EVE General Discussion

I was around for the great war, the vast bulk of that was on the forums. There is a minority in null like that but nothing like highsec bears.

Conjecture. You're basing your conclusion on a very limited number of occurrences.

What concrete data do you want? I can't post chat logs on the forums. And you'd say I faked them anyway. I get more real-life threats out of a month of active wars than the amount of 0.0 drama stories that have been published during EVE's entire history. My data is as valid as yours at this point, and my numbers are higher, so I win by default.

He never quit the game. I fly in fleets with him, he gives no ***** about this.

All of that stuff you are getting angry about is made up bullshit by the likes of people like you who desperately want to hate goons for whatever reason. If we trolled him out of the alliance then why the Christ would he STILL BE WITH US?

You have evidence of this? Because there's far more evidence that the opposite is true.
Yep they're so collaborative they can't even work together to protect themselves, despite being repeatedly how to do so.

…a change that happened so close to the summit that it wouldn't have had time to have any impact on the yearly statistics.

CODE is irrelevant. You can keep bringing them up, and they are still irrelevant. We are talking about the blatantly obvious connection between ganking profitability and safety. As every economic presentation ever has pointed out, the less profitable it gets, the less frequent it is. Today, on a large loss day, one hauler is killed every hour in all of highsec. That's has laughably infrequent it is.

They have. Go back and read the old QENs and watch the economy presentations, or go through the twitter stream that Diagoras had for a while.

No, because the gank-whiners are impervious to the truth. The only thing they will accept is a reality where no kills ever happen (which will never happen) and a conclusion that ganking is omnipresent (which will never happen).

CODE are not greifers. You don't need numbers to prove this, because numbers are not a factor. You can just point to their continued existence. Claiming otherwise is ignorant of what the term actually means. Could you even begin to guess how many petitions have been sent in over the years accusing them of griefing, and how many of those have immediately been trashed because of how obvious it is that the term does not apply? The only greifers involved in all of this are the carebears who respond to any kind of opposition by drowning their opponent in death threats and personal abuse. We can tell that they are griefers by the fact that they get banned when engaging in this kind of harassment.

See the part I bolded. Well, every time I read that I think "well, you' d think it's that way, and for most people it is that way".

But the truth of the matter is that some people, for some reason i can't fathom, put themselves in situations they are not cut out for and are not compatible with, and when things go wrong (things that EVERYONE ELSE could see coming two miles away) they freak out and start blaming others for their mistakes. I can't even count the times I've seen someone complain on these very forums about something that happened in game and think "wtf game did you think you were playing?".

In the past I've liken this phenomenon to someone being epileptic (and knowing that they are) and yet freely choosing to play a game called "FlashyBlinkyStrobelights Online" and THEN having the gall to be outraged when playing induces a seizure....

Because apparently you don't know what the term "historic low" means? Yeah sure the change would not have affected the yearly average, just like a couple of days after the change to reprocessing didn't affect the yearly market price of items that are bought and sold solely for their mineral makeup . Doesn't mean that the price on a vast majority of these items was not immediately affected and cut roughly in half.



No, my two man corp is irrelevant. CODE is too widely known and too effective at what it does to be called irrelevant. Otherwise no one would talk about them. Because gankers confine themselves to just haulers right?



Oh, so you readily admit that educating the masses is an unrealistic goal as a means to achieve change in player behavior? At least we agree on that.



I know what the term means thank you. I know that CCP disagrees with my assessment otherwise they wouldn't be here. It doesn't change my opinion.

*Shrug* To be fair I think the ratios are probably roughly the same. Its not like the population density of null is even remotely the same as hi-sec.

Apparently, you don't know the kind of statistics the economy team used or the turn-around time on those stats? No, something that happened that close to the summit will not have had much of an impact on the overall image of ganking. Even if the mining ship changes were significant enough, guess what? The reduction is still due to the much lowered profitability. You see, those changes did not make it any more difficult to kill miners — just more costly.

CODE is still irrelevant. They have nothing to do with the mechanisms that link economics to behaviour.

No. Educating the masses will work wonders to ensure that fewer people are lost to the cess-pit ranks of the gank whiners.

It makes your opinion wrong. And yes, opinions can be wrong, especially when they conflict with reality. CCP defines the term and apply it to the players. Your assessment is like CODE: irrelevant.