of distress that potentially mentally ill person is exhibiting.

So if you honestly feel that these people who get upset need "serious professional help", what type of person are you who laughs at them, people who you feel need "professional serious help"?

Which is perfectly fine.

Except for those who are motivated to participate in "burn jita" for "tears". Those people are in need of a psychiatrist.

You are argueing with somebody who believes thag there is no necessity in stating
that he is talking opinions and that people should instead take it for granted that everybod
is doing so.

This guy is completely locked inside his ego.


Also, dave, I want to publicly mention that the picking between us is just show and
that we actually don't hate each other. Before somebody might use that as argument for
whatever ridiculousness his mind creates.

You know what else iw also hideous?

Damn, wrong response. -.-

Just a few days I caught somebody.

Hmpf.


:)

Even better, lol.

And it has to be a legit, primary profession carebear.

No cheats or hax.

No Miner Dave, you are not included.

We belong the same "sociopathic" community, remember?

Ugh. Gosh.

what then is to be said about the person who went out of their way to get that result and laughs at them?


Double standard is double.

Don't get me wrong. I support the burning and sacking of EVE's Rome.
But you might want to look closer to home to find the largest concentration of "entitled wretches", if ya know what I mean.

Would you not agree, that Nullbear tears are quite a distinct and appetizing flavor?

Are you saying EVE is dying?

Careful now, Nullbear.

I guess you'd better call your lawyer then.

Fixed that for you.
I'll use lube next time, I promise.

That's all you ever look like.

I know you are still angry and upset Erotica1 was banned, but you really should finally get over it.

So its over yes? Did the goons get anything good?

All I saw was a bunch of dessy wrecks and a lot of concord ships, I must have missed the party.

Very disappointing. Hardly the "burning" I was expecting.

It's not a risk if you understand it to be a guaranteed loss.

it's only a risk if there's a potential you will/won't lose your ship.

If it's a gauranteed loss, then it's just the cost, not a risk.

It's called a suicide gank because your dying isn't a "risk", it's an understanding that your ship will be destroyed.

Because you understand you will die, a "suicide" gank, then it's essentially paying for a gank.

No, it's more like going to the grocery store and purchasing a gallon of milk for $1.69. Getting that gallon of milk wasn't a risk because you understood you were going to have to pay for it.

Well then maybe you should considering going to a store that gaurantees they'll sell you what you pay for.

(Better fit your suicide gank ship, Bring a better suicide gank ship, or bring friends with good enough gank ships)

The only reason the "risk" exists is because you don't take the steps necessary to ensure it's being successful.

What you're describing isn't a "suicide gank". It's a "stupid gank" attempt.

like I said earlier: people who have zero experience with suicide ganking seem to believe that isk shows up in your wallet the moment the target explodes

Hmm, I see what you mean.

I'm sorry, at first I thought you were doing "suicide ganks" for the purpose of killing another ship for the fun/enjoyment/sake of doing so.

I didn't take into consideration that your entire premise of a suicide gank was to "profit".

Sorry for assigning an honorable intention onto what clearly is not.

Enjoy your "profiting".

"possibility of losing something of value"

You attribute your own meaning to what has value.

Your value is placed on "financial".

Also, if I go outside when it's forecasted to rain without an umbrella, I run the "risk" of getting wet. That's not a financial risk. So risk can very well apply to other "values".

So the only possibility of risk involves a potential financial loss?

What about before money was invented? If a caveman fell asleep in the Savanah, he ran a real risk of being attacked by an animal.

What's the financial loss associated with that? Isn't that a risk?

You're stating the only possible definition for risk is "financial loss".

I've given you proof that there are other definitions of risk, yet you ignore them.

You are wrong in your belief that "risk" only pertains to financial loss.

Which I stated I was wrong concerning a "financial loss" risk not existing.

I also included an explanation that I thought another value other than "profit" was the motivation being used for suicide ganking, those other motivations pertaining to other definitions of risk.

Which you were then wrong when you stated the only definition of risk is "financial loss".

So what risks could suicide ganking for ***** and giggles involve?

Well when not considering your goal is for profit, considering my initial argument was that there was no risk since my satement wasn't based around "financial", with proper planning you could destroy someone's ship with bringing more dps than their tank can sustain within the amount of time for concord to arrive.

My initial position was that there was no risk, because I was focusing on the task of ensuring a space ship destroyed without considering profit as what determined the risk.

