you know when you're winning a fair fight and some teet suckling ****** warps in an alt?
please see thread title and lash on.

Post on your main so we can at least know what you lost to generate those tears...

you know when you're winning a fair fight and some teet suckling ****** warps in an alt?
please see thread title and lash on.

What if I had a friend warping in instead of an alt? Would it satisfy you since I would still only have a single account?

fighting a fair fight is so STUPID
pls OP stop doing STUPID THINGS

#BlobOnly
#DropCaps

sorry for the ACHING STUPIDITY.
i'm just an unreasonable curmudgeon in an internet space game.

Yeah, it's a shame, no honor in this game of Alts Online.

Things would be a lot different in this game if the server only allowed the client to log in one character.



DMC

Cos I totally don't have several computers here. Or you want them to restrict it by IP, too? How much is a VPN nowadays? $5/month? Where there's a will, there's a way. Maybe OP just needs to "get gud"...

Cos I totally don't have several computers here. Or you want them to restrict it by IP, too? How much is a VPN nowadays? $5/month? Where there's a will, there's a way. Maybe OP just needs to "get gud"...

thanks for proving my point, hun.

you know when you're winning a fair fight and some teet suckling ****** warps in an alt?
please see thread title and lash on.

he/she can duel people on jita undock!
legit 1vs1

ops... forgot about nados....

hello! i'm on my main bitches!

ops... forgot about nados....

Ever seen what a Taranis can do to a Tornado? Learn 2 pvp.

oh yes senpai! pls teach me!
specially if you hit approach with a taranis against a nado *boom! headshot! oneshotted*

specially if you hit approach with a taranis against a nado *boom! headshot! oneshotted*

An artillery fit ship (especially LARGE artillery) cannot hit a frigate if the frigate knows what he is doing. But approach the 'nado, by all means. For some reason they usually end up running from me. Or they die if I get in tackle range.

What is this fair that the OP speaks of?

I gotta ask...What exactly makes a main your main? The toon you spend the most time on? The one with the most skill points? Most ISK? The one you designed to look like your real self?

I gotta ask...What exactly makes a main your main? The toon you spend the most time on? The one with the most skill points? Most ISK? The one you designed to look like your real self?

you know when you're winning a fair fight and some teet suckling ****** warps in an alt?
please see thread title and lash on.

A fair fight can only result in stalemate.

Huh?

The only fair fight, would be two identical entities fighting in a system of exactly equal circumstances.

This will result in an endless fight if not restricted by time or other resource limitations.(stalemate)
If resources are finite, though one side or the other will win each time, the average will remain a perpetual 1:1 win/loss ratio for both sides. (Stalemate)

Lol. You're joking. Surely. Please tell me you're joking.

Joking?

How? Explain.

No. Im not joking.


If I beat you in arm wrestling, its cos i had qualities/quantities greater than yours.

The fight was never fair to begin with.

If we had equal qualities/quanities (ie: fair) neither of us coyld win, resulting in stalemate.

Fairness is not defined by equality of skill, it's defined by honesty/integrity/impartiality/lack of favouritism.

In game, as used by the OP, it is seen as not blobbing people, sticking to 1v1 committments, equal numbers (not equal abilities) of opposing fleets.

Fairness certainly doesn't mean only stalemate. That's ridiculous.

There is no perfect equality of skill in EVE.
Fairness is not defined by honesty/interity/impartiality/fsvoritism, except as qualities/quantities you or you oppent have, or do nor have.

The fight would only be fair if you and the opponent are identical.

You are confusing fairness to be a moral measure, which is subjective value, to fairness in who wins, which is an objective measur of unfairness.

Honesty, integrity, etc will not help you win a fight.
Otherwise, it would be so that if I am more honest than everyone in EVE,I would win every spaceship fight with the sheer power of my honesty.

I guess English isn't your first language.

Fairness doent mean what you think it means.

You arguments dont mean what you think they mean.

Unfairness in the qualities/quantities between two opponents is what decides the winner from the loser.

