I paid my subscriptions to play a game as I WANT not to avoiding crazy PVPers …
When that become impossible I withheld my money …
1 Like
bethesda done it in Fallout 76 …
But they are irrelevant they earn too much money to be comparable to ccp 
NOPE big coorps in null do not want that, they want his money and all that “siht” are transfered to small potatos in hi sec …
1 Like
Nah, I don’t need to challenge the points, because you for instance, completely misunderstood my post, did not actually respond to anything in it, but instead went off on one of the knee-jerk, triggered “EVERYTHING IN EVE MUST BE PVP!” rants so common to the frustrated PvPer.
None of your replies here have anything to do with the quote you picked. I do not say PvPers are hunting only new players, that freighter pilots are new players, that new players are the source of money. “It doesn’t add up” because you are responding with a triggered, knee-jerk to things I did not say. All it takes is for someone to say something other than “PvP is everything good!” and you’re off on your pre-programmed rant.
Said nothing about CODE. CODE. can’t be ‘stopped’ because they are hundreds of individuals out doing various small group and solo actions, and they are choosing their targets carefully. Just like a pirate should. I also did not say piracy should even be stopped. Finally, the context of the point, which you completely misunderstood because you were too busy ranting, was that all the PvP the high sec PvPers could want is available in low-sec… but they won’t go there because the risk is high and the payoff less certain. They don’t want ‘real’ PvP, they want safe, easy, profitable PvP. You know, the kind your zKillboard shows.
Declining players numbers says they left. PvPers all over say they left. People are still hunting in high sec and pirating and ganking and wardeccing, therefore the tools are still there - they just aren’t as fat and easy as lazy pseudo-PvPers like you want them to be. These are the things I asked you to back up.
Also, again, did not say anything about ‘shooting new bros for money’. Talking about fat safe easy profitable targets in high sec, which clearly are not newbros. But reading comprehension obviously isn’t a skill you’ve trained very high. Perhaps an implant would help.
In general I agree with this, and have several posts saying so. However, the lack here is poor overall game design and security management on CCPs part, not because ‘carebears’ have made high sec too safe.
You might have a point here, if anything in any of my posts had anything to do with what you are saying here. Sadly, they do not, and you have simply gone back to ranting with no connection to my post. This does not lead me to believe you have anything useful to say, since you seem to have difficulty comprehending English.
Actually, the “ENTIRE COMMUNITY” is not gone, nor did the PvP “community” ‘foster’ the growth, they just fed on the growth that CCP/EVE created. You’ve also confused me with your favorite rant topics again, but I’m sorta expecting confusion on your part by now.
I did not ask to make EVE safer. I have already shown that I would not remove ‘an entire play style’ to benefit another… you just missed all those parts in your ranting. I could, indeed, show how, in fairly specific detail, EVE could be greatly improved for all play styles. Unfortunately, it would take 3 thread topics, about 50 wall’o’texts, and would likely get me banned. I’m still tempted though.
2 Likes
OK if CCP will pay me to be easy target, that can be a solution, let CCP employ 1000 professional players to be shooted by PVPers …
1 Like
You think CCP should pay you to be bad at EVE? That is new.
A single character’s killboard isn’t much to go on anyhow - personally I’ve around 13 characters and while Rroff is my main (honest) was far from my only active character - infact I was quite conservative on Rroff as I generally had the character (free intel) in expensive clones for using capitals (yes that does mean if you see my pod wandering around highsec for whatever reason it is likely an easy expensive killmail :s).
1 Like
Discovery is a critical part of the game process. Finding out how your opponent intends to play the game is usually a very high priority process. But if your opponent can deny you that information indefinitely by changing his identification . . .
Without critical information like what our opponent is intending to do, we cannot act effectively. We are whistling in the dark. You can’t play a game intelligently that way, except a guessing game.
No, if I start over, I still have the knowledge from the previous game(s). If those games are still ongoing, I can rejoin them with an informational advantage. I will know what to expect and will know how to play. Others will have misaligned expectations of me, probably. If I’m fighting infantry but I think I’m fighting tanks, I’m gonna bleed. If my opponent can do that over and over, I’m gonna bleed over and over.
Changing my identity resets the discovery process of my opponents.
Why? People right now are paying ccp for the privilege of playing their pvp game.
1 Like
So?
Doesn’t mean the game stops. Doesn’t mean there aren’t in game ways to counter the actions of other players.
Your posts are going further and further into nonsense.
Not true.
You don’t have to know your opponents intentions, or even who your opponents are before you fit tank to your hauler.
This is often referred to as ‘good practice’ or ‘not being dumb’
So?
Deceiving opponents isn’t a bad thing. And has nothing to do with the fact their are in game counters to in-game actions.
Not necessarily.
Check out @Predvodnica_LSG or @Balos_Tritapo who have obvious alts.
But even if it is, so what?
Are you saying no one should be prepared for the chance they are attacked by someone they weren’t expecting?
That’s your argument?
First of all I’d like to apologize for the tone of my last post towards you, I haven’t been feeling well IRL and it’s making me even more irritable than usual.
