matters more when you pick the destination, in my opinion. Any limitation on choice is a limitation on the journey. Insistence on being coddled is an demand for limitations.
I honestly cannot understand whether we are arguing.
1 Like
I dont think we are arguing 
I totally agree with what you are saying, I just feel that I could be a little more sympathetic to the krablettes as there has to be some common ground or as you say they could insulate themselves in ED or something.
Ofc the biggest difference is theres no actual AFK play in ED, so that might be a bigger factor.
1 Like
I am! I am absolutely sympathetic to people who enjoy PVE. However, I believe we already have common ground - concord, crimewatch, lack of neutral logi, wardec nerfs.
Yet still: the slogan of the vocal carebear remains “One more nerf!”
In other words, the distinction I draw is not between PVEers and PVPers, but between people who feel entitled to be safe from others and those willing to work out a way to play with others.
2 Likes
Its not exactly my argument or point, but I have to tell you, I never once considered typing anything for the sake of exciting you. If my posts bore you, don’t read them.
Whats the point of having mining lasers that tear rocks apart but do no damage to spaceships? Whats the point having to wait until a known ganker shoots at you with all guns on overload before you with good security status can shoot at him?
I will say it once again so maybe you will get it this time, but I don’t have a problem with PVP. I have a problem with PVH, or even PVT if you will, Player vs. target.
I would practically dismantle Concord if I could, so stop trying to pigeon-hole me as a simple carebear. What I really want for players is to be able fight for themselves more, but I won’t complain too much if hi-sec just becomes safer for someother reason, sure. Look, If one or two guys in ventures can’t fight off a catalyst in high sec, okay. But I would like to see it made so that three ventures can fight and survive, if only the guys next to the one under attack would pull their heads out of ther butt holes and shoot it. And if Concord never showed up, and three ventures got ganked by one cat, despite true offensive capability given to them, just because they tried not to get involved, fine by me.
Maybe you could say my true philosoply is , make PVP mean player versus player again. Short of that, take it out of high sec for all I care. That would STILL leave most of EVE open to PVP and PVT if I am not mistaken.
1 Like
stop with the abbreviations. This is a distinction without a difference.
indeed
you have summarized my experience with failure right there. There are no changes needed on the side of the game mechanics. It’s not that difficult to not be ganked. All one as to do, in your own words, is to pull their heads out of their behinds.
Record scratch
I found it, the uniting factor between these sides. And so for the first time this year (but far from the first or last time ever) I say;
Let Mining Lasers Do Targetted Damage To Enemy Ship Modules
1 Like
I explained the difference. If you can’t understand it the problem is on your end.
If you cannot form a cogent response or do better than parse my quotes, then don’t respond and don’t quote.
I know that. But as one so concerned about things being “boring” I might think you would appreciate the boredom of your choices being run and uh, run.
I really have no idea why anyone keen on PVP would not be jumping up and down with excitement of the idea of reasonably armed miners and freighters being able to fend of lone gankers if they just help each other a bit PLUS Concord being neutered or gone from this picture. I really don’t.
Could it be you were not looking to talk but rather looking to be on the opposite side of an argument?
2 Likes
I’m 100% with you on that. But this does not necessitate a mechanical change. Miners can literally already do that. In my experience, they just don’t seem to want to do that. If this is not so, I’m probably not hearing you correctly.
EDIT: If that was referring to the idea of mining lasers doing damage - sure - as long as that means I can mine the miners too. 
Sure. I (personally) don’t mind concord, but sure.
Yeah. I think you are right. I’ll refrain from that.
1 Like
I will just ask…but have you ever seen a group of three venture miners on their own take out a catalyst or thrasher that came in a gank run and was not yet an outlaw…and all three miners survived?
For some reason I am thinking that if anything like that ever happened, it was a long, long time ago when EVE fittings and hulls were VERY different…maybe even pre-dating the venture itself.
I am even having serious doubts about about them taking down a ganker that was already of outlaw status and they could put their drones on him as soon as he got on grid. Would love to see the scenario but I generally would bet on the ganker.
The only way I see the ventures all surviving now is if the target is well tanked and it was actually Concord that killed the ganker. But I suspect a venture so tanked would be terrible at mining.
