These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Breaking war-dec's. Questions and a small rant :)

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#261 - 2015-09-25 15:56:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
No they are not indestructible, go read the thread where people have detailed that its not anywhere near 200 BS. And lets take this to the final degree, I am in null sec should I expect that the XL structures should be set to a level that my alliance can take them down no, and the biggest Coalition in the game routinely in other words all the time operates in hisec, they are a hisec alliance.
200bs with minimal defenders, sure. A citadel shouldn't be something you can plonk in space and rely on it's natural tank to deter players from even attempting to go after it. Effectively, if 99% of highsec alliances would be put off of attacking it because of it's sheer size, it shouldn't be put in.

Dracvlad wrote:
So what if Black Pedro and his 3 men corp can't take it down, he needs to get better at Eve, I can't take one down at the moment with my alliance, so what I need to get better at Eve.
Doesn't look like this is what the argument is. Seems to me that your problem is quite the opposite, that some one man industry corp won't be able to put an XL citadel and be safe from most attackers with minimal effort.


Lucas you are in the Imperium, you know that they put a lot of effort into attacking hisec, if the null sec alliances were excluded from hisec then I would agree with you, but they are not, it does not matter that there are no pure hisec entities that can take it down without getting allies and hiring mercs, what matters is that there are entities that operate routinely in hisec that can take them down.

And here is the rub, if the Imperium decides to put one down what difference does it make, it controls the area of space around it against people that have a war dec against it and they can base from it, big deal, do I care.

What I keep saying is that they are a major challenge to take down and there is nothing wrong with that at all and if that creates a change in hisec then good because the current structure is not exactly fun is it?

EDIT: A one man industry corp put one down, yeah someone might do it because its like waving a flag, but what's the point, its a HQ and market hub, more ISK then sense... But some people will see it and go I can't blow that up and it hurts me, wow cry more please. I spent most of my Eve game time being in small entities that had a challenge all the time, be it to take down TCU's and IHUB's to even operating in some areas, so starting up at a big structure that I cannot deal with is nothing new to me, its more like certain people feel its their right to be able to kill everything in this game, I don't, I like a challenge.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#262 - 2015-09-25 16:06:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


Brilliant idea, attack the most heavily tanked object in eve that sports titan level firepower with a fleet with zero tank.



Know this is a couple pages back but...

Isnt the reason for the entosis like having magic ECM that shuts stuff down? I might very well be errored in my understanding of the Entosis stuff but move in with two phases. One to shut it down, second to destroy it. Three things will happen.

One, it is a happy carebear corp that doesn't have any skill to counter.

Two, poor planning and you do not disable it.

Three, they bring a good fight?


How many ships does it take to disable it or will it be firing at you full time. Same deal though, it takes X to set it up, take X to tear it down. Again, this is all based on it being possible to disable the weapons?

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#263 - 2015-09-25 16:18:01 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Lucas you are in the Imperium, you know that they put a lot of effort into attacking hisec, if the null sec alliances were excluded from hisec then I would agree with you, but they are not, it does not matter that there are no pure hisec entities that can take it down without getting allies and hiring mercs, what matters is that there are entities that operate routinely in hisec that can take them down.
We do ganking ops in highsec, but thatt's about it. Anything that would require us to commit a significant force to highsec would be unlikely to happen. And even we would probably not bother trying to launch a battleship assault on an XL citadel in highsec since it would be a massive waste of time. The problem is that an XL citatel would just be too difficult to assault by most parties in hgihsec. While yes, there are a couple of groups that could do it, it should not be possible for a small group to stick up a structure so big that only a handful of groups across the entire game can reasonably attack it.

Dracvlad wrote:
A one man industry corp put one down, yeah someone might do it because its like waving a flag, but what's the point, its a HQ and market hub, more ISK then sense... But some people will see it and go I can't blow that up and it hurts me, wow cry more please. I spent most of my Eve game time being in small entities that had a challenge all the time, be it to take down TCU's and IHUB's to even operating in some areas, so starting up at a big structure that I cannot deal with is nothing new to me, its more like certain people feel its their right to be able to kill everything in this game, I don't, I like a challenge.
The point would be that it's near indestructible. You could have a base of operations that you know is naturally resistant enough that only a few groups in the entire game would consider attacking it. Then even if someone does declare war, you've got 24+ hours to shift out assets before they can even fire the first shot. A large citadel would be more reasonable and still challenging to take down if the defenders actually defend it.

