EVE General Discussion

Nope, though you may have missed the part where shooting the same alt over and over will have a diminishing return. We've no more details about that yet.

As for tags, we don't have much in the way of details on that either, except they want it to be expensive.



Having flipped enough miners many years ago, they are mostly alone in belts, or a mission, and not much of a threat to a fast small ship. Besides, getting them to steal it back or take a shot at you is the goal anyway. Once that happens, open fire and keep moving, see drones or someone warp in, run. Easy.



You can still do those things, just won't have all the curious loop holes for protection. You could opt to go the other way and pop suspect flags. Sit off a gate or station at 100km, seboed to the gils and snipe.

Instead of being a high sec pirate, you can do the other side now too.

I don't consent to having CONCORD kill me after ganking someone, but it sure does happen every time.

Yeah, from an eLawyer perspective you are probably correct. We all have to sign consent forms at some point in life.

I am used to thinking of consent from a different set of theories: theories which would question the reasoning capacity of anyone who witheld consent in said situation.

Industry/Marketeering and even basic purchasing are all part of PVP as you are competing against other players in the pursuit of rewards. So really if we want to make highsec pvp free we have to disable all the markets and all bounties/ore being derived from the region. Otherwise it's just pvp that holds an unfair economic advantage over other players.

Ganking has 1 key difference from being ganked. The gankee, be it through chance, carelessness or poor judgement came to his fate through an outside influence they did not directly invoke. Gankers on the other hand have chosen their tools and target accordingly with the act they willingly committed knowing full well the consequences. In the case of a ganker the ship is the same as any other consumable commodity and just a part of the cost of doing business. I'm not sure how knowingly invoking the wrath of concord and the certainty of destruction it brings can be thought of as anything other than consent.

But it all boils down to semantics. No point in continuing to argue that anymore I guess.

You carebears are insane if you think we won't adapt to these changes and continue to make your lives living hell.

You mean your finally deciding to follow your own advice of "adapt or die"? As opposed to whine and contend every point with childish answers and flawed arguments? How very noble of you.

Totally expect you to also since the changes won't specifically prevent the activity of suicide ganking. Just means you may have to manage security to potentially avoid certain implications of risk previously alien to you. And yet been given nice techniques to manage it also, but might actually require effort or shooting something with guns (owned by a player).

On the subject of Highsec aggression, I see a lot of removal of previous loopholes in the new war dec mechanics that if anything I hope will help to encourage aggression. And considering this activity will essentially make up the lions share of aggression in High sec I don't understand how the OP can conclude an encouragemet by CCP to make things more carebear.

Bye then, I personally wont miss your lack of contribution to EvE by whining and wanting every ruling and mechanic to provide you the most control over the commodity of fun in EvE. So I don't see the commercial loss as that important when compared with the need to retain the sandbox for more than just a few selfish individuals. So if someone else can cater for your needs I'm happy for you to leave, average IQ might improve at the same time as a result.

I'll even open the door for you if you like, just remember to contract and send all your stuffs to me.

lol, I held back if anything.

But just in case you are genuinely upset and can't take as much as you dish out:

Some alien concepts for you to consider for your future debating methodologies whilst sharing the sandbox with other players: "mutual consensus" and "compromise", it might help your arguments. Since the idea of sharing the sandbox with others means that you don't exclude others to the idea of fun and play in your reasoning.

I understand this fear, but I've yet to see proposals that specifically prevent you form operating in the activity you want to do. Recent and proposed changes to readdress the balance that in essence has afforded a lack of the recognised EvE qualities such as risk to the ganker. The complancency they have at the moment to operate with little consequence and as such affords very profitable opportunities at the same time is the reason why it is being brought back in line with the EvE philosophy.

The arguments therefore being proposed by those in the activity seen to be only from their point of view and not accomodating others as a result. People can see the scare mongering as a result, yet when you look at it logically, ganking is not being stopped it is just making it more challenging, presumably as people have become more polific and competent with it as a a result. This however is the bone of contention I guess, in that you see your fun as being more important as it is your own.

And by your original argument above where the attempt to throw your toys out the pram because something didnt go in your favour is a classic sign that you are childish in the process about these arguments, whilst neglecting to see that others equally have something invested into EvE.

If you want the previous and ongoing arguments of "adapt or die", "HTFU" and "risk vs reward" etc. to be valid in EvE then you can't make yourself immune from that process can you?

+1 like for the original post