What is this fair that the OP speaks of?

Fairness is not defined by equality of skill, it's about how you treat people.

I see no people. I only see targets. In warfare the first thing you do is dehumanize the enemy. It's the only way you can kill him and stay sane.

This is not conducive to sanity.

The correct attitude in war, is you must kill them before they kill you, or those that fight with you, or those you are defending.

If you see people merely as targets in war, youve already lost your sanity.

When you dehumanize the enemy, you dehumanize yourself.

You absolutely DO dehumanize your enemy. If you think about it too much, you will go insane. Especially when you're lobbing a grenade or using anything other than your M-16 to pick off a single target.

That's because you had lacking training to help you understand your purpose as a soldier.

I see no people. I only see targets. Killmails waiting to happen. Maybe this is where you're going wrong. In warfare the first thing you do is dehumanize the enemy. It's the only way you can kill him and stay sane.

I didn't know you could train someone to be comfortable with murder. If that's possible, then you're right, I didn't get that training, and neither did anyone else I served with. You cannot take that great moral role onto yourself, when you are but a cog in a greater machine.

We're characters in a video game. If you struggle with sanity over exploding pixels, then perhaps PvP isn't a good choice. Maybe even EVE is not a good choice.

Its not murder, as long as its an action taken during combat in war in-order to defend yourself, your comrades or the fulfillment of your mission from enemy combatants.

You don't need to dehumanize the enemy, in-order to fulfill this.
Its not murder. You have to kill them, or they will kill you, given the chance.

But they are people, and soldiers, and they too operate under the same precept.

As I said above, killing non-combatants is a serious issue and potentially murder and a war-crime.

The point I am making, is you don't need to dehumanize the enemy in-order to kill them.
A) Dehumanizing them is what will drive you insane. They are humans. You killed them. Dehumanizing them wont change that.
B) Dehumanizing them will lead to behavior which will lead them to dehumanize you and your comrades as well.
C) Dehumanizing them is what will lead to the death of innocents, as you no longer distinguish between them, nor care.
D) Dehumanizing them leads to underestimating them as humans and capable combatants, putting you and your comrades at risk.

The only justification you have, and need, to kill enemies, is to defend yourself, your comrades and your objective.
No dehumanization necessary.

A rather antiquated ethical view once shared by a great many people. You can still see images of their great deeds of combat on artful pottery, coins, and frescoes of the ancient world. As civilization advanced, however, and weaponry became more deadly, and you could annihilate first 10 enemies, with a new technology, people realized that their ethics would have to be somewhat blunted. Then came 100 people, and a thousand, and tens of thousands, the societies creating those weapons wanting to use them, a further erosion occurred.

You can see in their surviving documents, a shift from 'this is right and good,' to more of a 'this is so much power, and so efficient' stance. As they enriched themselves, physically, however, there was a notable drop off in the complexity of their culture. Why bother cultivating methods of peaceful interaction, when you can just push a button and annihilate them?

Clearly, the OP is from one of these less advanced cultures, and should be annihilated?

Hmm, that sounds like something Daniel Jackson would say on SG-1... Oh well, I liked him.

The time for all that theorizing is pre-op. Yes, I said a lot of the things you just said, and tried to get my superiors to listen. That never worked. When the time comes, and you're on the ground, that **** is gone, completely. It's not time to talk or think, anymore, but to get the job done.

I understand.

My point is that dehumanizing the enemy is not conducive to sanity of troops, nor operational effectiveness.

The correct motivation, and the only justification a soldier needs and has to kill, is to protect themselves, their comrades, and in fulfillment of their mission (which ofc also includes killing as many enemies as possible).

Its that simple.

The whole dehumanizing aspect is self-destructive and harmful in the long-run, and completely unnecessary.

I'm sorry to hear you didn't get this kind of training and where instead encouraged to dehumanize the enemy.
If it helps, and if you have regrets, consider them in the format I said above.
Perhaps you can find some peace there for actions you might have regretted or orders you didnt agree with.

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.