Then wtf?
To tell you the truth I don’t care.
2 Likes
You consent to PvP as soon as you undock bruv 
- The fact you keep bringing real life in is cringe
- Good thing this is a vidya game
- They choose to be the victim bruv
Imagine lying about being a LEO and a vet, and then also not knowing why you wouldn’t want everything on zkills. But you’re an elite PVPer right?
No there isn’t. As soon as you undock, you consent. All PvP is consensual
Mm that and being a hive of scum and villainy. But now peeps just cry on the forums.
Mm no that’s not how this works bruv. If you don’t wanna PvP, don’t undock
Yes, ganking is PvP. It is all PvP.
Ahh you’re a krab. Now everything makes sense All in your hole alone huh?
1 Like
Frankly, I don’t know how that guy still has the gall to show his face in this forum. In his place, I would’ve biomassed and uninstalled but I guess shame isn’t a concept he understands.
Eh, he’s just another internet tough guy lying about his life for attempted virtual clout. He’s also an American living in Kentucky which carries another whole host of problems.
Basically, he’s a sad caricature of a man. I pity him really. Imagine how worked he up he gets over vidya game pixels
Like too many of his ilk.
Don’t get me started on Kentucky…
He’s cringy.
All those “anti-PvP” snowflakes should’ve read the game description three times and used a dictionary before they started dreaming about rocks, holes and getting isk-rich.
It’s so pathetic I cringe for them.
^^ THAT ^^
May the ISD pay attention.
Nice cliche , unfortunately it’s a little more complicated than that isn’t it because of concord involvement.
If I undock in high sec I have to consent to concord protecting me or I lose my ship . CCP have chosen though to leave loopholes in this system which gankers exploit . So I have to face a one sided battle .
While still technically pvp this is a fact . So while you are correct , it’s only because of CCPs complicity in leaving the concord loopholes and choosing not to better develop gate guns or allowing the navies that sit on the gates to intervene that players can partake in this one side style of pvp .
So as I say while your technically correct it’s fairer to say you have to risk one sided pvp if you undock in high sec , hence the controversy over ganking .
1 Like
It is not more complicated.
Different sectors of space carry different consequences for PvP.
Regardless, as soon as you undock, you consent to PvP.
There are no loopholes. Facpo does actually play a role. It sounds like you need to learn to EVE.
It isn’t one sided. Gank them first bruv. You can choose not to, but then that means you have a choice
So to summarize:
- Undocking means consent to PvP, ergo all PvP is consensual
- Learn to EVE kthx
2 Likes
More clichés , think we are all always learning something new about the game we play all the time , that’s what makes it so exciting don’t think anyone can claim to have ‘learnt eve’ in its entirety .
1 Like
I’d already said what I wanted to say , thanks
2 Likes
You people keep talking about “CONCORD loopholes” this and “being protected by CONCORD” that, but you never actually explain what those loopholes are, or how gankers are protected by CONCORD. All you do is desperately try to obfuscate your lack of genuine arguments with outrage.
3 Likes
I credited you with more intelligence but to spell it out response times being longer than a warp to the nearest station
1 Like
CONCORD having a maximum response time of twenty-something seconds isn’t a “loophole.” It’s an intentional design decision that makes the act of ganking possible at all.
Want to try again?
1 Like
Yes if you read my post I did say loopholes that CCP had deliberately designed
1 Like
Okay, so you don’t understand what the term “loophole” means, got it.
“an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.”
So an inadequacy in the set of rules that concord follow that means the security they provide isn’t total .
1 Like
except CONCORD doesn’t provide security… Their main job is to impart justice against a criminal that does an illegal act.
Faction Police and Faction Navy work differently than CONCORD.
3 Likes
Except there is no ambiguity (the mechanic is well-documented, with timing tables freely available online), nor is there an inadequacy (the game mechanics are absolute and can’t be shirked in any manner) with regard to CONCORD.
You’re interpreting the “inadequacy” portion of the definition as the mechanic not being powerful enough in your favor, which is your own subjective viewpoint, and not what “inadequacy” means with regard to the definition of “loophole.” To phrase it more simply: CONCORD taking longer to respond than what you feel is “right” isn’t a loophole.
4 Likes
Sorry programing the response time to be less than as fast as possible is a loophole , a deliberate one yes and a loophole that’s bigger ( more inadequate ) in lower security systems .
the closer you get to lowsec, the slower they are going to respond cause CONCORD won’t care as you are getting further away from empire space.
- 0.5: Roughly 19 seconds.
- 0.6: Roughly 14 seconds.
- 0.7 : Roughly 10 seconds.
- 0.8 : Roughly 7 seconds.
- 0.9 and 1.0: Roughly 6 seconds
2 Likes
“As fast as possible” is simply instant ship destruction. So basically it sounds like you believe that ganking merely existing is a loophole. In which case, stop your intellectual dishonestly and simply advocate for the removal of ganking entirely, as opposed to fixing “loopholes” that would only make it more “fair” or whatever, because obviously you want it gone completely.
Just ask for a PvP toggle like the rest of the filthy carebears do.
3 Likes