EVE General Discussion

Well whether you agree with the suggestions or not, I don't think you can call them 'arbitrary.' There's no arbitrary to it, everything revolves around what I said - separating the wheat from the chaff, and separating the true tough guys from the posers, the impostors, the hypocrites, the pretenders, and the crypto pussies hidden amongst the ranks of the true Eve tough guys.

Yes it is designed to punish (well, deny) aspects of gameplay I don't like, but that's a rather vague statement, so let's be more specific than that. It is designed to deny aspects of pussy gameplay to crypto pussies hidden amongst the ranks of true Eve tough guys. It is NOT designed to deny aspects of pussy gameplay to real (non crypto) pussies - they can keep their insurance, their clone jumping, their free noob ships, and everything else. And it is not designed to deny anything to the true Eve tough guys - because they don't want any part of this stuff anyway (well, not if their money is where their mouths are, and not if they really are true, bona fide, honest-to-God tough guys).

Come on all you tough guys out there. A purge amongst your ranks is in order, is it not? An inquisition, if you will? Am I to be a lone voice crying out in the wilderness? Can I have a little support here?

'Pussy' (because of my bad positive security status according to you) lowbear here

Do you know these "insults" are part of the game? Why an "evil" pirate shouldn't smack talk?
If you don't take it into the first degree, and keep it in the context of a game it's even funny.
And in low and I suppose null too there aren't victims, because it's funny for ex to see a pirate "raging" because us bears use cloakies and bookmarks

Well, with this long ranting your neutrality has faded away, and even more by treating high sec miners of pussies.
It' s a complete paradox and sound like a troll post.

You continue call and judge others, is it better than self-proclamed people in this game? nope.


Insurance is irrelevant, at least for me a lowbear dweller. My insurance is to have an emergency fund like in RL and don't fly what I cannot afford to lose.
We are all nerds here, I find more relevant to see behaviors out a video game than in a video game.


Again I don't see the critical thing...Do you think that null and low sec dwellers only jump clone and never fly in low/nulll?
It would prove nothing...


LOL
For sure, the one ratting with their carriers in low and null will be affected
Better and better.


repeated ad nauseum, and you said you were neutral, yeah right

You seem to be what you call for, since the endless judging through this post

3/10


If you're not trolling, seek help.

I was a full time miner for a year, but I pretended to be a pirate as well, on my other account. I would go into my system that I like to mine and and watch as other players would leave the system because I looked like a bad guy, then I would login my mining account and mine in peace for hours on my account. valid strategy.

Minor quibble/nit pick to an excellent post.

People who mitigate risk are people who are risk averse. A risk averse person when faced with two choices (and you can only pick one):

A: A risk endeavor with expected pay off of 50 (dollars, ISK, whatever).
B: A sure thing with a payoff of 50.

The risk averse person always picks B. A risk seeking person picks A, and a risk neutral person picks either one (flips a coin).

So risk aversion is not bad in game (or out). It leads people to do things to mitigate their risk. People being risk averse is what creates the challenges.

There are also people who are loss averse, that is a loss carries more weight than an equal sized gain. That is a person who is loss averse and is in a situation where the stand to lose 100 (whatever) vs. gaining 100 with say 50-50 odds, the loss averse person will double the value of the loss. They won't see it as having an expected value of 0, but of -100.

And loss averse is fine too, IMO, so long as they understand that the nature of the game is that you do face the potential for loss at the hands of other players and that was, is and hopefully always will be one of the fundamental aspects of the game. That this is a game about risk and the concomitant rewards.

What is a problem though, is that some people do not accept this. The problem we have with every single ganking thread, especially freighter ganking, is that one side (the anti-ganking) does not recognize that risk is not simply a function of game mechanics but of player choices as well. If you choose to put 6 billion ISK in your freighter you are choosing to take more risk. If you take on more risk nobody should be surprised that the downside periodically obtains you when took on that risk.

In short, if you are foolish and take on unnecessary risk, you should not be surprised or angry at anyone who exploits your foolishness. That is the very nature of the game. It goes for players, corporations, alliances and coalitions and any other type of player organization that emerges.

Is freighter ganking bad? Yes. But not in the way that anti-ganking make it out to be. It is bad because it is about people taking on excessive risk without any of the concomitant upside for taking that risk.

Well dammit...I can't tell who won the thread....Bumblfck or Paranoid Lloyd? Tie?

id say its 2 given that you arent even defending it yourself, making you the single largest hypocrite here.

post this again on your main.

I think it's all too clear who lost, lol

Oh no, I understood the post, I just think you are ignorant. Good enough, blunt enough?

Gr8 b8 m8, I r8 8/8.

Also, thread closed.