Are you saying alts ARE unfair then? Or are you simply saying that alts CAN be used to do unfair things… so its up to the victim to “watch out, and adapt” so to speak?
Love your post, man. Tons of awesome points in there. It’s okay to want it, but don’t expect others to “want” it too.
Clearly the conclusion is upsetting to you. Maybe you could tell us a little bit about why that is.
Some people have a hard time debating because they get too emotionally involved.
And some people (coughh, Mayhaw) TRY to get people to become emotional… trolllllls 
I make challenging assertions and ask hard questions. If they can’t stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen, go and play some video games or maybe read a book. These forums are cold and harsh. This isn’t a video game.
If we all sat around patting each other on the back for having mediocre ideas, this game and the world would be [expletive deleted]. I make no apologies.
3 Likes
I love both those things!
Mayhaws’s assertions are real. I was there.
I’m not the one who refuses to acknowledge the nature of the game. You are.
I’m not the one who ignores the fact that people aren’t equal, despite all evidence. You are.
I’m not the one who believes that everyone deserves a chance. You are.
I’m not the one who constantly thinks its okay to ignore and ■■■■ on our culture and language. You are.
So, yeah. You’re right. Your hate is based on your lack of understanding and projection, mixed with a heavy dose of Ignorance.
The problem is you, not us. You’re all for censorship. You’re all for helping the weak staying weak and the strong leaving. You’re hiding your fascist ideology behind an intellectual appearance.
You have no friends whatsoever. You prove that by constantly saying that one can not trust anyone in EVE, showing that you have no clue about how friendships form and don’t understand people.
You constantly see victims. You want people to sugar coat their words because you can’t deal with “white blocks”. You think you’re smarter and better because you’re not writing “white blocks”.
You never talk about that what is told to you and instead insist that it’s wrong and claim what is correct without even explaining yourself properly, in a way that makes it clear that it’s correct, based on common sense.
Underneath you’re no different than Balos, or Naari.
Not a single bit different.
“Ignorance is Strength.”
vOv
Just admit it. This game sux.
2 Likes
Solecist
Why?
You know it’s all just personal opinion, and that most of isn’t shared even by the majority of EVE players, let alone gamers as a whole.
In case you don’t already know, you can’t pull me into a “forum fight” on your terms. I pretend sometimes, but that’s just technique 
Nothing that happens in a forum can make me angry.
BTW I like the 1984 reference at the end. IMO the last scene in the book is an interesting metaphor for that part of the current state of EVE that interests me most.
1 Like
Nah. You’re mad and you want retribution. Don’t be ashamed to be mad (and saddened). We all thought this game was going to be awesome and then we got victimized by the other players.
The game is quite simply a masterpiece. I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again; CCP deserves a Nobel Prize. They couldn’t have predicted this.
Forgive.
1 Like
eve = open pvp, asymetric, paper/scissor/stone and not 1v1 or 8v8 arena pvp with mirror classes. Unplaned fights CANNOT be “fair”, and bringing friends or alts, or boosts or drugs or implants or etc are up to each side.
Every player can play the way he likes. If he wants to fly solo a t1 frig, maybe someone will come and fight him with a t1 frig or maybe he will be ganked by 20 T2 cruisers (alts or friends). That’s up to his opponents decision
the only way to have “fairer” (not even fair, just fairer) fights are organized fights (duels, alliance turnament, fights on sisi etc)
Outside of this setting, alts, friends, cloaks, range, drugs, implants, ship types, everything which is allowed by eve rules can be used to help you to win a fight. Nothing is “bad”
I think that people have watched too many movies where brave knights are fighting outnumbered against thousands of ugly monsters. Stop trying to be avengers or the rohirrim. Corebloodbrothers said “behave like gentlemen, fight like dirty rotten bastards”
When you play poker, and you have 2 aces, do you stop playing because it would be unfair for other players?
2 Likes
1 Like
IF the game is so terrible, I guess you won’t be logging in anymore. 
See you in Jita. o7
Wyk
I’m not disputing your facts, but there’s another perspective:
In a fight between experienced players (with adequate income), I don’t think either party needs or expects the fight to be “fair”.
But the game doesn’t provide any useful support at all for balanced fights. (Maybe duels, but I’ve never seen them used that way out in space/the wilderness in other games) .
