Jita Park Speakers Corner

I have no desire to go on and on with you, if u have anything to add about your NPC empire vs nullsec wardec Idea, go and make them.

oh and :

"pro pvp tip" EVE isn't a 1 vs 1 game, you're doing it wrong.

Here we go with the old "It's a Sandbox" but "Anyone who doesn't play the way we do is doing it wrong" .... heheheh.

As for 1 v 1 not being "the right way to play" ... Is that why so many players consider Honorable Solo Kills the true test of PVP skill?

I can't tell if you're being serious.



Because we understand that if you find yourself in a fair fight, you've messed up somewhere.

So, have you asked your NPC brethren about this idea? What did they say?

Mhmm. There's a reason we have drones and artillery and snipers and things like that.

Ambush FTW!

Outside of some sort of regulated athletic contest the fight should be as UNFAIR as possible to the other guy.

I do regularly. I know plenty of Goons who do. Regularly. That's not the only thing you seem to be missing though.

TBH, reading through what you've been saying, I can't help but think you're the latest Emo TJ or Kalle Deimos (forum troll alts), particularly given the age of your character. That same factor could also be a sign that you really are just new, and if so perhaps it's more naivety than trolling.

So on the chance that it's naivety, I'll address some of your points:



PvE, once mastered (eg, having read the missions guide on the eve-o wiki) is highly predictible and therefore easily beaten. The NPCs do the same things in the same scenarios. Even Incursions, while requiring player cooperation to beat, are still predictible. If you're regularly losing ships in PvE, you're doing it wrong.

Game mechanics don't support suicide ganking, they allow it. In fact, as I stated in my previous response to your idea (which I note you haven't addressed), the game mechanics spawn unbeatable irresistable NPCs to destroy a suicide ganker's ship, so all the gankee has to do is survive long enough.


Not everything is about making ISK. Sometimes it's about challenge, competition, fun, or simply beating the other guy. Making ISK is one appeal, there are so many others. If your only measure of how good something is is "how much ISK will I make", you'll miss out on some of the best content that makes EVE a unique experience.



Sov nullsec is an opportunity, and of course it has obstacles. It wouldn't be any damn fun if it didn't. I really don't see what your point is here.



All players currently have access to nullsec, whether that is through NPC nullsec, joining a corp in a nullsec alliance, having their corp join a nulslec alliance, or forming their own alliance and going out to take space themselves. There is no "spoiled minority", just players who take risks in a risk/reward system which favours those who work together and are organised and persistent, and players who don't.

"The CCP fleet of employees with only their max skills could walk thru any and every nullsec system and wipe your gang of hooligans from nullsec with little trouble.
...
Concord has instant targeting and massive firepower." (not putting this in block quotes because :CCP: ... 5 quotes, really?)

The CCP fleet was designed to be destroyed. That's why they were carrying juicy loot to drop for players who destroyed them. Besides, if we took this point to its logical conclusion CCP could easily wipe out all players by other means also not generally available to players (eg GM tools). But what fun would that be.

CONCORD is a game mechanic designed to tip the advantage in favour of the "illegally" aggressed party by ensuring that the aggressing party is destroyed within a given timeframe. It is not a military force that takes or protects sov. It is a ridiculous suggestion to have CONCORD factored in any legitimised player conflict (which your Incursions into nullsec would be).

By troll you mean saying things that you don't agree with? hahahaha i will not ask you to kindly STFU because even a broken clock whose hands never turn anymore is right twice a day ...... so i remain optimistic you may one day say something of value.

I think by troll he means somebody who makes (deliberately) fallacious statements, misrepresents what somebody says then calls them an idiot for saying what they haven't said, regularly contradicts themselves, says that somebody hasn't made any valid points while conveniently ignoring the many that they do, makes more insults than points, and the list goes on.

All of these things you have done, many on more than one occasion, which is why I am also calling you a troll. Of course, I would reference examples of where you have done these things but to be quite frank I'm just not that engaged with your trolling.

I am curious though - is the statement in your bio something that you support, or is it a trophy? By trophy I mean showing off the lengths somebody goes to to make a reasoned post in response to one of your trolls.

The person you attribute it to (Arla Selenis) doesn't return any results in an EVE character search btw (and the only Google result for that name is your EVE Gate bio). Is it a fake trophy?

You fit your definition very fine sir, the quote i put in my bio in my opinion fairly defuses the misplaced anger one might experience after an encounter with gutless ganking thugs. This is just a game. While you enjoy the applause of fellow swarm members and swarm wannabes ask yourself why you feel compelled to answer posts directed at other people? Is it because you think them not smart enough to answer for themselves or because you are so brilliant you can read thier mind and determine what they meant? Or could it be you are not feeling the love from your corp mates perhaps? No one else to chat with? I mean you are after all in a big Alliance with sov and being a master of so many elements of the game i would think you'd have little time for these forums tbh.

I respectfully request that you point out one example where I have done any of those things (fallacious statement, misrepresenting what somebody has said, contradict myself, assert your lack of valid points, or more insults than points). Hopefully you won't take my respectful request as a demand, like you did the last one, and in doing so provide another example of misrepresenting what I have said. I truly, genuinely, would like to see how you came to that conclusion (as I did with my last request of the same nature). Having been a Lecturer in Higher Education I feel compelled to address misconceptions and fallacies.

I also see no reason whatsoever to address a post directed at somebody else, especially when that post is another example of misrepresenting what somebody has said (as trolls do). That example being the assertion that when Tasiv said "troll", he/she meant "saying things that you don't agree with". Sure, you put a question mark at the end, but you phrased it as an assertion.

My interpretation of what he/she said was quite different. I do not consider Tasiv incapable of making his/her own response, nor do I believe myself to be so brilliant as to be able to read their mind to determine what he/she meant. I don't know about you, but I tend to use the words that people say/write to determine what they mean, however flawed that may be.

So I will make another respectful request, this time of Tasiv Deka - what are your thoughts on these two varied interpretations of your use of the word "troll"?