EVE General Discussion

The thing is, he asks for a way to get away before he dies.
If it is easier to run away from a tackle it is also harder to tackle, because it is easier to run away.
So I want to be sure to hold my target until it's dead, then I have to live with being held until I'm dead.

I gave options to break a point ... of course they are situational.

Having been in FW (Minmtar-Amarr on a different character) , I know that there are pilots who seek 1 on 1 situations and get frustrated when they get blobbed by a fleet. But the more experienced pilots do use all the tools at their disposal (Intel channels, local, d-scan ...), or they take scout / tackle role for friendly fleets.

My point is: warp disruptors and scrambler work the way they do, because in the past it was possible to run away to easily (at least for 1vs1 situations). So everyone complained about lack of kills. So CCP nerfed WCS, added the second point in strength to the warp disruptor and created the warp scramblers with half the range, half the strength but ability to shut down MWD.

Anyway ... I love Griffins.

No, we don't, because that would be intellectually dishonest and factually incorrect. You might do so, but again… see the previous sentence. This is just you not understanding the meaning of a term and then applying it incorrectly, as you always do. It's “passive” all over again.

If we don't know what's causing something, we say that the cause is unknown. We do not say that it is random because random is not the same thing. In fact, “random” is almost never used to describe a cause — it is occasionally applied to effects and outcomes, but only if we can be highly satisfied with it being an accurate description. Saying that something is random means almost the exact opposite of what you wish it did: it means we do know something about the cause.

Not only do we not do that, because that would mean we know something when we don't, we especially don't do it when, as in this case, the entire causal chain is known. The word you're looking for is “unpredictable” in the sense of “erratic”. That, too, is not the same thing as random.

By the way, strike 1. Attempt 2 — answer the question: at what?

That's polite way of saying deranged.

Seems appropriate for a thread that started out with a fit of chicken-little hyperbole.

Having dealt with him before, I'm familiar with his… ehm… I don't know if “health” is the right word. And yes, it may be a bit exploitative, but that's an unfortunate side-effect of inverting Poe's law as a means to address various misconceptions.

Random:

adjective
1.
proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern:
the random selection of numbers.

e.g. NOT the market.

Irrelevant. We certainly do use them. We say events can be random, actions can be arbitrary and that we can be lucky and we use the words to describe them as such. There is nothing dishonest about it. Provide proof when you disagree.

What should be more concerning to you is that if it was dishonest then it would make you dishonest, too. So you can understand when I dismiss your objection as irrelevant, because I am really doing you a favour.

I don't agree. The game is massive and detailed with plenty of variety of things to do. We don't need more stuff, we need existing stuff to be higher quality. CCP should focus on refining things, or replacing systems that are less than fun.

Mining should be replaced with something more interesting, active, and competitive. Same for missions. Part of the problem is how direct the access to these things are. Ask agent for mission, warp to mission and complete in the same way you've done it a million times before. Warp to asteroid belt, F1 at a rock. Both are very "press button, receive bacon". Not much decision making, or interaction with other players. Particularly not with other players doing the same types of things. Interaction only comes from ganker/player pirate types. That interaction is great, but cooperation and competition between missioners and miners would be nice too.

Travel kind of sucks in this game too. Warp from point A to point B, no stopping or changing course along the way. This is one of the reasons that space seems so small in this game. And all star systems feel the same. And there is no sense of discovery for players who are not fiddling with probes.

When doing mining/missions you don't have to find anything, work for anything. It's just handed to you. It's boring. Nothing is at stake because nothing was found or earned. Just press warp to another static belt. Or return to station and press the button for another mission. Miners should be like prospectors in the old American West.

The UI needs more paring down still too.

Babies are born every day, seems pretty random to me.
Except that there is a pattern: 9 month after the pregnancy started
There is a reason: See sex ed 101 for specific details
There is an aim: new babies contribute to the ongoing survival of our species

Now keep in mind that it's enough to meet one single criteria for an event to not be random.

Players buy items at the they need those items. You're going to argue that a long standing buy order that only gets filled up slowly or possibly not at all doesn't fit the above criteria. Let's see:

I may put up a buy order for a million m3 tritanium for 90 days and a price below what sellers are asking today.
The reason could be, that I plan ahead and want to build something in the future and hope to fill my order at a decent price.
The reason could be, that I hope that the price comes down to meet my order.

You can't take the delay between me putting up the order and it getting filled as being random. That's because not only do I have a reason to put up my buy order, but the sellers have reasons too, to fill it.

A seller my need some cash quickly and therefore go reduce his price to meet my offer.
Somebody may sell me just 1 unit to identify me and contact me by eve-mail later.

We dont yet really know, whether such a thing as "random" exists, or whether everything is deterministic and causal.
The idea of "random" itself can also be construed as the result of a complex causal relations, and not actually random at all.

Until we find some "random" force/actuator/effect/particle, it would seem that random occurences just seem that way, due to limitations of our understanding of the totality of physics and a lack of computing power into which to input all those variables an causes so as to accuretely predict the outcome.

Its problematic on a mathematical and computational basis to create a truly "random" generator also.
Sooner or later, they all fall into a law of averages and predictable outcone, the larger the sample is.

No, we don't, because that would be dishonest or ignorant. So while you may do so, you are not “we”.

Saying that something is random when we don't know if it is is, at best, ignorant, because that's just a baseless assumption. Saying that something is random when we know for sure that it isn't is dishonest because, well, we're saying that it is the exact opposite of what we know to be true. There's really no two ways about it. There is nothing about the market that would in any way whatsoever come under the heading of “random” unless the intent is to lie.

…except that the time is not random, nor is latency. They're entirely wilful and/or deterministic and they follow predictable patterns — the exact opposite of random.

Non sequitur. Knowing the reason is not a prerequisite for it not being random. An infallibly and demonstrably repetitive and predictable pattern can exist without us having any clue whatsoever why it is happening, and yet, it is by definition not random. Beyond that, we do know the reason for each of those items. It's very simple — even you can probably figure it out.

By the way, strike 2. This is your third and last chance to answer the question. If you refuse, this will explicitly mean that you accept the answer I will provide in your stead as being 100% accurate and truthful, and that you have no objections to what I will say the answer is. You will also accept my answer to your clarified question as fully satisfactory. If these terms are not acceptable, then your only option is to provide an answer — any further attempt at stalling, misdirecting, or just spouting your standard fare of gobbledygook will also be interpreted as an express acceptance of the terms.

So, here goes… are you ready?
Answer the question: at what?