All in all, I don't really care if highsec players get access to big structures, but if the structures are so big that nobody bothers to assault them, the mechanics won't have accomplished what they set out to do.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#264 - 2015-09-25 16:31:00 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Lucas you are in the Imperium, you know that they put a lot of effort into attacking hisec, if the null sec alliances were excluded from hisec then I would agree with you, but they are not, it does not matter that there are no pure hisec entities that can take it down without getting allies and hiring mercs, what matters is that there are entities that operate routinely in hisec that can take them down.
We do ganking ops in highsec, but thatt's about it. Anything that would require us to commit a significant force to highsec would be unlikely to happen. And even we would probably not bother trying to launch a battleship assault on an XL citadel in highsec since it would be a massive waste of time. The problem is that an XL citatel would just be too difficult to assault by most parties in hgihsec. While yes, there are a couple of groups that could do it, it should not be possible for a small group to stick up a structure so big that only a handful of groups across the entire game can reasonably attack it.

Dracvlad wrote:
A one man industry corp put one down, yeah someone might do it because its like waving a flag, but what's the point, its a HQ and market hub, more ISK then sense... But some people will see it and go I can't blow that up and it hurts me, wow cry more please. I spent most of my Eve game time being in small entities that had a challenge all the time, be it to take down TCU's and IHUB's to even operating in some areas, so starting up at a big structure that I cannot deal with is nothing new to me, its more like certain people feel its their right to be able to kill everything in this game, I don't, I like a challenge.
The point would be that it's near indestructible. You could have a base of operations that you know is naturally resistant enough that only a few groups in the entire game would consider attacking it. Then even if someone does declare war, you've got 24+ hours to shift out assets before they can even fire the first shot. A large citadel would be more reasonable and still challenging to take down if the defenders actually defend it.

All in all, I don't really care if highsec players get access to big structures, but if the structures are so big that nobody bothers to assault them, the mechanics won't have accomplished what they set out to do.


This is the thing why can't people have a base that is tough to take down, I don't expect to be able to take down a Titan unless I have friends, why should a structure be any different and a structure has limited impact, its a base and a market hub, it can't jump around and blap things like a Titan.

I would not put an XL down personally, but I see no reason not to if I really want to, and people moaning that its too tough when the same people routinely tell others to toughen up sticks in my gullet.

I have pointed out many times that a war dec has to have a reason otherwise its silly, structures can be a reason, imagine if that alliance that was controlling Osmon who employed mercs who recently got taken down by the mercs because he treated them like small people, what if had had an XL and they got together and went after it. Its content a great big content driver, people up their game.

In terms of the Imperium, if the AG movement put up one on either side of each choke point and in them and then created market Hubs with their blue list, something CCP should do then it is a massive conflict driver, your hisec ganking arm has an issue, the Imperium would see the hisec pubbies challenging them, of we go conflict.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Black Pedro
Mine.
#265 - 2015-09-25 16:44:14 UTC
Markus Reese wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


Brilliant idea, attack the most heavily tanked object in eve that sports titan level firepower with a fleet with zero tank.



Know this is a couple pages back but...

Isnt the reason for the entosis like having magic ECM that shuts stuff down? I might very well be errored in my understanding of the Entosis stuff but move in with two phases. One to shut it down, second to destroy it. Three things will happen.

One, it is a happy carebear corp that doesn't have any skill to counter.

Two, poor planning and you do not disable it.

Three, they bring a good fight?


How many ships does it take to disable it or will it be firing at you full time. Same deal though, it takes X to set it up, take X to tear it down. Again, this is all based on it being possible to disable the weapons?

No, the entosis mechanic was never a magic ECM. It is design to be a game mechanic by which the force that is controlling a grid can affect sovereignty and, at least before the change, structure capture. It is a nice mechanic because it removes all grinding and boils the conflict down to who can capture the beacon allowing the mechanic to scale in all spaces and all size fleets.

For structures that meant that a single person could attempt to capture the structure. Of course, if anyone showed up to defend, that attacker would be blasted off the field by the citadel's defenses. Further, the citadel itself will act as a force multiplier allowing a smaller or weaker defense fleet to hold there own against an attacking fleet. These easy-to-attack and advantageous-to-defend design was a good one to encourage both sides to fight.

