EVE General Discussion

You haven't noticed that they all require racial cruiser skill at 5 and are under "Cruisers" category in game.



Ruby specifically asked me to provide those...

You haven't noticed that you're constantly moving the goalposts?

If you want to bring in all cruiser hulls fine. Show a plurality (35) common Cruiser (by your definition, you now need a plurality of all 57 Cruiser hulls) fits with 80k+ EHP.

If they're not Common fits, then it's not "Most" because nobody flies a BB without ECM, etc.

Ok, fine. Post your 35 80k+ EHP common Cruiser Hull fits. Bait can be included.

1 Fit per Ship.

I'm going to bed. I expect 35 Fits here by the time I'm back on.

Can someone please save me the trouble of reading all 23 pages of this back n' forth and explain what the heck is going on here?

True, but . . . the most intensive PVP players have to buy ships. If they are anything but the most exceptional in ability, and are active at PVP, then they will be losing some ships = even more need for ISK on top of that for buying new ships as skills build up.

Unless you are going to buy plexes, ISK generating in-game activities are therefore a necessary 'weakness' even to the most hardcore PVPers. To be sure, there are lower- and higher-risk in-game ISK generating activities: mining in a non-public grav belt in a hinterlands system being perhaps one end of the extreme; versus, soloing C4 wormhole sleeper sites or nullsec ratting in someone else's sov area being on the other end of the continuum.

But then the same can be said of PVP: there are more and less risky varieties of PVP, which is why solo kills have inherently more prestige to them than blob kills.

To be honest, this whole carebear vs PVPer dichotomy is hogwash. Worse it is a repulsive reflection of a seemingly innate human drive to discriminate ourselves into In-Group / Out-Group distinctions and then use those distinctions as a pretext to ramble down xenophobic and derogatory paths of ethnocentrism.

EVE is a PVP game with PVE included. As such, there is an innate amount of unpredictability resulting from the ever-present possibility that other players will enter into your PVE sphere. So-called "carebears" simply need to be aware of this, if all they really want to do is PVE. As various posters have noted, there are measures that can be taken to mitigate the risks. But as the saying goes, There is no where in EVE that is truly safe.

On the flip side, many PVPers seem to regard themselves as superior to 'carebears,' when in fact they are in part, else on occasion carebears themselves. Unless all you do is buy plex or loot wrecks from PVP engagements for your ISK, you ARE to some degree a lowly 'carebear.' Those PVPers who relish denigrating, humiliating and criticing carebears for their weakness and stupidity should keep that in mind as well as the following: Imagine EVE with ZERO carebears, that means no harvesting of ANY PVE resources (ores, gases, radar sites resources, rat/sleeper wreckage and salvage, planetary interaction): because they are not PVP all of these activities legitimately should be considered as 'carebearing' and I reckon that all of you high-and mighty carebear-haters have and will continue to engage in these lowly carebearing activities. In truth, without carebearing EVE simply could not exist as it presently does. Buying plex would become requisite, prices would skyrocket, seeding of markets with material and items would become necessary.

In sum, if you think you are NOT a carebear, you in fact most likely are to some degree a carebear nonetheless. If you honestly feel loathing or disrespect for carebears because you feel that they are below you then you are simply being antisocial, egotistical, and prejudicial.

ADDIT: I just wanted to add that, I'm not arguing that stupid or incomptetent behavior by harvester players should not be identified as such and perhaps even taunted within reason. Probably all of us make stupid choices in our EVE Online activities from time to time, and I believe it does make the game more enjoyable for all if we are all vulnerable to some degree of shame or even humiliation for our stupidity. If you cannot appreciate the humor when someone pokes you in local with a bit of a jab because they caught you doing something stupid (e.g., hulk mining afk w/ minimal tank in a 0.5 and getting ganked; afk on a wh uncloaked and getting ganked; hauling ludicrous quantities of junk in a freighter through Niarja on auto-pilot, etc.).

But a bit of teasing/taunting does not constitute a 'class-bias' against an entire segment of the player base.

There are plenty of stupid PVPers, and it would seem there are some quite accomplished 'carebears' around.

It's not if you lose 2-3 Hulks per week. It's manageable if you can mine enough ore to cover that loss before you lose next ship.

Or get high enough income from other sources, like market.

If you take your Hulks in to low or null sec and mine high end minerals, you can easily offset a few losses. And if you Hulk mine in high sec you can just tank your ship.

The former is petitionable and the latter is risk management, and, of course, there are more methods than those two.

That works too, but it's not option for everyone.

POS, Rorqual (for compressing ore) and all logistic. Not for solo players and small corps.

Building on my preceding post above, the topic of this thread raises a broader topic to me.

The term 'carebear' is at least semi-derogatory, and frankly, I doubt that it is very accurate as a descriptor.

A player operating a toon engaged in 'carebearing' (any of the PVE resource harvesting activities) may well be one of the most ruthless and aggressive of PVPers on one of his/her other accounts/toons. Indeed, the essence of the term 'carebear' seems in itself to be derogative in that it implies that anyone who engages in such PVE ISK generating activities is childish, effeminate, weak, silly if not stupid,and unworthy of the competitive and demanding standards of a PVP-focused game like EVE.

Apart form the fact that the underlying logic of 'two classes' of EVE players is fundamentally flawed (as I noted in my previous post) as well as the fact that 'carebearing' activities are essential to the ecology (meant to include both the material and economic energetic dynamics) of the game, the unsatisfactory nature of this term 'carebear' is further shown by the fact that there is no corollary term for 'non-carebears.'

If the oppositive of 'carebear' is a 'PVPer' then why do we not simply refer to 'carebears' as 'PVE'ers?'

If it is necessary to use a term with negative connotations to refer to players engaging in PVE then why is there not a comparably widely recognized and commonly used term with equally negative connotations to refer to players engaging in PVP? The term 'Griefer' is not really satisfactory as it refers to one specific type of PVP play and is not as inclusive as 'carebear.' The term 'A$$whole' suffers from the same problem as the term 'carebear' in that it assumes that, anyone who blows up someone else is somehow inherently mean, selfish or sociopathic.

I would like to suggest that we all refrain from using the term 'carebear' and that we institute a new set of terms that are more accurate, less weighted down with negative connotations, while still being sufficiently accurate that they are not sugar-coated euphemisms and are sufficiently open-ended that they can easily be appended with specific descriptors (e.g., idiotic, expert, naive, sociopathic, or whatever).

The simplest nomenlature I can think of is: Harvester and Hunter.

If you are not hunting or being hunted, then you must be harvesting else just passing time.