Is it possible to block a poster, so that I will not see anything they have posted?
Realy want to block this block head.https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Teckos_Pech
Problem isā¦that was not the point I was raising.
Blocking is the loserās way out. Just like whining and, at some point, discussions in general.
When you block him, you only have proven that you are incapable of dealing with whatever issue you have, and simply saying āitās himā only takes the blame away from where it originates.
Threads like this one all follow the same patterns. They start with someone complaining about something, giving reasons why they believe it should be changed. Let us ignore that often enough reasons are purely based on selfish desire or fake altruism.
What is happening, is that a small group of people hogs a different small group of people into a situation that allows them to talk forever. The demanding side usually is wrong, or full of ā ā ā ā like in this case, but no matter who iswrong or right, it always is about the same thing: keeping the fake discussion alive.
You will find not a single thread about suicide ganking, war declerations, afk cloaking, gate campers, etc. etc., where anything good ever has been achieved. Often enough CCP has caved in, but it did no good. Not to the game nd not to those who demanded change.
No! Instead, often enough any change still required them to be (pro)active, and in return the change came and haunted their sorry asses. That is the actual issue. A lack of sense for (pro)activie, self responsible behaviour. Eventually ātheyā complain again and the cycle starts anew.
Anyone who cares to look will find this phenomenon in every single thread about the above topics, not excluding related ones like awoxing. If there was a forum bingo, it would include āthink of the childrenā, āit is unfairā, āyou sociopathā. āyou shoot noobs.ā, āwhy should iā, etc etc.
The facts of the matter are clear as a vacuum in interstellar space, and despite what people - who use others to keep this nonsense alive - might be thinking:
AFK Cloaking is not a problem. If it was a problem, CCP would address it. It is nothing but silly gameplay exaggerated by a few serious loudmouths who shy away from nothing as long as they get the attention they crave. I have watched this for longer than I will admit, because I am ashamed of myself for having watched it for so long.
Do you know who would care if all renters, and all those whining about afk cloakers, suddenly left the game?
No ā ā ā ā ā ā ā one!
And why, you might ask?
Because they are easily replaced.
And that is all there is to it. All that matters. No ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā , just clarity. Clear as the ā ā ā ā the ocean gives about a drop of water. These people might think high of their opinions, but just like all these exaggerated issues, it is all only in their heads.
When you block those you disagree with ā¦ and eventually manage to shout down all those who disagree with you ā¦ then mate, thatās fascism.
Good ā ā ā ā ā ā ā night.
2 Likes
So I should just ignore him?..
Iāll take your advice.
I have posted only on this character and 90% of the time i play on this one, so this is my main. Lena has data that is accesible to anyone. You have nothing but your sick thoughts and all you can do is insulting others, which makes you look retarded and mentally weak.
1 Like
And everyone with a very basic understanding of statistics (6th grade upwards?) would immediately notice how useless the data cited is. It is completely insufficient. Everyone trying to prove a specific case with abstract and incomplete data is only outing himself as an illiterate idiot, so does everyone that then agrees with such a ridiculous conclusion.
- We donāt know how many players are in nullsec, as compared to highsec.
- We donāt know how proficient these pilots are at PvP and general awareness
- We donāt know how intelligent these players are (morons get caught easily)
- We donāt know how much they care about losing ships (people that donāt care are unlikely to warp out, or might even be afk ratting)
- And the list goes onā¦
If you want to draw any meaningful conclusion out of your kill data, you need those information. Without them, your data is just a steaming pile of ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā and youāre nothing but a wannabee fortune teller.
2 Likes
Then how you know that nullsec is safe? Lmao
You will get yourself banned again if you dont stop insulting people you dont even know. Or worse.
edit: its friendly advice, even thought you dont deserve it
What point is there in trying to talk about things, when the other person has ulterior motives he would never admit to having, because it would just get the person into trouble?
1 Like
There is no problem if someone is trying to talk about things. The problem is when someone starts insulting you for no reason. This is why i originally replied to this thread a long time ago, when the same people as now was insulting -everyone who didnt agree with them-
Iād also add in reference to the āstatsā given above: Thereās a huge difference between WH space (for example) where you can be caught and killed even if you are as careful as possible, and being caught in Null where you have to be completely stupid, unfortunately distracted, or a Bot to be caught .
