EVE General Discussion

you heard it here first guys NS dwarfs LS in organisation...yes i dispute that.

your plucking straws salvos, you have been asked to prove something which you cant then turn it on to someone else because you know its bulls*** "Its not even a fraction of total NS-HS transit past LS in JFs." you made the claim now prove it, because we have shown you they die yet your counter to is just words with no evidence. you dont know what fraction gets past so stop exaggerating your claims.

You dont have to be drunk to lose a freighter to a super who uncloaks and alphas you as you are aligning before having a chance to do anything.

salvos thinks everyone who doesnt agree with his stupid idea is an alt....ok mate

no salvos you are implying that freighters lol-cyno in lowsec with impunity which is why you have this idea in the first place, yet you have be shown that they do not, start reading and understanding.

1) WE ALREADY HAVE!!!!

So you cant, or wont, answer 4 simple questions.

Ive been patient and answered your questions, given you leeway and many opportunities.
You either refuse to, or are incapable of, grasping what is being said and discussed.

There is clearly no point in further discussion with you, especially since you already openly claimed you are trolling.

You are dishonest and nonreciprocating.

You are now blocked.

But it drives people from low-sec.

Look... you seem to think low-sec is all about shipping stuff and attacking the ships that are moving goods. Maybe that's all it is for you... but there are permanent industrial, PVE and FW residents in low-sec who don't particularly care for having every gate camped.

Your idea creates more annoying logistics (for everyone in Null... but also everyone in LOW). It makes life in low-sec more annoying for everyone who's not interested in gate camps (which still exist but in small enough numbers that those living in low sec can deal with them).

You are boosting one type of content while killing all of the other types of content in low-sec. You're turning it from a place where some reside to a place that people only travel through (because residing there will be too annoying logistically with your changes).

I've never used a cyno. I don't fly capitals, I don't take part in large fleets with capitals and I don't have a jump freighter. I DO take part in FW quite a bit. I also travel back and forth between null and low-sec through gates.... not cynos.

Your suggestion will cause me to not take part in FW if it causes increased gatecamps like I think it will. I'm not against it because I like cynos. I'm against it because it screws up MY gameplay which has nothng to do with transportation of goods or cynos in any way.

I don't want to fight 10-20 man gate camp gangs every time I change systems in low sec. I'm looking for smaller engagement PvP in FW plexes. If I have to deal with constant gate camps... that's no longer possible.

1. This is a silly debate trick. You can't prove they pass low sec without destruction. The other guy can't prove that they don't pass. Unless you can provide information showing your view is correct, demanding the other party to do that is a juvenile way to behave.

2. So... you have been provided proof that some JF's do get destroyed. We have seen JF's make it through as well... so we know some make it. The question is what is a reasonable rate of destruction? And what number of JF's are destroyed compared to those that are produced? Until you get that data, you shouldn't use perceived percentages as part of your argument. You honestly don't know what the real numbers say either... so stop thinking your assumptions about what numbers might be MUST be correct if you're going to base your entire argument on them.

3. I don't think things are as fluid as labeling groups or players strictly as "null", "low" or "high". Geographically... yeah, there are more null systems. Wealth/resources... yes there is more available in null. Population? Well... on a per-system basis I'm not sure. There are fewer low-sec players but also fewer systems. I've seen crowded and empty parts of both. I think that's a push. Organization? Depends on where in null and where in low you're at. On average I think more low-sec players are in smaller corporations... but some of them operate in a very organized manner despite lower numbers than less organized larger null-sec entities who overcome a lack of organization with numbers. Cap pilots... sure, there are more in null.

I'm not sure why you think any of that is important.

4. Look... you ignore 99% of what people are telling you, quote with a "snip" and respond to one little thing to try to score points. That is more trollish behavior than much of what you're complaining about.


I just don't want you to cause low-sec to only be for transporting goods and having gate camps. I don't enjoy either of those things... while the small group PvP that low-sec presents that I DO enjoy will be hurt by your suggestion. Right now low-sec is the only place I can consistently get that type of gameplay. And you want to kill it because "cynos are bad".

It will drive me and everyone else searching for small group and solo PvP away.

It will drive low-sec industrial corps away.

It will drive low-sec PvE players (lvl 5 missions, anoms) away.

It will quite obviously drive those who are looking for content that does NOT involve gate camping away... because a huge increase in gate camps make it horrendous for EVERYONE to travel, not just those shipping goods.

Look... I don't CARE about cynos. They don't impact my daily play in any real way. I do care about not being able to take my solo pvp ships through low-sec because every freaking gate is camped because they want the "billions upon billions" being transported. Those gate camps will shoot me AND my targets as well as freighters.

I don't think increasing the number of gate camps will make low-sec better for the majority of players. Right now low-sec is pretty much the only place you can get consistent small-group combat (at least that I can find). I have a personal stake in this... not because of cynos but because the logical impact of your idea takes away a part of the game that I enjoy.

Listen to yourself.

You think all that will happen, just by removing cynos from LS?

Explain how/why removing cynos from LS results in that?

I can and will answer your reply (which was correct in format. I genuinely respect that. Albeit wrong in content).

The point was to show Lan for what he is.
You carried his burden admirably, but he didnt.
I promise you a reply as if those questions had been addressed to you, cos you answered them, but Im limited on time and have a 3 day bachelor party bender impending starting tomorrow. You will get it Sunday or Monday.

He's essentially the same as me with less patience to explain what you're getting so wrong.

Essentially he expects you to "get it" without a detailed explanation and assumes you're intentionally trolling by not seeing what he tells you.

As a rule, I assume everyone on the internet is completely clueless about everything and explain it as if I were talking to a 10 year old. (note... this is not aimed at you specifically). That means I assume I'm going to have to say the same exact thing 30 times in many different ways before people reading comprehend the information.

This.

What would help traffic is actually making gate camps more difficult to do. Once you have safer travel in low sec, you will see more traffic in general, more people mining, more people doing low sec L4 missions, etc. It's one thing to lose your battleship because you ignored local and D-Scan. It's another to lose your battleship before you even get to use D-Scan.

I would never consider doing missions in low sec currently. Just getting my ship to a mission agent is too risky. But if transport were fairly safe, I would totally be fine with trying out low sec PVE. I would feel better about low sec PI and I don't mind but hell I'd do that too if I enjoyed mining. Unsafe gate travel is really the only blocker.