SRPs exist as an incentive for members to participate, and yes, the group does the protection, planning, execution and ship replacement. A group of human beings. Guess how those groups of human beings became so sufficient that they are able to support the group as a whole? Hint: CCP didnt just give them trillions of isk and sov. They had to become self sufficient before they became sufficient enough to help other people out.
And yes, theres nothing wrong with minimizing risk. EVE is all about minimizing risk and maximizing outcomes. But thats different from being risk averse and asking CCP to change the game so that the risk is lowered. Theres a difference between minimizing risk yourself by being smart or spending ISK or being careful, and minimizing risk by asking CCP to plznerf plzhelp this is too unfair i should autopilot through nullsec and be perfectly safe.
Iām talking about an individual whoās existence is catered for by his group, lolling at another individual about his individual risk management and effort.
Iām sure that didnāt need explaining nor excuses.
After nearly 2 decades playing the game I experienced the first hisec ganks flying characters in shuttles. A new low for the game, getting randomly ganked in shuttle ships.
I wonder how/if CCP will respond to the changing times in the age of chaos. Or just simply take the easy way out and it will always be the age of chaos.
Correct, but that only happens for ships lost during āstratopā fleets and only for specific ships/fits. And only if I ask for it.
Iāve had two ships āreplacedā in the four years Iāve played.
That means about 99% of the value Iāve lost is paid by myself and that yes, Iām qualified to talk about ship losses.
See above.
If you think I can ignore my individual risk management because of SRP, you have a very inaccurate view of null sec life. Come try it for yourself, itās pretty fun down here!
How can āmany actorā be used to describe āsingle userā? They may have multiple interactions with others, but they arenāt multiple actors themselves.
A game cane be a multi-player game, as many players engage in it. A user cannot be a multi-player user: they are only ever one user.
The āmulti-ā combining form has a very clear definition. Player/user is also pretty clear. The single user may engage in multiplayer activity, but they are not a multiplayer (or multi-player - adding the hyphen doesnāt change the application of āmultiā because it is a combining form construct - not a prefix -and cannot stand alone).
I dont think anyone here is saying that a single player using multiple accounts counts as multiple players.
The problem here is that in many cases you cannot tell if multiple accounts belong to one, or multiple players.
Nor do we stop calling it a multiplayer game, or consider it a multiplayer game, just because you have an instance of a single player utilizing multiple accounts.
