When one small group flies into enemy space they are going to get a defence fleet dropped on them. If the small group here didn’t expect this kind of response…………
If you want small gang pvp don’t go to delve lol
My point exactly… But sadly that goes for larger scale fights as well.
Delve in particular You bring 200 they’ll greet you with 600, bring 2000 they’ll counter with 4000.
Not saying it is right or wrong but it certainly isn’t conducive to PVP.
There are certain groups out there who don’t “want” to fight, they want to win because they have too much at stake to risk losing. These groups would never consider taking a fight where they couldn’t balance the odds in their favour.
But they got to that point through better teamwork, organisation and by being better than others as an entity. I’m no fan of large groups at all but if they manage to get to that level they deserve to be there.
I do solo pvp a lot and if I get blobbed it’s just part of the experience and I’ll try and make as much of my impending death as possible. See, actual pvpers do pvp for the fights. They’d like to win but it’s not a requirement as it’s all interaction and competition. It’s the carebears who want wins, or rather don’t want losses, even if they do pvp.
Blackflag would be carebears under your definition.
Just because someone doesn’t pvp means he’s a carebear and just because someone DOES pvp doesn’t mean he’s not a carebear. To an extend we’re all carebears if only because we want to minimise loss, I certainly do types of pvp where I pretty much avoid any sort of randomness or unknown variables (mission baiting) but I also do types of pvp where I fully expect to die, just hoping to grab a few while going down.
Some people just take it to the next level, especially the ones who demand that the lack of losses comes from game design and not effort.
1 Like
Just for the information of people who care how successful the game is, this week FFXIV Online literally sold out. Its currently so popular you cant make new accounts and its servers are routinely full.
weebs gonna weeb. More weebs there means less weebs here, win win.
1 Like
I thought we were friends…
2 Likes
So you could go one step further and define hisec gankers as the only non-carebears in Eve as they always lose their ship. But they are gankbears… 
I have blown up one guy who came roaming into space where I was three times without loss and set him up to die by ship selection and getting him into a bad position, because that is PvP. I also like home defence rather than roams because I can decide which paper, rock or scissor works, I also tend to ignore people who kite in bling because that can get boring.
But the other day I took a punt to kill a Hecate on a wormhole with two Thorax and lost a Thorax without a kill, because why not? So from that I am not a carebear, glad to know and worth throwing a Thorax away for…
The thing is your definition of carbear is so wide it is meaningless, because Blackflag who avoid fights if they think they will lose are definitely within your definition. Still this is fun…
PS - Dum Dum, I don’t read your crap, I don’t know why you bother, but then again you are always desperate for attention…, definition of madness doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome, rofl…
Uh wut. You are describing PvP.
You got any proof or
You got any proof or
Eh no quite the opposite. Because they don’t risk losses as it’s a given. The only thing they risk is not getting the gank.
To be blunt being pretty certain about the value of your loss as compared to your gain if you succeed and they succeed more often than not, is what one would call minimising their loss, so yeah carebears by your definition then. Still thanks for that, was interesting…
Looks like a bit of change the conversation to something off topic is going on because I said something too difficult to answer…, at least it does not appear that you instigated it.
Hilariously, its also a better game on pretty much nearly every level.
Why am I still here?
Because afking here has never been easier.
I truly tried it, hated every second but kept going for two weeks to see if I could adjust.
First of all the weeb thing which I can’t deal with but also very much the instancing: walk 100m, new zone and suddenly people pop up out of nowhere, walk some more… another zone. It breaks immersion to me, I prefer persistent worlds like eve, ESO or old school wow.
It also felt too much on rails for me, very forced and restricting.
Immersion is for getting in water.
Couldnt give a crap about that.
Good mechanics, a server that doesnt break, responses from Devs that are meaningful, and regular announced bot sweeps all show Square > CCP
Of course I dont choose, I just do both anyway.
Oh also friends you can trust and enjoy playing with, thats another tick for FF.
Hang on, I didnt take you for a “more players = better game” person, what gives?
I’m not. Don’t think I said that here.
I much prefer ESO, pretty much no zoning and it doesn’t force you along a story line. It has its own issues like the guild system which is dumb af but the classes concept is really great (although as an altoholic I end up with a zillion characters) and to me it’s the best overall “normal” mmo.
Oh just sayin cos thats who I aimed my offhand comment to is all. Np.
I cant stand ESO. Its just so bland. But eh to each there own. Id still be on ED to the exclusion of them all if Frontier had actually added content, rather than hiring Cypherpus to design their WiS.
1 Like
Hardly meaningless noise - I would estimate a single industrial player would make hundreds of logins per month to cover all the steps needed to make t2 products including mining, reactions, collecting PI, invention, production, logistics and marketing. Bigger industrials might make thousands. And there are thousands of industrial players.
A PvP player with one account or a mission runner who logs in every day might only generate 30 logins.
Basically by your own definition of a login PvP players might well be underrepresented by these figures. This does not even consider that many players wishing to PvP without buying plex will have to login to undertake some form of PvE to fund their activities, which will further skew these numbers.
Other things you have simply dismissed out of hand include you admitting that most destruction occurs in null, then claiming that SRP does not affect how many people engage in PvP. When as you probably know the null blocks run extremely generous SRP funds. I would say that is a factor. I have been in fleets full over people egging the FC on to welp as they know the costs will be minimal and prefering to fight than run.
Also I think your insistence the PvP is counted twice in these numbers comes from your belief that most PvP in this game in non-consensual. I would guess this is not the case, although I don’t have figures to say either way - if you have them I would be interested to see them.
1 Like
Yes, this is how it all happens most of the time.
But it doesn’t have to be that way and it’s proven that there are more effective and “enjoyable” tactics.
If you go with an arsenal level 5 to a confrontation against an opponent level 5, it is quasi-balanced in your mind but there are collaterals. One of them is resources availability.
I’m not giving a war strategy speech, nor I expect silence afterwards. There is always a derailing answer to any post;.
But let me bring the casino example: Once you cannot enjoy betting for pennies when you can’t afford quarters, you have to leave right away.
When you enter adversary territory, you are exposing yourself to resources proximity in favor of the counterpart. It’s a stupid strategy unless you systematically attack weak portions of the battlefield, which is often miscalled “guerilla warfare”. One of the most successful strategies is to bring the opponent to the exact same disadvantages you are facing, for he will not be ready for them.
When one’s objective is to obliterate an armada in a single battle, you cannot bring less than what guarantees success as close as possible to the chances of withdrawal of the opponent --I said obliterate, not defeat–.
I extended too much on the example… but here’s the point: It’s a wrong strategy to begin with and you should assess preliminarily the chances of bringing the opponent to your turf… you “went” there… perhaps you could make him “come” to you. I know it’s another topic but… this is the main reason I dislike some of the recent changes that are projecting to unsustainable distances. I rather see troops on foot.
Null gives the chance of setting up the scenario --even when you stand the lower ground–. You can truly bait your opponent in Null and the concept of escalation must be well assessed and clear to all ranks, on the projection and defense. This is the reason why I am so adamant on chasing and killing those “small targets I rather dock and wait till they leave”, in case we could be facing the concept of bait and escalation in a long term scenario.
Also this:
But of course with the addition of resources proximity.
Find joy in a frigate, I say!
Because they made that choice and had the power to make that happen.
You can’t have a competitive game and then go “these guys keep winning, that’s not fair”, they’re winning because they’re better at planning and organising. Again, I’m no fan at all of large groups and certainly not Goons in particular, but that doesn’t mean “orange man bad” makes any sense to me.
People or groups who do better come out on top, that is how it should be.