I see why CCP changed it though as there was little for the attacking fleet to do if the defenders didn't show. It's not very satisfying to sit on grid unable to do anything but serve as a target for the citadel's weapons. So now we will shoot the things, but they are still suppose to be easy to attack - 30 minutes is all it is suppose to take to give he defenders time to arrive. They are not suppose to be safe just because the wall of HP deters smaller forces from trying to attack the defenders are intended to have to show up to defend when someone comes calling.

But in both designs the citadel defenses will be live and formidable. Defenders will have significant advantages if they show up, as it should be. The full nature and detailed numbers of these defense has not be announced yet, but the design team seems to want them to be strong, but not passive, as in automatic or just tedious so no one tries. You will have to show up to defend.

Ok citadels are done. Perhaps now back to wardecs then?

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#266 - 2015-09-25 16:50:57 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
This is the thing why can't people have a base that is tough to take down, I don't expect to be able to take down a Titan unless I have friends, why should a structure be any different and a structure has limited impact, its a base and a market hub, it can't jump around and blap things like a Titan.
Right, and you should be able to take it down without bringing a ludicrous amount of friends. An undefended titan isn't really tough to take down. One went down yesterday to 7 people. An XL citadel in highsec would not be reasonable. It would be shockingly difficult for all but the biggest groups to take down even with a minimal defense force and would likely be empty by the time they got it down. I get that people should have stuff that can be reasonably difficult to take down in highsec, but it has to be balanced so that it generates content rather than stifles it.

Dracvlad wrote:
I have pointed out many times that a war dec has to have a reason otherwise its silly, structures can be a reason, imagine if that alliance that was controlling Osmon who employed mercs who recently got taken down by the mercs because he treated them like small people, what if had had an XL and they got together and went after it. Its content a great big content driver, people up their game.
It's not though, because very few groups in highsec could field a fleet big enough to take down an XL in a reasonable amount of time. XLs are designed to sustain an assault from capital ships. Chucking it in highsec would mean that capitals have to be able to enter highsec, and then you really will see some trouble on your doorstep.

Dracvlad wrote:
In terms of the Imperium, if the AG movement put up one on either side of each choke point and in them and then created market Hubs with their blue list, something CCP should do then it is a massive conflict driver, your hisec ganking arm has an issue, the Imperium would see the hisec pubbies challenging them, of we go conflict.
AGs currently sit in indestructible stations in the same places. Their problem isn't a lack of market, it;s that ganking is ridiculously difficult for AGs to consistently counter. That's a whole different issue and won't be resolved by introducing supserstructures.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#267 - 2015-09-25 16:57:09 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


I would not put an XL down personally, but I see no reason not to if I really want to, and people moaning that its too tough when the same people routinely tell others to toughen up sticks in my gullet.



It's only HTFU when you are winning. CCP isn't changing the game, but adding challenges. Suddenly there is something that can give other players the ability to counter. Ideally, the XLs would be tough to take down, in highsec, but only if the ones who make it have the skill and initiative to defend it.

If you cannot defend it from a war dec, then it should take no more, no less effort and risk to tear it down than what it took to put it up. If they take it down cause they get a war dec, does that not just make the job easier?

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#268 - 2015-09-25 17:16:19 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Dracvlad wrote:


This is the thing why can't people have a base that is tough to take down, I don't expect to be able to take down a Titan unless I have friends, why should a structure be any different and a structure has limited impact, its a base and a market hub, it can't jump around and blap things like a Titan.


The titan doesn't have the EHP of an outpost and can be hit with neuts, the station cannot. No highsec organisation has the numbers to absorb the losses that would be sustained in attacking an XL Citadel and the EHP of the structure would be so high that any highsec fleet would run out of ships before the station ran out of EHP. Its not a question of it being hard, its that it is just about impossible to attack one successfully. The firepower and tank required to work out in null makes them incompatible with highsec in the same way capitals are incompatible with highsec.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#269 - 2015-09-25 18:12:51 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

So what if Black Pedro and his 3 men corp can't take it down, he needs to get better at Eve, I can't take one down at the moment with my alliance, so what I need to get better at Eve.


"No one should be able to punch up against carebears"

~Dracvlad, 2015.

Fortunately for you, CCP is not swayed by your titanic entitlement, no matter how much you try and project it onto other people. The XL structures are far too powerful for highsec, and they will either be removed or sufficiently nerfed.

