No, this happens whether or not I take drugs. In fact, one time the girl actually got pretty upset because it was back during my Drop days, and she was doing a minor in neuromedicine at the time (she was still in university back then), and she started listing off all these permanent and terrible side effects Drop can have on a person. She said that she’d report me to her father if I didn’t get my act together.
She’s actually been a really positive influence on my life. Although I think it did also help that she convinced Kruul to stop selling me Drop.
Interesting-ishly I do the same. Though largely I do not know who here can kick my ass, but I assume most would, in a one-on-one engagement.
They don’t?? I always thought they just shake some fabled tree in nullsec and a Titan falls out.
Perhaps not often enough to matter, but often enough to take notice. If I’m around in space I usually move around alone, partly by choice, party not. I do try to make the best of CONCORD provided traffic intelligence, but that is obviously not the most reliable information which sometimes means you jump in to a gatecamp even after taking all the precautions.
Less of a complaint, more of an observation that most capsuleers do not engage unless they are fairly certain they come out unscathed - even if they really risk nothing of importance. For example, if I had an isk for each time a tactical cruiser has attacked - unprovoked - my basic Stabber or similar ship, I’d have at least 10 or so ISK. The prevailing trend in capsuleer combat seems to be making sure your opponent has no chance to be an actual threat to you.
Which, again, is understandable, but makes all the chestbeating about honor, glory and skill ring a bit hollow.
I’m not saying inter-capsuleer warfare doesn’t have it’s place, simply that two capsuleers undocking to “solve a dispute” is generally as effective as them exchanging words.
Sure, um. I’ve seen enough “honor duels” going unheeded or being “dishonored” to think they’re very effective, but… the pilots involved usually undocked precisely because words failed to persuade either one of them, so it hardly seems less effective at that point.
Using a duel to settle an argument, or similar activities, is not something I would personally do. Not that I wouldn’t use violence to achieve certain goals or resolve other kinds of disputes though. When you’re engaged in an actual argument you’re attempting to convince your opponent, or audience, of a particular claim through reason.
A duel removes the “reason” and “convincing” from the effort and replaces it with “might makes right.” Again, appropriate in some situations, but ■■■■ as an argument.
Defence of myself or corp members, including finding and pushing out non aligned members from our local space. Defending territory from hostiles. Taking part in roams to find hostiles and engage them in battle, or reduce their industry base.
I know this sounds pretty base and primitive, but these also aren’t arguments nor would I justify them as such. They also represent, at least in many cases, a breakdown in negotiations and diplomacy.
Those who tend to be unable to do a thing well, usually end up trying to dismiss it as, “Pointless.”
However, to say being effective at capsuleer combat is pointless?
Hmm.
Well…
I know, for example, if we’re talking about honour duels then consider: someone like Diana Kim has decried me as [Insert Nasty Things] just as much as say, Makoto Priano. Now, consider how many times Makoto Priano has been challenged to a “duel” to “defend their honour” by them compared to myself – which comparatively can be described as Makoto many of times but myself not even once.
A quick perusal of kill metrics will show the disparity in active violence between myself and Makoto. To challenge me to an “honour duel” (laughable as it is) would bring with it a far higher risk of loss and destruction as a result in comparison.
It is not just Diana Kim either. For example, Aldrith Shutaq, has been fond of decrying me and railing against the immorality of my deeds. Yet the moment when discussion approaches the point of actually doing something towards me, then immediately the usual dismissals of, “You are not worth my time,” come to the fore.
Certainly then, one must consider that words made empty through inaction more worthy for some than others.
It is an odd thing for you to say my reputation is worthless, when I have seen the effect my reputation has on the behaviour of others – both capsuleer and baseliner alike.
I do not consider violence should be approached as something to take personally. If one must kill another then I should think it be conducted with impersonality and equanimity.
I already said several times that I am not particularly adept at ship-to-ship combat. And I’m not trying to dismiss it because of that, but because I fail to see the point in combat if it is over nothing. Contrast; a battle over military objectives is a very easy concept to grasp. Battle over hurt feelings, or “just because battling is fun” - or, as some say for “kill record padding” - on the other hand is so alien to me I honestly cannot understand what drives people to do it. Like, people put so much value on these kill records others feel obligated to just go out and attack random people on the spacelanes to feel like they have some sort of relevance. Makes me think that among a thousand of other things, checking for excessive self-esteem and -validation issues should be made mandatory for capsule training evaluation.
I thought it clear that it was a generalization, not a jab at your reputation, but, I suppose I could use this as an example; I don’t know your reputation because I rarely interact with you besides some banter here on IGS - and I’m actually more wary of pissing off Makoto Priano than you. So, you could very well be the galaxys’ badassest ■■■■■ everyone else is scared of, but this reputation has not reached me because I have not really considered you someone of further interest. I don’t doubt the feeling is mutual.
