EVE General Discussion

Fixed.

lol, it still amazes me that you believe that to be true. I don't at all hate ganking (if fact I take part in it) and while I believe wardecs need to be completely rebuilt from the ground up, the concept of them I don't dislike. You don't really care about facts like that though, you'd rather simply misrepresent people's opinions which is why people don't take you seriously.

Delt0r, as for how the topic got onto this, Kaarous and Feyd would have you believe that no changes have ever been made which improved conflict in highsec even though that's demonstrably false. A range of ways conflict has in fact been buffed were raised and that particular one got picked up by Scipio who believes that a buff is only a buff if the patch notes explicitly state that as a reason for it's implementation, so if it just by sheer luck happens to make ganking easier, it's not a buff. Since there's no such thing as opinion and these people are obviously right while those of us that believe anything different are wrong, carebears, bleeding heart liberals, and a whole range of other more colourful, these discussion pretty much instantly turn into 15 pages of nitpicking, semantics and personal attacks.

This is false as I've already said. By now it's a deliberate misrepresentation. I just like to be able to verify statements, including my own and there are many sources of valid data to support views, whether they come from CCP, or other sources (eg. killboards, EFT/PyFA, player analysis of data, etc.).

CCP's views on things are important, but not the only way to verify a view.

On the bowhead issue, yes. I am happy to change my mind, but show how in a verifiable way it is a buff to pvp. That doesn't only require CCP statements. Actually CCP statements on the bowhead would suggest otherwise.

But if you have some other data I can verify myself that shows it's a buff to pvp, then go for it.

The bowhead discussion is also not the sum total of views that we all discuss to death here in the forum. There are many others and many ways to provide evidence of opinions.

The whole statement made earlier that one guy with a couple of alts carries out hyperdunks doesn't even match the way that Globby (the most notable person to use the approach) actually did it in published accounts (and he used an Orca first time around). There wasn't one player and alts, there were multiple players involved.

If you are sticking to your claim the introduction of the Bowhead is a buff to High Sec conflict then there really isn't any ground for further discussion with you by anybody. You clearly misunderstand the concept of buffs and nerfs and therefore discussing it with you is like trying to debate quantum physics with an Amoebe.

More then a handful of people on the last few pages have been generously explaining why your opinions fail, yet here you are sticking to this fallacy. This also isn't the first topic I have seen you behaving like this. I fear it is about time I put you on "ignore". My time is way to precious to waste reading your crap.

No, show me the verifiable facts that it's a buff.

The 3 character ganks take more time and more effort on the part of the gankers (actually Globby's first one only took 2 players because the pilot of the bowhead that was killed logged out, so no bumping Macharial was needed).

Like even something as simple as how hyperdunking is happening regularly and achieving ganks that wouldn't have been possible through more regular forms of ganking.

Is there anything like that? Just something that shows the bowhead has allowed ganks that wouldn't have been possible without it?