2 Likes
With higher reward, comes greater risk
I quoted the exact statement I was responding to. It wasnāt your statementā¦ but you decided to chirp in and say what I was saying lacked relevance when it was a direct reply to what someone else posted.
"No, I am upset that they are able to make billions of ISK farming endgame PvE content with negligible risk. "
That was the statement. I was pointing out that there was risk and I provided evidence of the risk. Do you understand yet? Or do you want to go break into another conversation you havenāt been following and make exclamations of āSHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT!ā when the person was NOT RESPONDING TO YOU.
Geez.
1 Like
Actuallyā¦ as someone who does a huge amount of statistical analysisā¦ very little of what you posted matters with what I was using the evidence for.
The statement was: "No, I am upset that they are able to make billions of ISK farming endgame PvE content with negligible risk. "
I provided evidence that strongly suggests there is a real riskā¦ 5 pages of ratting losses from one specific type of ship in null.
How stupid or proficient you are doesnāt matterā¦ if there is no risk. How much you care about ship loss doesnāt matterā¦ if the risk doesnāt exist risk. If there is riskā¦ it matters. If you have to be smart or skilled to avoid riskā¦ the risk is real.
In fact itās kind of silly saying something like āOnly smart people get caught ratting.ā The fact is with any risky activityā¦ those who are smart and skilled are better at avoiding the risk. That justā¦ reality. Just because people who put a good anti-virus program on their computers and keep it updated are unlikely to get viruses doesnāt mean the risk of viruses is negligible or non-existent the internet. People still get their computers infected with viruses every day due to laziness or lack of knowledge or poor choices with where they go on the internet. The risk is there.
People get killed while running anoms all the time too. The risk is there.
What Iām not doing is trying to guess at percentages of warp-offs vs catches or comparing the danger of wormhole space vs null. Iām simply providing evidence that suggests the idea that null ratting is largely risk free is false.
The evidence suggests no such thing because you havenāt done anything to separate evidence of meaningful risk (competent players dying despite using the obvious safety measures) from losses that are only evidence that stupid people die (incompetent players who probably lose ships to NPCs just as often as in PvP). Someone losing their VNI because theyāre playing drunk or botting or whatever just means that playing drunk is a bad idea, it doesnāt mean that thereās any meaningful risk.
If you have to be smart or skilled to avoid riskā¦ the risk is real.
You donāt have to be smart or skilled. You have to have minimal competence and understanding of game mechanics. This is not the top 1% elite pilots out-flying the predators and staying alive, itās anyone with half a brain being effectively immune to PvP.
1 Like
Hundreds of ratting ships die each day. There are 50 losses per page in zkill and at the middle of the day yesterday the losses were on the 5th page. Each week youāre looking at over 1000 ratting VNI losses in null. If you conservatively price them at 80m a popā¦ thatās 80b in losses each week while rattingā¦ from VNIās alone.
Iām sorryā¦ even if itās just āstupid or lazy peopleā losing those shipsā¦ the evidence suggests that there are a lot of stupid and lazy people playing Eveā¦ enough that the skilled ones might be the minority.
Feel free to provide other evidence that supports your claims. Evidence isnāt meant to be āundeniable proofā. Just because money was stolen from your employer and your bank account increased by the same amountā¦ doesnāt PROVE you stole it. But it IS evidence that suggest you did.
Zkill losses are evidence suggesting ratting in null is not risk-free.
Fake resumes donāt count. If that were true, youād know that your conclusion is just desperate ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā . Or maybe you do and are just grasping strings here in an attempt at yet another strawman argument. Either way, your data is useless.
Hundreds of people each day get murdered or die in traffic accidents. Makes a flashy headline, but without context itās just meaningless FUD.
Yes, it very much does. A stupid person will always find a way to harm himself if heās just dumb enough. No amount of protectionism will change that.
