EVE General Discussion

And nothing you said was an argument against my previous statement. "no" isn't a good enough reason. Its money lost they had zero opportunity to get back. No, your market transactions aren't similar to this. Your sell orders take this into account if you want to profit and hell, its your choice to pull out of an order in the first place. You could always just leave it with the assumption that it'd drop back to that price eventually, you just end up getting impatient.

I cannot help you when you are too blind to see the obvious. High-sec is the high security space where players get protection. This includes protection from players with your mindset.

Fight the good fight, OP.

All bots must die, gank them if you must, but make it more costly for them to bot than to not bot.

Buddy, the only person here who needs to "HTFU" is the guy insisting that the NPC corps are there for you to avoid a wardec, YOU.

I lose something if I drop corp, pretty much everyone not in high sec does.

You on the other hand are a member of a one man corp, in a one corp alliance.

You're in no position to tell other to HTFU.

How about you learn to ******* play.

Now you're just not listening. Nor paying attention to my corp in a subject where you probably should, ironically one of the few times corp would matter. I don't imagine I'm paying for any wardecs from E-UNI.

Obviously not because you keep insisting that I want to be able to wardec anyone freely when I at no point suggested that.

No ****. I agreed with you!

I even said that the problem isn't being able to drop your corp to avoid a wardec.


The problem is having nothing to lose when you drop from your corp in high sec. You're response is to HTFU.
This is a fact. Not a guy who flies around in null sec, with a freighter loaded with billions in cargo, needing to HTFU.

CCP wants you to play in a player run corp, and they want you to have a reason to deal with a wardec. I shouldn't even have to point this **** out anymore, everyone is aware of the conversation they had with the CSM's by now.


Instead of being a ****** EVE player and telling people wardecs don't belong in high sec, why don't you actually offer ideas on ways they can get players into corporations and stay there when there's a war.


The majority of all industry is done in high sec. WTF is wrong with you people that think just because we do industry, we have no need or desire for war. You take war to where your enemy lives, in the case of every industrial and especially high sec indy corps, that's high sec.

The hell do I want to wardec a PvP or mission running corp for if I'm an industrial. It's the other industrialists that are my enemy, they're the ones who take profit from me.

Shame on you.

Quit trying to make my playstyle worse! Not every industrialist is a coward, afraid to get blown up, or god forbid actually shoot someone out of need.

This is EVE goddamn it.
We resolve disputes by blowing people up, or reducing their ability to operate. War allows me to do that, but not if they can drop to the NPC corp and continue to function as well.


Industrialists are not exempt.
There just need to be a reason. There currently isn't one.

If you stop looking at fairness to some degree, it throws out any argument out the window. You could literally argue almost anything if you don't take that into consideration. You throw out all arguments for balancing. You throw out all arguments for even giving safety as that's based on fairness to a certain extent. Fairness isn't about everything always being good and dandy. Its about being reasonable. Nothing I suggested affects the safety of those who want to wardec avoid. They want to leave, let them, but for wardecs to work to their full intended extent, there needs to be both a reason NOT to leave, and also not to punish the aggressors just because someone chickens out. It isn't a win when someone "surrenders", causing you 50 million in wardec ISK damage to their, whatever the cost to form a corp is that I know is under that. And yes, I can be sure that they intend more with them than what is currently in place, just a read on them in the CSM minutes says that.

When you're talking about balance for example, fairness is pretty much the only reason for it. Balance happens because its unfair to pilots of other ships, or other classes if you go in reference to other games. Anyone could fly the unbalanced ships, but it forces you into a play style, which violates a sense of fairness. You can't ignore it when making a game if you want it to be any good. Otherwise you could use the excuse that "oh, its just superior technology." which would be the real world explanation for such a thing.

No. Ship balance is not about fairness, because we already have all different skill sets and we can fly different ships.

Ship balance is about the number of ships used in the game and the exact ruling by CCP when they consider a ship as imbalanced is entirely their decision.

How do you even get the idea that there is fairness involved in this? It is about CCP running a business and they are trying to keep it as rich in variety as possible so we can play with it as much and as long as possible without getting bored and thus keep paying them for it and in the end put food on their tables.