An honourable death executed like an idiot ,
gets you remembered as an idiot.
No point feeding an angry mob of Russians,
they’re not going to give a flying feck why you did it and they’re going to laugh at you regardless.
No good fights to be had there,
No hill to die upon,
just leave and let them laugh.
The way to hurt the highsec crowd and make them leave you be is let them get complacent,
Don’t feed them easy kills.
isolate one of them and overwhelm him.
Don’t feed them easy kills.
Isolate another one and overwhelm him.
Repeat this until they feck off.
If you’re putting their blood on their killboard for little to none of of your own they will go after easier targets.
As I said before, read this mail it to your members, tell them to read it too.
For God so loved the kosmos (world) that He (Yahweh) gave His only begotten son (logos), that whomsoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Hm…
An honorable death, executed like an ‘idiot,’ seems to have the entire world change around you. This is 2017 for a reason. It will be 2018, soon. 2018 from what?
Im sorry, i really am, but im having a hard time believing you.
Im having a hard time believing that you are actually going up against a 500 man fleet in simela.
Are you sure youre not confusing the number of pilots in the system to the number of pilots in the corporation?
Because, most mercs will only roam in bands of 5, maybe 10 at most, and rarely will you even see a full 30-40 players meet up.
When i was defending a citadel in hisec, we were up against vendetta once, and marmite another, and they only fielded like 60, 70 players. And this was a major timer that they were paid to attack, too.
My ancestors were samurai(True story), but theres a famous proverb in japanese, that goes ”三十六計逃げるに如かず” which basically means that in times of peril and with no other recourse, the smartest thing to do is to run and cede from battle.
You’re the one who is behaving like a typical US person crying “think about the children”, and “THIS IS UNFAIR”. You’re even talking about the imaginary, tyrant Big Brother in the sky,as if it was a real thing.
I’ll give you a summary of what’s going to happen because of this thread:
Yes, and when you start targeting people either positively or negatively via policy is when things tend to turn into a ■■■■ show and we end up with rent seeking.
Or we could say we have programs that treat people differently.
It isn’t just that, these programs also tend to come with things like very high implicit marginal tax rates.
■■■■■■■■. society does not agree, people agree. Things like “The will of the people”, “The people have spoken” and “Society has agreed” are nonsense. They are nonsense in that collective decision making is not the same as individual decision making. Individual decision making is generally rational. Collective decision making is non-rational. For example, individuals tend to be transitive in their preferences. That is, if a person says, “I prefer apples to pears and pears to grapes, therefore I prefer apples to grapes,” we think that is quite reasonable. However with things like voting we can get a “collective set of preferences” that in effect says, “Apples are preferred to pears, pears to grapes, but grapes are preferred to apples.” Outcomes via voting are also dependent on the voting mechanism. That is, if you have mechanism X you’ll get outcome A, but with mechanism Y you get outcome B even though the voters are exactly the same and their preferences have not changed. For example, in the most recent US election some have argued that if instead of the electoral college the popular vote was used to determine the President then Hillary Clinton would be president. Maybe, but it isn’t exactly clear. Consider California, was Clinton’s massive advantage there from a popular vote perspective due to Trump supporters not bothering to vote given that Hillary was going to win the state easily. With the outcome depending on a national popular win, those same discouraged voters would have an incentive to then vote. Also the candidates themselves would campaign differently. So to say that the popular vote would have been exactly like it is under the electoral college is extremely unlikely. And lastly if “society has agreed” how come the results of these “agreements” have to be enforced via a threat of violence? No, I’m sorry that kind of thinking is dangerous ■■■■■■■■ that denies how that decision making actually works.
Maybe, but we sure go about it in a really, really bad fashion. As I noted, many of these programs are designed with steep implicit marginal tax rates which discourage people from finding better arrangements and also trap them in dependency. And this is one of the arguments in favor of a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG). Economists have long known that a head tax is optimal in the sense that it comes with no substitution effect only an income effect, that is the tax does not change the relative price ratios. A BIG is essentially a lump sum transfer–a subsidy that not have a substitution effect because there is no implicit marginal tax rate on labor income. If we really believed in this human dignity why isn’t a BIG used? We talk about the “dignity of work” then set up programs that strongly discourage work.