Like I could go with 4 guys in catalysts to blow up 1 retriever. Sure, you might consider it "overkill" and "not worth it" considering it wont be as profitable, but if your only goal is to deny that person of their retriever without considering profit as the motivator, then it's very well possible it can be done without risk, and simply a cost.

Like you right now, doing this burn jita.

A charon warps into system, you know it has zero fittings because they have zero fittings available to them, so you just assume the pilot has maxed skills to plan on the side of caution.

You then calculate how much DPS is needed to blow up the Charon before concord can kill you. You bring that much DPS, and then a bunch of white knights in jita alpha half of your catalysts, rep the freighter, and foil your efforts at a gank!

oh dear god, my argument just fell apart, but i thought i was right...

how could i have been so foolish?

No, because if your goal wasn't your own profit, and merely the other person's loss, you could be bringing more than enough DPS to destroy every freighter regardless of what it's cargo is. But because your focusing on profit and not the destruction, you then assign a value to "profit" which then manifests a risk.

considering a charon has a set number of EHP, all you have to do is gain a high enough DPS to destroy that charon before concord can kill you. You could "over kill" because you know your organization can afford, while those you're destroying, do not have the same resources as you.

If your goal was purely the destruction of the freighters, and not the profit, you could be running a risk free operation because there is no risk, you gaurantee your ability to destroy the freighter by bringing more than enough DPS to destroy it. There would be a "cost" yes, but no risk, since you're accepting the loss of your ship as a necessary cost.

The only reason risk exists is because you're choosing to focus on the profit of the gank, and not focus on your imposing the destruction of the target's ship.

Bring enough DPS to kill the people who become vulnerable through healing the freighter your attacking.

So bring more.

Increase your sensor strength

Use ships with higher DPS capability.

learn to fit your ship

no, i understand that regardless of how much sensor strength, there's always going to be a chance that your ship get jammed.

But your ships sensor strength compared to the ship's jamming strength, you can increase your resistance against jamming to be so high that the probability of "everyone" getting jammed is so low that it's more likely an asteroid slam into earth cutting out power.

It's so small of a risk that it's negligible.

I disagree

The risk is so miniscule it's negligible.

Negligible risk, a risk so small you should not consider it as an influencing factor in how you make your decisions.

I welcome this opportunity to teach you how burn jita should properly be conducted.

It's negligible enough to not let it be an influencing factor in how you make your decisions.

It's only irrelevant because you choose to regard it as so since you choose to not accept that the risk is negligible enough to not be an influencing factor.

How you feel about it doesn't negate that the risk is negligible.

I'll just leave this here.

Nothing you've said negates the fact that you could plan your operations in a manner that ensure success(if the measure of success were the destruction of the ship instead of profiting in isk through it's destruction).

considering that it will never be possible to reach a 100%, choosing the plan that is 99.99999% effective is the best you can hope for, which means in the realm of reality, it's risk-free.

No, because your "proof" rests in an absolute which is impossible, while my suggestions are based in reality.

Your demanding absolutes cripples your argument, because there are no absolutes, and since there are no absolutes, addressing them as a method of proof pertaining to reality is a fallacious demand because it's impossible.

By your logic, you should not be pressing the keys on your keyboard, or using your computer because it may get angry and attack you, zapping you with electricity and smashing you over your head with the keyboard and mouse. You demand absolute proof? Absolutely prove that your computer will not do that. You can't absolutely prove it, but you can, within the realm of reality, accept that the likely hood of it happening is so negligible, that you do not consider it as a determining factor regarding your choice to use it.

Whats the point of killing freighters carrying crap like this

https://zkillboard.com/kill/38453830/

I don't get it

O no, my hypothetical fits quite well. You've constantly demanded an absolute 0% risk suggestion, which is impossible, just like you can't prove that your computer attacking you is 0%.

It may be highly unlikely, yes. So unlikely that you shouldn't waste time considering that it's a real possibility, definitely. Yet you will hypocritically demand an absolute from someone else.

So you waste time trying to get proof of an absolute. You just sat here and spent like 3 pages or so worth of posting demanding I provide you with an absolute, which means an absolute is important to you.

I never brought up absolutes, you assigned the attribute of an absolute to my post of your own accord, showing a propensity to demand absolute proof.

You'll see I suggested multiple times that the risk was so negligible, that it wasn't worth considering as a determining factor you should use to influence your decisions. Yet even after my stating that repeatedly, you continued to demand an absolute.

ALSO, you stated that your own definition of "risk" as an absolute.

Yes you did.
Right here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4517025#post4517025

Right here is when you begin using an absolute as an attempt to prove me wrong:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4517025#post4517025

so

yes you did.