It wouldn’t hurt CCP to
- Make it possible for a player to automatically indicate a preference for balanced combat. Not to make them immune to one-sided fights. But to help them find a balanced fight when it’s possible.
- Provide exactly the right information (not too much, not too little) that allows players to make a snap judgement about how balanced a one-vs-one fight would be. This would require some thinking, but I don’t see it being impossible, nor incompatible with a surprise attack from an equally capable ship.
- Allow attackers to see that a given player is a beginner. Obviously this will be abused, but if such a player voluntarily shared appropriate information (player approves in advance, EVE provides the data in response to a “ping”) it might well be practical.
Of course the last point won’t stop beginners being ganked or griefed, nor should it, but it takes away the “I didn’t know” shield from griefers, and beginners will be able to decide how they will respond to the attacker based on more complete information.
It’s telling that in EVE cryptospeech “griefing” means the same as “ganking” in the rest of gaming. IMO it would be interesting to see the effect of adding some metadata on a killboard, so griefers can be readily named and shamed /lol.
PS to any reader (Wyk - this is a general comment, not specifically for you)
Don’t claim this would be impossible unless you can explain why. Which doesn’t include claiming to know what it would cost CCP to implement, because you don’t.
1 Like
But, what are the limits of this philosophy? At some point, don’t you have to face the dilemma: cheat or fail?
What if the other 10 players at the table have 2 aces? What if the guy on your left brings 4? Welcome to EVE. (Obviously not that many aces in a stack, but you get my point). EVE pvp is a man’s game. But it turns into a child’s game if any average Joe can form a solo fleet of 10 ships.
The rest of us can fight that way too… but the only person that benefits is CCP, as they are the ones getting the cash for the subs (and the escalation of MORE subs that ensues to compete with said subs)
still say these are completely different, and should not be lumped into the same sentence as if they’re comparable.
or a 6 year old thinking he has to win everything or he’ll throw a fit?
agreed
another way of putting it:
Who’s willing to die NOT cheating or are you fine being lumped into the cheaters bracket because “everyone else does it”.
It’s a hard line imo. And people seldom take the hard, challenging path if there’s an EASY route available.
1 Like
true 
In one of the corps I was in was a guy who’d happily go off on his own off-grid boosting alt and his main in a PVP ship - which actually gave him good odds against people bringing alts like the OP complains about - obviously somewhat balanced if they brought boosting alts of their own but generally it gave him the edge to deal with the kind of problems the OP is complaining about.
For all the complaints about them most of the time off-grid boosters were used to take on greater odds rather than to try and fudge the odds in a 1v1 situation.
Ultimately don’t be a lamb to the slaughter - you only have yourself to blame if you didn’t play the odds and try to have the upper hand/contingency against things turning out different to what you expect whether that is because the target has alts, friends, some tactic or strategy you didn’t expect, etc. etc. learn from the losses and approach the situation better next time rather than complaining because the same failed approach fails for the nth time of repeating it.
Don’t know if you’re trolling or not man, but I’d say-- true. In design and concept, it’s a Wonder of the World. They set up a sandbox with degrees of safety vs. lawlessness, ways to band up and form big and small social groups, a real economy that organically reacts to every kind of market force. And also a place (sov null sec) where a group of individuals who best consolidated themselves and read the landscape of the land could go Mongol or Nobunaga and through force and wit subjugate all and make an empire. Powerful stuff all, for an MMO. Even now. A sandbox that wasn’t just about building your own little fort or whatever. I don’t think the word “sandbox” existed at the time.
What they did was set up a world where real things things that people instinctively know about actually work. Might vs. might (results uncertain); Might through money (OP the opposition through sustained numbers and better weaponry, which has always been the norm); Money because of might (again, always been the norm); Safety and power through head games and negotiation (diplomacy). The ability for any player to be born on Day 1 with 1000 ISK in hisec, and be in a game world where he and his crew-- if they worked hard and played their cards exactly right, and had some luck-- could be the Alexanders over an empire of competitors doing the same.* Or, you could just shoot sheet in missions and try to survive, or go to lowsec and be a gunslinging outlaw.
Anyway, brilliant game design, I think. A lot of game hours have passed since the ideas of MMOs happened around 2002. And a bunch of people getting in it, and thinking about ways they need more ISK RIGHT NOW, and how to maximize Isks and KBs 