Yes, and like CONCORD the police do not try to prevent crime other than by the threat that if you do commit a crime the police will come looking for you and punish you. Modern day police are also reactive not pro-active.
Or it is letting two parties settle disputes without their interference. We don’t have courts in New Eden, we are after all immortal capsuleers who answer to nobody, so instead we settled these differences between ourselves if the issue is deemed important enough.
Avoidance is fine, but you did castigate people a couple of times for not having a go at war deckers in other threads, but so far you have not done that in this thread at least as far as I have read your posts. I am however merely advising the OP to bear that in mind in terms of your advice and your criticism.
I mainly did avoidance in my war decs, however I did some offensive actions at times too, like area denial of Jita undock for one war decker in their off time. I did not get a renewal, which was the entire point of it.
To the OP:
Perhaps you can pick up the torch and take on the war deckers, you obviously have passion and want to do something, the real answer is not so much making posts on the forums which CCP will ignore, but more to do with perhaps being able to group up all those people who have been war decked and having a go back at them. You said you were Japanese, (my son is in Kobe studying Japanese at the moment) which sadly is not a great TZ to be an organiser against war deckers but you could get the ball rolling…
PS Ralph gave you some advice to try above in terms of war deckers, he was a very good war decker of the hunting type, you should think about it. Yes you will at time feed ships to them and you might get dog piled, but if you can get a core group of players around you energised then you win Eve mate.
PPS Ignore Linus he is a troll, and a particularly bitter ex-player who is perhaps the most deranged poster on these forums.
Its like, are you kidding me. What makes you think youre gonna have to fight all 500 players at once?
And then he goes:
Yeah, you clearly dont, if you think that the number of people in a corp is an indication of how many people are actually going to be on grid. Not even Nullsec corps are that good at fleet participation.
The Gregorian calendar is internationally the most widely used civil calendar.
Do you want to drag religion (which I consider utter stupidity) into this now?
Is it too hard to understand the cultural differences that exist between the western and the eastern world? You’re acting like one of the illiterate morons of the US that think their way is the one true way and has to be enforced everywhere else, be that through subterfuge, manipulation or using force.
CCP is a developer in Iceland, not in Japan. In Iceland they really don’t care about your samurai history. It’s not their history. They have an entirely different culture over there and thus your “it has to be about honor” thinking has absolutely no value.
And why you’re now comparing the early game design decisions the CCP devs made with the Gregorian calendar is beyond me. Those decisions were made by entirely different people, from different cultures, in different centuries. It is used by almost everyone today for the sake of simplicity, not because everyone cares about Jesus or an all-powerful imaginary being.
Religion only exists because people seek explanations for things they can neither explain nor understand, not because it holds any ground of truthfulness.
There is a reason that players online numbers are down, even with a free to play option; wardecs are a pain in the ass for a casual player and they choose to play other games. I’ve been around long enough to have seen the “we don’t need them” rebuttals, but a healthy Eve accommodates a variety of play styles… it’s should be a big tent. CODE has proven that you can make high sec plenty dangerous without the ability to function without impunity.
The only people others can’t harm are players less than 30 days old in the starter npc corp IF they are in the srarter system.
Once they get older and/or leave the starter system they’re free game like any of us. Anyone can steal from them, kill them leisurely and absolutely harm them
We’ve had wardecs for 14 years. Player numbers have been steadily rising until ~2013 (Incarna excluded) and have only gone downhill after CCP started casualizing and dumbing down the game.
If they were to remove wardecs and make highsec 100% safe, they could also go ahead to the inevitable next step and shut the servers down for good. Not only because it would absolutely ■■■■ up the game economy, it would also be the wake-up call for even the most stubborn that EVE is truly and finally dead.
I’m not advocating making high sec totally safe. I’m advocating making it so war dec corporations can’t use it as a tool to attack with impunity. It’s high sec, so you should be able to be aggressive, but with consequences.