Cry more that you can't isk tank a structure.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#270 - 2015-09-25 18:23:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Markus Reese
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

So what if Black Pedro and his 3 men corp can't take it down, he needs to get better at Eve, I can't take one down at the moment with my alliance, so what I need to get better at Eve.


"No one should be able to punch up against carebears"


Cry more that you can't isk tank a structure.


Why? What is wrong with isk tanking? You bring out people, I bring out heavy artillery? If somebody put up a crap ton of isk, why should you not need a crap ton to take it down? They spent their isk on a safe instead of a gun or mercenaries. End result is the same, but the defender did it there way.

Oooh.... that is a good thing. Why does a defender have to play the attackers game? Why can a good defence not be... a good defence? Sword and Shield. Why is attacking a fortification:

(yay google)

cit·a·del
ˈsidədl,ˈsidəˌdel/
noun
a fortress, typically on high ground, protecting or dominating a city.
synonyms: fortress, fort, stronghold, fortification, castle; archaichold
"they were prisoners within their own citadel"

such a bad thing? You know what, if carebears have better defences, they will actually fight. Is a citadel not more game content for combat pvp?

I guess some people prefer camping stations or just having them in an NPC corp. I could set up a corp of NPC corps and run it just like a regular one from a spreadsheet. Put up on a secondary our corp operations. Get a couple hundred highsec peeps on the spreadsheet, a bit of tracking and suddenly I got a serious highsec corp that nobody can really do much about.

I dunno, from a pvp standpoint, high tank citadels seem like a tank nerf to station tank.

The titan doesn't have the EHP of an outpost and can be hit with neuts, the station cannot. No highsec organisation has the numbers to absorb the losses that would be sustained in attacking an XL Citadel and the EHP of the structure would be so high that any highsec fleet would run out of ships before the station ran out of EHP. Its not a question of it being hard, its that it is just about impossible to attack one successfully. The firepower and tank required to work out in null makes them incompatible with highsec in the same way capitals are incompatible with highsec.[/quote]

There is plenty of firepower to take out a Citadel for those that want and have need to. You say it is impossible to attack? Then why can Highsec corps take out poses which you cannot disable the firepower on? Oh... I read the recent devblog. Appears no more entosis, sorry. Reading though, they are having damage mitigation (a weak version of something I have proposed multiple times over the years).

I think they are able to be torn down. If people can get the effort and do the work to put it up, then others should easily be able to do the same to take it down.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#271 - 2015-09-25 18:36:31 UTC
Markus Reese wrote:

Why? What is wrong with isk tanking?


It breaks the game. Seriously, this is a big no duh here, so asking the question in the first place just makes you look incomparably stupid.


Quote:
Why does a defender have to play the attackers game?


Because you aren't the one who took the initiative.

Duh. Basic tactics, older than the language we're typing in. Don't like it? Stop making the deliberate choice to be the prey animal in the game then. Unlike real life, you can just decide to start doing it right and stop being someone else's food.


Quote:
You know what, if carebears have better defences, they will actually fight.


No, you won't. You'll sit in your invincible structure and NOT fight, that's what you gutless toads want it for in the first place.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#272 - 2015-09-25 19:00:31 UTC
Markus Reese wrote:
You know what, if carebears have better [whatever], they will actually fight. Is a citadel not more game content for combat pvp?


If I had a million dollars for every time I heard this ridiculous argument, my bank balance would be so obscenely large as to make Donald Trump look like a peasant.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#273 - 2015-09-25 19:13:22 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Markus Reese wrote:
You know what, if carebears have better [whatever], they will actually fight. Is a citadel not more game content for combat pvp?


If I had a million dollars for every time I heard this ridiculous argument, my bank balance would be so obscenely large as to make Donald Trump look like a peasant.



Its right up there with the idea that if you take away Hi-sec all of a sudden everyone there is going to want to hang out in null.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#274 - 2015-09-25 19:14:53 UTC
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6061491#post6061491

My coalition could reinforce a timer in one hour and fifteen minutes in hisec, thats 25 people in Talos's, to kill one would take 3 hours and 45 minutes in total.

Are hisec mercs really that weak that they cannot do that.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#275 - 2015-09-25 19:17:49 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Markus Reese wrote:
You know what, if carebears have better [whatever], they will actually fight. Is a citadel not more game content for combat pvp?


If I had a million dollars for every time I heard this ridiculous argument, my bank balance would be so obscenely large as to make Donald Trump look like a peasant.



