Crime & Punishment

You seem to be heavily obsessed with this person. Show us on the doll...?

zkill now has a stat to track how much carebear is in people - you are 32% cuddly carebear

I embrace my inner carebearism

You added some stuff so lets continue, as I said I do not condemn PvP in itself and I do not question the legitimacy of PvP in hisec, I believe that ganking and PvP should exist in hisec, period. In terms of balance, I found the act of pointing by bumping in hisec unabalnced and I am not alone in that thought.

When you mention my comment about BAW, they have got up there by damn hard work and good luck to them, however your question was why do people not fight and I answered that, cause and effect, so by pointing that out I am a carebear. Did I say that I wanted to remove all those high grades, remove their OGB and bling ships from them, hell no. I just pointed out that they are so good that no one bothers because its not fun for them to just get blapped with no chance to kill anything.

Now step back and see what a merc said to me about not wanting to have red on their killboard, its not a dig on my part but what would you define that as. I certainly understand their reason, well sort of, for me its fulfilling the objective as mercs which is important, i.e. saving the strategic objective, after all I have been in fleets in 0.0 that got hammered but saved the objective.

You do some carebearing which means doing PvE, ok thats fine.

A Carebear advocate, protecting the weak, standing up for the law abiding common man, I like that... Well I do at times have a harsh attitude to people who do stupid things like accepting duels when told not to, afk autopiloting a freighter etc., like I said my focus is on game balance but ganking and PvP should be in hisec period, no question in my mind on that.

Stainwagon, well I have some blue and some that are not, but I was talking about past battles, though I did offer my services to fly in a friends Rattlesnake fleet in 0.0 at my own cost. And you are right about being ISK efficient, that is why I had such a thing about the Technicium inabalnce, there was no impact on the Goons losing a fleet at times and it was an example of CCP really screwing over their game by not thinking things through. Well that really hurt them, thankfully its now getting sorted, but they still have massive ISK reserves.

Anyway, good to have a better talk, I have to go take my son out driving, has his test soon so time to sit there watching my cars clutch get buggered up... Wish me luck...

Wow. The zkillboard thing caught my eye.
I almost never go there.
Apparently I am 8% cuddly and 93% antisocial.

I did not shoot the deputy.

Unless you're absolutely crazy (which I don't think you are), you wouldn't ever try that haha

And 42, the answer is 42 @op

Carebear is used in many ways but I'll define how I am using it:

A carebear is a player who rejects the premise that they have to provide for their own defense. The whine and complain that they can be attacked by other players without their consent and that it is unfair or unbalanced that they can be exploded by the other players. In their world view they are entitled to a single-player experience where no one can negatively influence their gaming experience without their permission first. They argue the game should be changed so that they are isolated from the negative aspects of playing in a shared, competitive sandbox while still wanting to retain all the benefits of such a construct.

Carebears often pay lip service and say they enjoy the competitive, open-world PvP sandbox experience, but in the next breath will argue that something is "unbalanced" if that sandbox experience can find and explode them. They say they don't want to remove ganking, and then in the next breath propose some odious nerf that would make what they do effective immune from ganking thus killing it. They want ever more tedium (consequences!) piled on the other guy so that they have to work less, or not at all, at defending themselves. In short, they don't actually want to spend any effort defending themselves (you know, playing Eve) but rather just be able to grind resources unhindered.

You are not a carebear if you avoid a fight. Everyone in Eve avoids fights they think they cannot win all the time. You are not a carebear if you mine or PvE or do industry. We all have to make an income somehow and Catalysts have to come from somewhere. But you are a carebear if you think you are entitled to gather resources or do industry in complete safety. Players who enjoy the benefits of being in a player corporation, but shirk the responsibility to defend those are subverting the basic design of the game and are some of the worst carebears out there. The dude who mines in a Skiff and constantly whines about how those CODE. griefers should be banned is a carebear, but is at least playing the game by doing something to defend themselves. The veteran players who abuses war mechanics to avoid defending their ISK-making operations are the worst carebears out there. They need to be stopped, ultimately by improved war declaration mechanics, but until then by other players maintaining pressure on their operations.

Eve is about risk vs. reward, defending what you have, and taking what you can. It is not about hiding under the skirt of CONCORD so you can navigate around broken mechanics and avoiding having to defend yourself. We are all suppose to be at risk to each other in this PvP sandbox and Eve only works if we can intrude on each other's game play and make our own stories by interacting with each other. Carebears don't want this and their expectation of absolute safety is anathema to the core principles of this game.

Are you sure it wasn't Colonel Mustard in the Cellar with the Spanner?
I was sure I had it figured out!

Suggesting that some ship class or tactic is unbalanced does not make you a carebear. Saying that because a certain ship can be attacked at all that it is unbalanced does make you a carebear. Mining and hauling ships are suppose to die in this game. It is not "unbalanced" that that can happen.

You I am on the fence about although I am leaning towards carebear. Forgive the characterization, but you appear to abhor losing ships and it fuels your strange obsession with opposing content. You seem to view losing a ship to another player as unacceptable and it fuels your campaign to "balance" away those you view as hurting innocents in-game by exploding their ships without consent. You shape your game play with the primary goal of not losing a ship - it's why you left nullsec and it is why your killboard only has criminals on it.

More evidence for carebear: on one hand you claim to support such emergent game play and be in active opposition to highsec aggressors, but your advice to other players is always to turtle up and avoid fighting the aggressors to avoid loss. You claim to support ganking, but come up with some convoluted proposals that would nerf ganking significantly. You claim to support freighter ganking, but only if there is no way to tackle the ships.

I also think that is why you detest the vulnerability of citadels. It so disquiets you that another group of players might be able to explode such an asset, that you refuse to attach your horse to them and defend a Citadel and declare them broken.

On the other hand you seem to at least do something to oppose other players in-game.

But this is off-topic. I did not want to make this post about you and your in-game activities even if you seem to want to.

Carebears desire absolute safety while playing so that they can avoid any losses or interruption of their grinding activities. A player's position on AFK cloaking is a good litmus test for that. If they think it is "unfair" or "unbalanced" that a player can sit in local and present a theoretical risk, they are a carebear. In fact in general, if the balance proposal is based on the idea that ship loss is "unfair", that is a carebear speaking. If the balance proposal is based on making more ships explode, or explode in more interesting and exciting ways as are most of the ones you cited, they are not the carebear "balance" proposals I am referring to.