High Sec Candidate

[darkestkhan_Eriker]

@Dracvlad

You are trolling this thread by projecting bullshite against the OP, I have created a thread in C&P where you can vomit there. Go for it.

Projecting bullshite against the op that the op itself has written? Sorry, but you really need to check what op is writing.

[Dracvlad]

@darkestkhan_Eriker

Projecting bullshite against the op that the op itself has written? Sorry, but you really need to check what op is writing.

Above the OP talked about the chance of surviving a gank, certain people decided to change that to creating a chance based system to survive a gank and attacked the OP for it.

Reading and comprehension is hard.

[Siegfried_Tahl]

@Dracvlad

Above the OP talked about the chance of surviving a gank, certain people decided to change that to creating a chance based system to survive a gank and attacked the OP for it.

Because she has been ambiguous and refuses to clarify her stance ever since.

[darkestkhan_Eriker]

@Dracvlad

Above the OP talked about the chance of surviving a gank, certain people decided to change that to creating a chance based system to survive a gank and attacked the OP for it.

Reading and comprehension is hard.

Actually, IT WAS OP THAT TALKED ABOUT CHANCE OF SURVIVING A GANK. Stop trolling and go reread op’s posts.

[Dracvlad]

@Siegfried_Tahl

Because she has been ambiguous and refuses to clarify her stance ever since.

You were ambiguous and misrepresented what was said.

@darkestkhan_Eriker

Actually, IT WAS OP THAT TALKED ABOUT CHANCE OF SURVIVING A GANK . Stop trolling and go reread op’s posts.

No where did the OP suggest a chance based system, you are trolling.

[darkestkhan_Eriker]

@Lorelei_Ierendi

Ganker: I would like at least a 50% chance of walking away from a gank. At the moment this is not the case. On my blog, in the past, I mentioned some changes to Concord that I would like to see. I would also like to see some changes to Ice Spawning (maybe in random systems?) that would mean that the gankers would have to move around to gank ice miners! Local chat could also be changed to provide less free “intel” to people. No need to announce to everyone who is in local… just the number of pilots.
I would like to clarify, I am not in favour of stopping ganking completely. I am not in favour of just AFK mining the whole day. EVE is what it is, and the game developers have been quite clear over the years where they stand on this issue.

@Dracvlad

No where did the OP suggest a chance based system, you are trolling.

Right in the original message…
You see, whatever changes you make gankers will adapt to turn that 50% into 100% as long as you don’t make it purely random.

[Dracvlad]

@darkestkhan_Eriker

Right in the original message…
You see, whatever changes you make gankers will adapt to turn that 50% into 100% as long as you don’t make it purely random.

I have not seen the OP ask for a chance based system, are you on meds?

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

Whoa whoa whoa!

I just logged on and got told that there were 47 new messages in my thread.
It is going to take me a while to get through it all… I hope that it is not all about ganking, because high sec is about so much more than just ganking!

Before I read everything I would like to thank the people on my side for chiming in. I would also like to remind the general population to please not feed the trolls!

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

@Gerard_Amatin

post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged

Thank you for stopping by anyway!

Vote! For anyone! Just vote!

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

@Siegfried_Tahl

Now tel me she didnt really mean it, or I took it out of context.

Well I never mentioned anyone “stealing” my ore turning “suspect” - as you said in your previous post. (previous to this large quote).

I said that the owning corporation of the athanor should be able to shoot people mining there. Being suspect would mean that anyone could shoot the miners… which I explicitly said I did not want!

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

@Knowledgeminer

that’s not what she said she wants. What she said (or rather implied , since she made absolutely no distinction) is all should be given at least a 50% chance to survive.

I guess she wants or expects the careful ones would have a higher rate of survival than the stated 50% minimum, but the completely careless ones would still get the 50% minimum survival rate regardless.

The point is that once the ganker / gankers (maybe just one person multi-boxing) has made up their mind to gank that freighter… the freighter is going to die. Even if the freighter pilot is not AFK. Once the gank fleet has decided that the freighter will die, it will die. (unless it gets lucky and logs off before they have aggressed it).

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

@Siegfried_Tahl

A valid question, is it not?

My old english teacher used to say…

“There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.” (the punctuation was mine).

I find it objectionable being forced to break the law. There should be options for defence available that are not “illegal” (maybe it is a game lore problem… but then crimewatch needs extra-fixing… not just normal fixing)

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

@Siegfried_Tahl

The link says you only need 2.5 hours to strip mine your belt with 4 toons

Reddit always tells the truth.

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

@Solstice_Projekt said:

“Her ideas are literal attacks on us gankers and our “playstyle”
and she lies to our faces about it.”

No and no.
Lying I am not. And trying to destroy ganking I am not.

It’s not like I am complaining about the “tethering” mechanic…

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

@Siegfried_Tahl

Still no valid counterargument or numbers.

One does not need to counter an invalid argument or numbers with a valid argument or valid numbers.

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

@Retribution_atSubZero

You could boil this thread down to one phrase…A snake eating it’s own tail…endless trolling on both sides…

Every year it gets worse… and I more or less start with the same post.

[Knowledgeminer]

@Lorelei_Ierendi

The point is that once the ganker / gankers (maybe just one person multi-boxing) has made up their mind to gank that freighter… the freighter is going to die.

Yes, this is not entirely correct, but I understood this is what you believe happens and would like to change so the freighter only dies at most 50% of the times, right?

What you’re missing here is that this is not a problem that needs fixing, and thinking in terms of what would happen in low sec would help you see this better.

The problem is not that the freighter faces a guaranteed death once it gets caught. The problem is that the freighter pilot allowed himself to get caught in the first place.

The question you should ask yourself is what would that freighter pilot have to do if he had to go through low sec, and then take the same precaution measures when he flies through high sec, only through high sec it’s much easier because high sec is safer (but not safe).

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

@Siegfried_Tahl

Because she has been ambiguous and refuses to clarify her stance ever since.

I have been perfectly clear. Many times over the years.
Just get fed up with repeating myself for the trolls that keep dancing around me.
(that was a visual image I did not need)

[Lorelei_Ierendi]

@Knowledgeminer

The question you should ask yourself is what would that freighter pilot have to do if he had to go through low sec

Low sec is not high sec. The standards should be different.
But one person with one account flying a freighter through high sec is screwed.
But then we should all spend more money on eve… and not just have that one omega account…

[Natocha_Daisy]

@Knowledgeminer

The question you should ask yourself is what would that freighter pilot have to do if he had to go through low sec, and then take the same precaution measures when he flies through high sec, only through high sec it’s much easier because high sec is safer (but not safe).

What point are you making here?

You kind of lost me…

Stating the obvious but I’m missing the purpose …