Once again, we disagree, on a fundamental level perhaps. Violence should be personal. You should be aware of its consequences. If more people were - and I’m talking about heads of state et all - maybe this universe wouldn’t be such a shitty place. Wars maybe wouldn’t last as long if they had to gut each of their enemies personally… Unless they are psychopaths of course. Distancing oneself from violence makes it easy to do. Maybe the RMS failed to imprint this… “Callous indifference” on me during my training. Not for lack of trying, mind.
And, this brings us back to the point of that killing a capsuleer is a futile endeavour - you can kill them, but they’ll just come back. If you know you can’t kill something, why even try?
Because, as long as that “callous indifference” hasn’t been imprinted on them yet, you can still bring ruin to them, their stuff, and the people they care about.
Several years ago, when capsuleering was a novel phenomenon, there were various groups of capsuleers with various ideologies. Now, because of how several events unfolded, such as the release of “Tech2” blueprints to the capsuleer market, some groups gained a substantial entrenched advantage over others. If one has a blueprint for an Interceptor, one is at somewhat of an advantage over someone who has no method of manufacturing interceptors, and has to buy them from the market. Several such entrenched advantages existed.
Now, the various groups would argue on the then IGS about their particular ideologies, and as a result of these arguments, some groups would attack each other.
“Apples are better than Oranges”, would declare one group, and another group would reject such an assertion. Wars occurred, and then, by virtue of one side having destroyed more spaceships than the other sides, the groups would then return to the IGS and declare that this orgy of destruction had somehow altered reality to the extent that it could be objectively stated whether or not apples were better than oranges.
In addition to this, periodically, recently graduated pilots would make a few posts, and one side or other would condemn their opinion as invalid because the recent graduate simply had not destroyed as much property as the elder pilots.
“I prefer oranges”, says the recent graduate, and an elder pilot says “foolish child, you have not destroyed as much property as I, therefore your opinion is invalid.”
Because it is impossible to make an anti-war movie if it involves any actual depiction of the violence conducted in war. Because just as the destruction and death might be terrible, the sound of gunfire, the rumble of explosions, the horrors of conflict offer that vicarious thrill that makes the genre compelling for many. For those who have experienced war, that dichotomy continues to exist – it remains both terrible and compelling to fight, and one finds themselves equally abhorred and excited.
By comparison, having lived through both war and peace… I can say peace really is not for me. I find little interest in a life which I come to find trite and mundane when I compare it to my experiences of violent conflict. When I look out at the stars and see it as my personal battlefield to fight on in a war without end, it motivates and animates me in a way which a life of ease and peace does not.
I desire to fight, and I desire to kill, so I do.
That is quite the odd interpretation of what I said.
What I was alluding to was this: When I first started out as an independent, there were many who were fond of issuing threats towards me – some such as, Saede Riordan of ALXVP and Anslo of Scope Works even tried to take action against me. The only end result of such was their destruction, in some cases multiple wipes of their fleets and assets.
Now, the thing is this. Given my own experiences, I am not overly fond of those who try to issue threats, intimidate others, or write cheques with their mouths that neither their assets nor skills can cash in. My public posture is intended to bait such people to feel free and come to fight me if they think they can because I quite enjoy applying the metaphorical jackboot to such people to my own satisfaction.
However, my point was neither really about Makoto Priano nor myself, but more to the fact that people will issue threats or challenges against those they think are far easier marks. This is why I cannot empathize much with your complaint about how much others might try to impress upon you with their braggadocio about their combat prowess, because no one has really tried that with me in about four years.
I can only surmise that the reason for such a disparity in experience is that you are a self-confessed mediocrity at being a capsuleer combatant whereas I present a far greater risk to the personal narratives of others being the "galaxy’s [sic] badassest ■■■■■ if they should try to put such words into action with me.
Because my objectives aren’t to kill other capsuleers. It is to use my weapons upon them and seek the destruction of their personnel.
Fair enough. Can’t say I understand this mindset any better despite your explanation, but thank you for taking the time to write it out.
Frankly I don’t know how you expected me to discern any of what you said below this from what you said earlier. Seeing, as I said, I wasn’t aware you had a reputation. Sure I’ve heard your name around but I hear lots of names.
Similarly I don’t recall people trying to start ■■■■ with me in the recent past. This is less of a complaint for my sake, but as to how frustratingly “playground bully” -level capsuleer discourse often is.
Wars begin due to a failure of negotiations over divergent interests. Negotiations are the art of comprising and getting less than you want. If I just have a quick parse of the IGS then what I see is a continued failure to compromise, to accept less than what was desired, and to understand the motives and beliefs of another.
When there exists no desire for compromise, no pursuit of understanding, and a continued negotiating position of expecting others to accede without concession then the only recourse left is resort to force and violence.
Why bemoan the violence inherent to being a capsuleer when violence, or the threat of violence becomes the only real option left? Because discussion and diplomacy as an alternative is a fallacy which just ends up as a game of who to blame and not actually leading to anything constructive or productive.
If all that defines present and future affairs will be violence, then I accept I would rather be good at it than not.