EVE General Discussion

Huh?

Winning/losing is the result of unequal qualities/quantities between two participants.

Thus unfairness is infact that which decides whom wins/lose, as skewing the balance which in a fair fight will otherwise lead to stalemate.

Joking?

How? Explain.

No. Im not joking.


If I beat you in arm wrestling, its cos i had qualities/quantities greater than yours.

The fight was never fair to begin with.

If we had equal qualities/quanities (ie: fair) neither of us coyld win, resulting in stalemate.

Thus it is infact unfairness, which results in a winner.

There is no perfect equality of skill in EVE.
Fairness is not defined by honesty/interity/impartiality/fsvoritism, except as qualities/quantities you or you oppent have, or do nor have.

The fight would only be fair if you and the opponent are identical.

You are confusing fairness to be a moral measure, which is subjective value, to fairness in who wins, which is an objective measur of unfairness.

Honesty, integrity, etc will not help you win a fight.
Otherwise, it would be so that if I am more honest than everyone in EVE,I would win every spaceship fight with the sheer power of my honesty.

I would be able to destroy whole fleets of dishonest Titans in my frigat with my over 9000 honesty powerlevel.

Fairness doent mean what you think it means.

You arguments dont mean what you think they mean.

Unfairness in the qualities/quantities between two opponents is what decides the winner from the loser.

"Fairness is how you treat people"

Oh please...
You cant be serious.

How is it treating people fairly when you beat them?
You didnt lose a ship, they did. How is that fair?

Right back at you... Fairness doent mean what you think it means. While it is a definition. Though there are some consensus, about many definitions, they can vary from person to person. There are no universal definitions, there are only man-made definitions, and they can mean different things for different people. The definition you want everyone to apply, is just made by you. It is not universal, hence it is super stupid you keep making these kind of arguments. You can´t force others to use your definitions.

You are not the universal judge of definitions, so just accept that you could be wrong in how you define things, and stop killing discussions by saying that arguments who don´t follow your logic and definitions are invalid.

Edit: Lol, and see the post above. You do not even follow the consensus definitions in this case... what a shocker... must be nice to have the mandate of heaven in your head to create the reality you want.

While I'm all for One Sub One Account,.......and a long time ago so was CCP.......the simple math is that alts mean Mo Money for our Icelandic Overlords. Learn to deal, because it ain't ever changing.


Hell, I was surprised they banned IS boxing, tbh.

Guess a dev or GM got jumped once too often by a one man/20 alt stealth bomber fleet.

Would also explain why they nerfed my glorious bombs.

MAH BOMBS

*sniffs*

FWIW, multi-boxing PvP is hard and gives you twice as much opportunity to screw up and lose more assets.

At least that's my experience trying it.

I have to disagree, here. While I'm no super-hero spec ops guy, I did have a humble role in the military as a low enlisted rank. You absolutely DO dehumanize your enemy. If you think about it too much, you will go insane. Especially when you're lobbing a grenade or using anything other than your M-16 to pick off a single target.

Any time you use a weapon that does 'area damage,' you are putting potential innocents at risk. We try to minimize that, but it does happen. You can't think about it. If you can wrap your mind around the idea, it's also best when you arrive in a combat zone, to assume you're ALREADY dead. Then you can take actions that you would not normally take, being even more aggressive, and potentially saving your life or the lives of the unit.

Hate to have to agree with 'Ms. DNA,' but in this case, she's right.