Please, let me know if I am wrong, and extra points for being specific.
yeah… that seems to be the tradeoff. The same as what happens with most other ships. I can put a plate on a slicer giving it more ehp, but making it worse for what I want it do overall. Same idea.
I have also never seen a group of three exploration frigates fit for exploration take out a catalyst or a thrasher.
Ventures should run. If ventures don’t want to run, ventures should turn into skiffs or whatever else it is that has decent tank and can mine. I feel like that is pretty clear…
Miners could also just have jams on grid. But all of that eats into their isk/hour. The problem it seems is optimizing fits and fleet comps for mining and then saying they are bad at other stuff.
Except for the ones who want to d*-size, and pad their kill counts.
“FARM ISK WITH IMPUNITY” … Dear OP … you’re confused … your statement is the very definition of SOV NULL and all the RMT junkies that live there. Hope that helps with your “world view”.
There are plenty of other skilled and well armed folks you could go to kill, but that means you’d have to put your money where your mouth is, and actually be good enough to kill an actual -opponent-
1 Like
everyone is an actual opponent. Stop underestimating other players and calm down, miner.
Edit: @Avatar_Sky-on I just looked at your lossboard, and I tried to write a witty comment, but I couldn’t come up with anything, but I also wanted to say something.
This is exactly something that a non-PvPer would say, who’s completely ignorant of the predator/prey relationship inherent to this game.
Why would I go out and fight other well-armed and skilled people, unless I absolutely had to? In an open-ended but rational system, the only time I would have to do this would be when I’m competing for resources and territory with other predators. At all other times, I would be going after and consuming prey, e.g. players like you. A pride of lions won’t seek out another pride to hunt for food, or go after the swarm of crocodiles in the local pond, before moving on to the antelopes as a last resort; that’s just not how things work.
Now, as prey, you could fight back using various tools available to you. You could seek safety in numbers, making it difficult for me to attack you (because no matter how well-equipped or skilled I am, 30 ■■■■-fit Drakes will still kill me every single time). You could also develop a symbiotic relationship with a predator group, and pay them for protection with some of your PvE profits. You could relocate somewhere I won’t chase you, and starve me out. Hell, you could even become a predator yourself. But you people don’t do any of these things, because you’re all miserly little goblins who can’t bear the thought of parting with a single penny that’s not directly spent on further wealth accumulation.
You’re ignorant, bad at the game, greedy, and entitled. It’s a terrible combination of traits that almost in a way makes you subhuman as a player. The only use you have for anyone else is to act as food for other players, and to be their content. If you don’t like this, stop blaming other players for killing you instead of killing each other, learn, adapt, and enlighten yourself, and stop being such an enticing target.
3 Likes
Well, let’s just use the mantra that the PVP crowd always uses when saying when the topic is miners, etc getting nerfed. No Risk, No reward.
Since CCP seems to be hell bent on driving up destruction numbers, make it nice and simple, the % chance of loot being dropped should be the ratio between your target’s DPS and your EHP. You want to pick on something with 0% chance of hurting you back, -all- the stuff goes boom.
And no trying to skirt the risk/reward mechanic, since a cargo container has 0 DPS, any attempt by the person who is not the owner, or the -actual character- who did the killing, means that the loot goes auto-boom.
Any yellow or red cargo container should be treated like a Relic/data site… come in and hack it for a chance of it not going boom.
see, there’s simple logic, using the logic that you all seem to like to use, and notice I don’t have to resort to AD Hom attacks against players to do it… pity you can’t say the same.
1 Like
There’s no “logic” behind that whatsoever; just a rambling nonsense idea for an arbitrary limitation proposed by an aggrieved miner to “get back at 'em griefers.”
2 Likes
…and dying of course. BTW, we havent heard from him, maybe is lost in Pochven fixing standings now, and knowing his luck… we will not hear about him for long, long time.
just because you disagree with the point, doesn’t mean there’s not any logic… unless you’d care to point out what I said -isn’t true-… it’s no more ‘arbitrary’ then what they have been doing to miners and ratters.
1 Like
It’s on you to present an argument for why your idea is necessary, before it becomes on me to present an argument for why it’s not. So far you haven’t done that. All you did was yell out “we need this!” and that’s it. That’s not an argument, that’s a demand.
1 Like