Its right up there with the idea that if you take away Hi-sec all of a sudden everyone there is going to want to hang out in null.


Another lie created by carebears. Because no one really thinks that.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#276 - 2015-09-25 19:19:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Markus Reese
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


No, you won't. You'll sit in your invincible structure and NOT fight, that's what you gutless toads want it for in the first place.


Is that different than sitting in NPC corp or a station? Difference is that in a citadel, there are station guns you can control vs playing LoL?

If the toads are gutless, then why are you guys not willing to put up the effort to tear it down? If that is too much work, then why do you even care to take the HS one down when there are low and nullsec?

Me thinks the gutless ones are the ones thinking they are overtanked for highsec since they are more concerned about highsec than heading out into low or null.

Station and NPC corp with station tank is much cheaper and easier than establishing and setting up a Citadel while at the same time actually being vulnerable.

Dracvlad wrote:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6061491#post6061491

My coalition could reinforce a timer in one hour and fifteen minutes in hisec, thats 25 people in Talos's, to kill one would take 3 hours and 45 minutes in total.

Are hisec mercs really that weak that they cannot do that.



That is my point of view. Range, firepower and some logi, all the dps of some no activity citadel is nothing. If there is activity, it is just they don't want to lose ships. How dare a citadel which costs (Insert how many billions here) to get operational be able to take out 1/10th of that if under attack.

Me think Killboard Epeen is what is the real issue. The usual talk, people want to take out other highsec without any losses. If a chance gonna lose, (aside from concord) it is run and hide time. Bring a force of equal firepower and investment into the Citadel siege and they lose 100% of a citadel, you lose a percentage of your fleet.

Seems balanced?

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#277 - 2015-09-25 19:23:16 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Markus Reese wrote:

Why? What is wrong with isk tanking?


It breaks the game. Seriously, this is a big no duh here, so asking the question in the first place just makes you look incomparably stupid.


Quote:
Why does a defender have to play the attackers game?


Because you aren't the one who took the initiative.

Duh. Basic tactics, older than the language we're typing in. Don't like it? Stop making the deliberate choice to be the prey animal in the game then. Unlike real life, you can just decide to start doing it right and stop being someone else's food.


Quote:
You know what, if carebears have better defences, they will actually fight.


No, you won't. You'll sit in your invincible structure and NOT fight, that's what you gutless toads want it for in the first place.



When I watch the solo pvp'rs going through Null many a time I see the elite nullbear hugging the station and then playing station games because sadly, the majority in Null only know pvp when they out blob the other side.

Its fun watching a solo pvp'r cause many to station up and hide.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#278 - 2015-09-25 19:25:29 UTC
Markus Reese wrote:

Is that different than sitting in NPC corp or a station?


Yes. Those aren't in space assets.

Once again, duh.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#279 - 2015-09-25 19:28:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Markus Reese
Syn Shi wrote:



When I watch the solo pvp'rs going through Null many a time I see the elite nullbear hugging the station and then playing station games because sadly, the majority in Null only know pvp when they out blob the other side.

Its fun watching a solo pvp'r cause many to station up and hide.


That is why I like exploration. Eve is very much a predator/prey relationship. I have just as much fun avoiding the fight as I do fighting, possibly more in eve.

I am one ship evading 20 in a system, they are trolling me. So one ship... is keeping 20 from doing something else? I call that a win on my end.

Citadels? Circle the wagons, hold the fort.

Sounds like a good time for both parties. Combat DPS can attack their way, and highsec peeps can defend their way. Two playstyles meeting square.

If we really break down the situation, what is the difference in the combat. Have a planned attack fleet, you shoot and get shot. Difference is, attacking a citadel is all or nothing vs ship vs ship where you can probably get some kills.

What I want is really to see the investment required to citadels. That is the balance point. If it takes 50 people say 5 hours total to tear it down, then it should take at minimum 250 play hours to get what is needed to set one up before operational expenses. If nobody is at the helm, no losses. If the full force behind that man hours is at the helm ore more, than advantage to citadel.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#280 - 2015-09-25 19:58:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Markus Reese
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Markus Reese wrote:

Is that different than sitting in NPC corp or a station?


Yes. Those aren't in space assets.

Once again, duh.


So you are mad that highsec players are going to be risking and using vulnerable assets vs invulnerable npc shields?

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.