“cyka blyat”.
I started to learn Russian the day I started Eve.
As someone who does every site they come across, whether someone’s in it or not, all I have to say is:
If you don’t want me running “your” site, make me leave. Otherwise, I will enjoy the tears as you cry about it.
5 Likes
If only you could have posted this to someone named ‘Your Ex-Boyfriend’…
2 Likes
trust me, tis much more fitting this way. 
The fact that you can scan down and enter an already combat active site that another player is already in should have been the clue you needed as to how these sites work.
open to all to compete for, even when someone else finds it and enters it first.
you see this with everything in EVE, missions, DED sites, Mining sites, incursions, you name it.
i never heard of this rule, written or unwritten and you’d be foolish to believe otherwise.
it’s not yours till it’s in you wallet or cargo hold and even then it’s still not yours, you’re just leasing it 
2 Likes
That’s why I don’t bother with it anymore. I’m not flying around doing combat sites when theres Gnosis, Stratios, Gilas all flying around chain running sites 24/7. They can go blow each other up.
1 Like
Bittervets and carebear rules sounded like a great start to a post but:
Boring…
(I put that emoji there because it looks rude and hopefully it will add at least some level of excitement to this post).
Indeed, I’m surprised they got that many posts about a few mil in loot
Yes they don’t work this way because currently limited engagement is only granted to the guy who is attacked but would not be able to attack back without it.
My suggestion uses the limited engagement mechanics but in different way. Since this is only theory and a suggestion I proposed as “maybe if it worked this way”, complaining on the fact that limited engagement currently doesn’t do this makes no sense.
STOP using words you don’t understand. Seriously.
OWNER has a meaning. You don’t know what this word means, stop using it.
LIMITED ENGAGEMENT has a meaning. See above. then read carefully https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/203268611-Duels-Limited-Engagements
Again your post makes absolutely no sense. You somehow assuming that the moment someone warps to the site and becomes “owner” of that site, he is from that point automatically going to get the loot/bounties or whatever. No he is not. The only thing that would change is that when another player comes to compete, he will become attackable by the “owner” without concord intervention.
There is only single thing this proposal change and thats opportunity. If you are doing a site and someone else if going to try compete and you don’t like it you will be able to do something with it. Something else than log in your multiboxed sucide gank fleet or attack him with current ship and get concorded, laughed at and hunted for next month for free.
Since mostly, the only one getting site “stolen” is flying cheap ship and has low skills this will not make much difference in those cases, the carebear in tengu who comes to compete is going to have this as you can"t fight him in your vexor (or whatever) anyway. But if you got a pvp ship say stratios and another guy comes to compete with vigilant, then you might have a nice pvp if he is going to risk the limited engagement for you.
Blockquote
You used the word “owner”, which was completely out of spot.
There is no owner. With or without quotes, you are still believing that you own something. This is false. Get That Out Of Your Head. This is a wrong image you have of Eve.
Blockquote
STOP using words you don’t understand. Seriously.
OWNER has a meaning. You don’t know what this word means, stop using it.
LIMITED ENGAGEMENT has a meaning. See above. then read carefully https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/203268611-Duels-Limited-Engagements
Replace the “owner” with first guy who comes if it makes you so big problems to comprehend and chew off. HTFU lol.
you don’t get it. if you come first, you don’t OWN anything.
It’s not me who is using the word badly. It’s you. It’s not me to replace that word. It’s you to accept you are wrong when using it.
You have a WRONG idea of Eve.
There is no OWNER of a site in Eve. The only THIEF is the one stealing the content from a can he doesn’t own. Anything else is WRONG.
You can not discuss about Eve if you don’t accept this fact. You are just saying “I know I am wrong, but…”. You know you are wrong, then stop being wrong .
1 Like
CCP owns everything in-game, even your character. /thread 
2 Likes
you are hopeless I see - you see a word “owner” and you start raging without even reading it. I already explained what I meant with that, if you don’t understand that the term was only imaginary to describe how to apply theoretic mechanism that would allowed to fight for sites in highec, then you should stop posting here, next post on the “owner” will be reported.
I haven’t actually saw any real argument why is fighting in highsec bad, the only compains were towards owning anything. Which has nothing to do with my suggestion.
It is only theory anyway, we know that CPP won’t do ■■■■ with this especially when we have here a strong base of the highsec carebears who want to run sites already in progress, but stay perfectly safe behind concord mechanism, and who do everything they can do to preserve this play style. And it doesn’t need to concern me as I am rather doing the sites in lowsec than highsec.
I read “owner of a site”. It’s your fault to use the word badly, not mine.
And you keep affirming that using this word is correct, while it is not.
This is childish, and the reason why you don’t understand Eve.
This is a reason for CCP to not even care about your rants. You don’t even try to understand, you just want things to change based on your feelings. That is egoist.
1 Like
So you warp your ‘whatever’ to an event site, say Crimson Harvest for example, and you let your drones out to slowly chew the rats, while tractoring and salvaging from your high slots, until the one rat with the loot is finally killed. All the while spewing in local on the ppl who come run the site and kill the objective with measured proficiency. You threaten war dec’s and send emails to ceo’s (true story). HA! I LAUGH AT YOU. I SPIT IN YOUR FACE! Ha ha! You have created the REAL content of this entertaining game. Congratulations! Thank you CCP thank you for the crying ineffective alphas. Give them capitals soon!
1 Like
No they are not. A limited engagement is always between both people, and as soon as there is such a limited engagement both can fire on each-other without CONCORD intervention.
Then I just warp to a site, cloack up and if some other random PvEer drops in I can kill him without CONCORD.
That ok for you?
EDIT
BTW, you can ignore Anderson, she has some serious problem with words.
6 Likes
Blockquote
No they are not. A limited engagement is always between both people, and as soon as there is such a limited engagement both can fire on each-other without CONCORD intervention.
Ah right, i forgot, usually the guy is suspect/criminal when LE happens but it is true it is mutual and so they can fight even when the suspect/criminal runs out.
Blockquote
Then I just warp to a site, cloack up and if some other random PvEer drops in I can kill him without CONCORD.
That ok for you?
I ruled cloak out in one of the posts. The first post was just rought draft without much of the thought. Then I realized that it could be abused with cloak, anyway it doesn’t really matter, I am out of this discussion.
1 Like
If you want that, you might as well be in low sec. Outside of large gate camps, most things that can lock you in time will be popped by gate guns.
And where being able to shoot people that bother you actually matters, you will have what you want
1 Like