Over the years I have learned how to gather information very effectively. 2 tools I use constantly in combination:
With both of these tools you can quickly identify basically any and every entity in system with little effort.
Your problem isn’t information, it’s general game knowledge. You’ve never PvP’d to any extent in frigates or solo. You have to learn how to FIT your ships properly. Furthermore, you can’t just fly the ship you wanna fly the way you want to fit it and expect to have any success at all. You have to know what type of content you are looking for and fit the best ship for that sort of content.
This is untrue and I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.
Who said this made the game stop?
No one said there weren’t both in game and highly invasive but effective out of game means to identify an opponent.
I parse this as “I am understanding less and less of what you say.” That is fine, but you have to make an effort to clarify before declaring it “nonsense”. Just because something doesn’t make sense TO YOU, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is “nonsense”.
There are perfectly good reasons to NOT tank your hauler. The oil you’re burning to read this post was delivered by an untanked hauler. You have to know there are others out to get you and how they intend to do so before you can take precautions, let alone effective precautions.
No one said it was.
Subscribing a second account is not an in-game action. And I challenge you and CCP to declare that it is.
It is out-of-game.
A Venture is not a Nyx. Bob is not normally Dave. A member of Goonswarm is not a member of the State War Academy. Are you seriously trying to argue this point?
“So, you’re saying . . .”
No, that’s not what I’m saying.
If you keep playing stupid, I’m going to have to start treating you like you’re stupid.
Disagree on that point - when I lived in wormholes for instance I saw a lot of corps lose POSes in wormholes to that kind of thinking (including a good few to the corps/alliance I was in) when even fairly basic, generic, precautions would have made them less easy targets.
Even through relatively “safe” space I moved almost anything other than low value items in a Prowler tanked to survive an average amount of alpha.
If you’re unwilling to use the tools at your disposal then you have no room to complain.
You did when i told you it’s a persistent game.
But you did imply there were no in game ways to counter the before listed actions (hot drops, freighter ganking, camping etc)
But it is nonsense. You are trying to take this further and further away from the initial discussion point of:
Are there in-game ways to counter the above without logging off? Yes. Yes there is.
Since then you’ve been obfuscation the discussion by faffing around with definitions of avoidance and evasion, and now about people creating new characters…which has nothing to do with original topic.
I never said their wasn’t. Again you’re going off on a nonsense tangent.
You said this:
And i told you that effective action (like tanking your hauler) does NOT first require critical information. It’s just a good SOP.
No it’s not in-game. Quote me where i said it was.
But it doesn’t matter how many alts and unkowns there are. It doesn’t mean you don’t have in-game options to mitigate risk (like tanking your hauler).
More nonsense.
You’ve said it twice now.
You are implying that you cannot effectively counter what you can’t predict and saying hunters using alts makes it impossible to predict.
Both parts of this thinking are plain wrong.
1 Like
ftfy 
And where does that put you?
You’ve put money and time into the game without being smart enough to first check if the game was what you wanted it to be. Apparently even got yourself banned for your troubles.
What they say about fools and their money seems to apply very well in your case.
You just did it again… You’re saying nothing. You’re just trying to “win” an argument without taking a concrete stand on anything specific. I was responding to what you were inferring in your original post (which also took no concrete stand on anything specific) and you basically responded with “that’s not what I said”… Right… because what you said was a vague metaphor… So let’s do it this way, because it seems to get the best response anyways. What would you change about Eve that you think would greatly improve it? Doesn’t have to be the entire laundry list, just give me one good example.
Ah, no. Actually, what I did there, was give concrete examples supported by quotes, to show that you were off ranting about your favorite ‘carebears ruined EVE’ topic, without actually responding to anything that was in my post. You just automatically link ‘not a PVP fan of the current setup’ with ‘carebear ruining EVE’ and you’re off and ranting.
All right, here’s a sample. It’s not much good without the full context of an EVE re-envisioning, but just a taste. (You need to integrate FW, Resource Wars, missioning, Alpha restrictions etc into the full picture, and change the reward structure, but then you’re off into the full laundry list)
Make high sec 1.0, 0.9, and 0.8 only. Everything below becomes low sec. 0.7 sec is limited to destroyers and under. 0.6 sec is <=cruisers. 0.5 sec is BCs. 0.4 sec is up to battleships. 0.3 sec and under is the current setup with capitals etc. Industrial/freighter/mining ships up to barges in, say, 0.7/0.6, 0.5/0.4 gets exhumers, 0.3 and below the full range.
FW and Resource Wars need to be altered to take advantage of this and provide a ‘path of temptation’ for luring players down the security levels. Same with PI, mining, even market trading (market trading fees would be significantly increased at sec 1.0/0.9 and decrease with security level)
So that’s the bones of one idea. Doesn’t do much on it’s own, but gives a notion.
Oh, and I misspoke earlier. I shouldn’t have said “changes that would benefit all play styles”. A proper re-envisioning actually would make market trading, some types of shipping, some types of mining, some types of farming/AFKing; less safe and easy. But they could be adjusted to be ‘more rewarding’ to compensate for the risk. It would also greatly harm botting, but I assume you’re ok with that.
This would be great but unfortunately I highly doubt CCP would ever take such a risk.