So, letās assume 99% of the ships escape and only 1% are killed. Those 1% represent those ā5 zkill pagesā you cite. Are you now seriously telling me that those 1% are in any way meaningful evidence that ālargely risk freeā is false? But we donāt even know what percent actually gets caught, because you have no data about that. It could be 5%, 1%, or 0,000001%. Your āconclusionā is comparable to fortune telling. Itās about as much evidence against nullsec being largely risk-free, as there is for the existence of god just because the pope says so.
Lookā¦ I provided stats that suggest 200-300 ratting VNIās are lost a day in Sov Null.
That shows risk exists.
You want to say the risk is minimal? Iāll let you prove that one. Iām not going to bother as whatever number it ends up being will be classified as minimal by you since it doesnāt fit the story you want to tell.
Itās not zero. Youāre talking about 150b a week in VNI losses in null. We had 940b lost last month. 720b the month before. 780b the month before that. Almost all ratting VNI in null. None of that includes drones in space either.
Those are numbers. You figure out if they are meaningful. I will point out that last month the VNI losses were about 1.4% of all bounties earnedā¦ by any shipā¦ in any sec level of spaceā¦ in all of EVE. And thatās not just including times where reds came in system to try to hunt themā¦ thatās every bounty earning activity in the game regardless of if any threats even visited the system.
I view that as significant risk personally. Feel free to define āsignificantā so it doesnāt for you.
No. I was making the point that just what we āseeā is not the whole story. The Parable of the Broken Window is one of the earliest arguments that what we ācanāt seeā (or see very easily) is just as important if not more so. In that parable what is seen is the broken window and the replacement. Going by just what is seen one would conclude that economic value had been created. However, as pointed out the money spent on repairing the window was going to be spent elsewhere. Since it cannot be spent elsewhere there is no new economic value being added. The money not being spent elsewhere is the āunseenā part and is very important as it leads to exactly the opposite conclusion: no net economic gain.
When we are talking about risk we need both the āseenā and the āunseenā. Problem is we are limited to the extent of the data that is collected and the purpose for which it was collected. Killmail data is not collected for the purpose of evaluating risk. At most all we can use it for is as you claim, to show that risk exists. Okay. I donāt think anyone would deny that there is risk in NS. The question I was raising is, is that risk reasonable given the rewards?
Letās look at the statement you were responding too.
There is no real way to answer this. Even the statement itself cannot be easily supported. Weād have to look at indirect measures to try and discern if there is sufficient risk. We also have to bear in mind that risk is also a function of player effort. If I expend considerable effort to reduce my riskā¦that is not unreasonable. It is also not unreasonable to earn considerable reward as well.
Grow up. This is not your private chat channel.
Yes, and you have not shown it. You have shown us lossmails. Great. So what was it? 5 pages of losses for one day? Lets just assume that was the number, so about 250 VNIs are lost/day.
How many were out there ratting? 500? 5,000? Is the risk greater with 500 or 5,000?
Edit: To be clear which indicates more risk:
- 250/500 = 05
- 250/5000 = 0.05?
The first is an order of magnitude larger than the first.
You presented evidence that the risk is not zero.
Further, I will add that when one is ratting and ādoing it rightā (i.e. watching local, intel channels, etc.) then the risk of being caught while ratting is pretty small. Local gives the resident ratter a slight advantage in terms of advance warning. So even if you didnāt see him coming via intel channels youād still have a slight advantage to start aligning out to get safe. There is still some risk in that it is possible that our ratter could get tackled by rats at just the wrong time.
Careful with these kinds of extrapolations. First off we donāt know that they are all ratting losses. For example this guy does not appear to be a ratting loss.
Looking at his fitā¦he has a disruptor and webber fitā¦not very common on ratting fits. Clicking on related we get this:
Hmmm that does not look like ratting behavior at all.
There you goā¦now you are starting to get a bit better here. BTW, if you actually download the MERs you can break down bounties by NS/HS and by region. Granted you can tell missions from anomalies, but it is another level of possible refinement.
Risk is subjective. What I might consider reasonable you might consider unreasonable.
1 Like
Scroll up. Itās been done at least a hundred times in this very thread alone. Iām not going to repeat the obvious again.
Thatās what you and yours are doing and itās the main reason why any discussion with your like is utterly pointless. Weāve been over this dozens of times.