EVE General Discussion

I have never once claimed to make the trains run at all, let alone on time.

Yes? And?

No. All I do is talk about how it's a part of the game, and how it's an easy thing to adapt to and either avoid or survive.

I keep myself quite happy, yes. If you want to know about Lady Skank and alts, I suggest you ask her… him… whatever.

Nah. He's got too bad taste in clothes and while I did indeed get some funding from the Ministry of Defence, it was for completely different matters. As for anti-ganking advice, sure, why not? I've never been ganked once in 4½ years, so why not share the experiences?

By the way, the past participle you're looking for is “hanged”… so no, he won't be.

That doesn't really qualify as “knowing better”. Keeping the points separate makes the argument clearer.

Couldn't get any closer to her than that, huh? Oh well, don't worry, it's (usually) a passing phase — you'll get braver and more competent as you grow older — but acquiring skills such as spelling and coherent thought will probably help you (unless she's the kind not to notice, in which case you probably are too close already).

Aside from it being a three-ship fleet, why would there be? It's one way of approaching the problem. Another one is to just assume ganks as an operating cost. The main theme here is risk vs. reward. Clamping down on both maintains the balance quite nicely.

LOL a R/L girl or the fact u don't even know one. She know's me well enough to say. "if u r playin that dumb space game when I get there I am gonna leave."

What's u GF say?

Ta

What do I do when I hear people try to claim EVE is only about PVP? I take a look at all of the PVE options, look at the stats on population density, and realize EVE isn't just a PVP game it is in fact a game catering to all manner of playstyles.

The problem is not that I refuse to admit EVE isn't for me but rather the problem lies with the rabid PVP fans that try to bully other players into believing in the PVP line or forcing them out of the game.

I never said I wanted "safe" gameplay. I said the risk of taking a PVE ship into PVP was unacceptable. Would you take a Drake fitted out to run lvl 4 Gurista's missions into PVP? Then why should I be expected to accept the concept a PVE fitted ship should be fair game for anyone that wants to engage in PVP?

When you talk about optional risk you are seemingly referring to PVP risk. There is risk in PVE as well. Incursions are the single most stressful thing I've done in the game, to include PVP.

Optional risk would mean I could flip a switch and make sure no NPC could ever kill me. I like the risk of EVE, but I like the risk I'm willing to assume. I don't take my mission Rattler into low sec because I don't want it to die in a fire. I don't take my PVP Hawk into a lvl 4 mission because again I don't want it to die in a fire. In both cases the risk of losing the ship is so high there's no point in taking the chance since death is almost guaranteed.

I agree that one of the distinctive features of EVE is the risk, but the risk I think of is losing everything you are flying and not getting it all back afterward. Other games cause you to pay a time penalty to return to the area or make up some EXP but not in EVE. In EVE if you lose a ship it's gone, no getting it back. That does not mean that there has to be a constant threat of players ambushing on the way to a PVE site.

EVE has a lot more appeal than just PVP. Trying to say it's only a PVP game is doing a disservice to everyone that enjoys mining, PVE, the economy, exploration, or whatever else they like. The game can support all kinds of playstyles without forcing someone to do something they don't like.

Alternately the non-PVP portions of the game need to be adjusted so they are more complimentary to PVP. Change missions to be omni tanked instead of having resists to cater to. Require a scram or disruptor for missions. The change to mining ships to give them a decent tank helps provide some defense to an area that is miserably one sided.

Make it so PVE reflects PVP and you make the risk much more acceptable. While the PVP minded player would still have some advantages at least the PVE player would also have a chance of winning. Currently there isn't any incentive for a PVE fit to even think of PVP and that means the risk is taken is almost 100% bad if a PVE ship engages in PVP. Make the risk manageable and you might find people are ok with their chances.

EvE has a lot more appeal than ship to ship combat. That is true. However, every activity you do in EvE negatively affects the other players you are competing with negatively. Every Isk/LP/Mineral you harvest makes my Isk/LP/Minerals worth less than they were before. Everything in EvE pits you against other players. Removing the ability for people to harm their competitors doesn't fit with EvE.

If you want to see what happens to EvE when Risk is optional, I invite you to check out SiSi or SW:G

Competition is plenty even in pure PvE games.
You make it sound like EvE is the only thing with market PvP and where somebody's any actions negatively affects somebody else.

Volume:
Hulk: 200k m3
Cruiser: 120k m3
Battlecruiser: 234k m3

Mass:
Hulk 40M kg
Cruiser: 11,2M kg
Battlecruiser: 13,5M kg

You forget, they're T2.

Cheetah
Low Slots 3
Med Slots 4
High Slots 3

No, you're confusing me with you again.

You're also engaging in a fallacy commonly referred to as “moving the goal posts”.