PvP GANK TV - WARNING

The problem is, if you're out looking for a fight and find someone that is properly equipped, the level of force needed to even scratch them would be complete overkill against some of the builds we see out there, and until you actually engage them there's no really easy way to tell whether that anaconda's shield is a reinforced 7A or an low-power 3D.

I've got a few PvE-built ships that would still be overkill against the shields featured in this video, but against an actual PvP fit might as well just boost themselves into the back of the hangar for all the good they'll do. What those PvE ships won't do is die to a single hit from a huge PA.
But this is exactly what I'm talking about as being the right thing to do - the best thing to do - the Logical thing to do - if combat is your entertainment.
You do know how easy it is to escape other players, right? (To coin a phrase that is so often thrown out there by the very guys who simply cannot "lower" themselves to fly in anything other than a top-tier meta-ship...)

Your post appears to say - correct me if I'm wrong: no way will you go out looking for a challenging and fun combat engagement without bringing the big guns (while also shooting at others who are less well equipped?).
 
But this is exactly what I'm talking about as being the right thing to do - the best thing to do - the Logical thing to do - if combat is your entertainment.
You do know how easy it is to escape other players, right? (To coin a phrase that is so often thrown out there by the very guys who simply cannot "lower" themselves to fly in anything other than a top-tier meta-ship...)

Your post appears to say - correct me if I'm wrong: no way will you go out looking for a challenging and fun combat engagement without bringing the big guns (while also shooting at others who are less well equipped?).
... dude I fly a shieldless DBS in shinrarta specifically so I can meme on slower ships that think they can gank it only to find it's packing 2kHP.
 
🤔
I didn't quote you.
Roger - understood - my apologies.

It did appear to be an agreement with the quote and an addition to the list, but I understand now.

Understanding short written text is sometimes difficult/ambiguous. I perhaps, in hindsight, ought to have known better of you :)

(Avoiding ambiguity is what fuels my pre-occupation of trying to write understandable unambiguous sentences. Sometimes they are also long: as a consequence of disambiguity rather than an aim in itself. Appears, however, that some people chose to denigrate my style simply on the grounds of style rather than content!)
 
Logic would dictate that you wouldn't outfit a ship with weapons that can one-shot "in order that the target fights back". Fundamentally, the destruction is the thing, not the combat itself with these fits being used to engage targets that can be one-shotted by them.
In what way would logic dictate that? Are you aware of the amount of hull and shield of a normal combat-fitted ship? These weapons are simply a necessity for combat. And as @Screemonster said, identifying a combat capable ship is mostly conjecture. There is certainly a a simple joy of destruction at work here, and I won't deny that (and I won't criticise it either), but your "deductions" do not really offer more than the usual armchair psychology.
That's clearly and self-evidently not for the thrill of combat - that's self evidently and obviously then for another explicit reason other than "for combat". That's fundamental and incontrovertible logic.
Attacking an unknown ship, with only broad conjecture about their loadout is "self-evidently" not about combat? It looks as if you are obscuring your lack of knowledge behind these repeated and purely metaphorical uses of "evidence" and "logic". Despite that, why the hell should easy combat not be part of the joy of combat?
Maybe just nod sagely and accept the logic I provided.
I'd not even be inclined to do that, if you'd be offering anything remotely sensible. Logic is the formal structure of an argument and not the end result. I've also never met a logician, who'd even think about nodding sagely.
Where did you get those strange ideas about logic? Star Trek?
 
In what way would logic dictate that?
Thanks for the good response. Appreciate it :)

Are you aware of the amount of hull and shield of a normal combat-fitted ship? These weapons are simply a necessity for combat. And as @Screemonster said, identifying a combat capable ship is mostly conjecture. There is certainly a a simple joy of destruction at work here, and I won't deny that (and I won't criticise it either), but your "deductions" do not really offer more than the usual armchair psychology.
I'm aware of the arms race - yes.
Which means that identifying a combat capable ship is less conjecture than you appear to wish to concede.
There are quite a lot of tells, but you already know this.

Firstly - to use your own concepts logically: are you aware that there's an arms race? This is the first clue to a proper combat vessel, is it not? (Logic)

Secondly - the opposite is also true... There are a few tells that mark out a ship as being not a PvP combat vessel. Place any number of ship hulls in this category. (just using Logic [1]). The presence of some ship modules marks out a probable non-PvP or non-combat vessel. Cargo racks are a prime example. if you tell me you're after a "challenging" combat engagement - for it's own sake (and not simply a one/two-shot) then there are obvious ship-fit candidates that will not be what you SAY you're after. Equally, the lack of certain modules, and particularly the lack of combinations of said modules (eg lack of shield boosters & meta weaponry, or lack of shield cell bank & heatsink). If you SAY you want your opponent to shoot back and put up a "good" fight (ie - one that they have a decent chance of winning?), instead of an unequal unbalanced fight, then you probably should avoid proactively engaging these targets by surprise, unless you want to single yourself out as not looking for what you SAY you're looking for.

[1] - I'll get back to this Logic later ... it has further depth and development to it that perhaps you haven't thought through or scrutinised yet, in the context of my responses in this thread. That depth and development is intrinsically logical, and I'll illustrate that at the end at note [1].


As for the simple destruction gameplay that you won't criticise, let's agree to differ on that and instead concentrate on the "reasons" most often provided - in other words, those players who DO want to put up some reason for their in game actions - which is the principal activity I reel against - rather than just the destruction. Even if I also feel that there are pretty obvious situations where I - personally - find this distasteful in and of itself. But I've already said let's agree to differ on that and tackle the other things you posted first.



Attacking an unknown ship, with only broad conjecture about their loadout is "self-evidently" not about combat? It looks as if you are obscuring your lack of knowledge behind these repeated and purely metaphorical uses of "evidence" and "logic". Despite that, why the hell should easy combat not be part of the joy of combat?
Easy combat does not necessarily need to be "excluded". I personally find it lame, but that's just me. I'm a military man, so understand more than most about military advantage, manoeuvrism, Sun Tzu, etc, etc, etc... so please not let's have any metaphors about that here. Because, in truth, this is just a game, so I find there's no place for all that horse. If you want your opponent to have fun, and engage, with both you and the game, then you don't actively choose a player that is hopelessly out-equipped. That pursuit is just for undesirables who don't want their fellow player to enjoy or have fun. Don't confuse that for "armchair psychology". It isn't. It's a simple statement that players who are hopelessly outclassed by somebody attacking them (and choosing to attack them on the principal grounds that they are outclassed) is a part of the game that is, in the vast majority, undesired. That's it. That is not psychology. That, in the main, the attacking player is just not wanted in the attacked player's game. It is undesired.


I'd not even be inclined to do that, if you'd be offering anything remotely sensible. Logic is the formal structure of an argument and not the end result. I've also never met a logician, who'd even think about nodding sagely.
Where did you get those strange ideas about logic? Star Trek?
That's fine - your call. Not really bothered if you don't feel inclined to nod metaphorically. Shame about your fallacy of implying my posts "weren't remotely sensible". That won't wash.
On the formal structure part - if an argument is logical, then the end result is, indeed, Logic, as well as being the end result. It can be both, not one or the other.
No, not Star Trek - but from a bit of study I did IRL many years ago. (Hopefully, you've seen the logic puzzle about the 2 black and 2 white hats. Or played chess, when one tries to predict the opponents next few moves based on the one you're considering yourself. Behavioural logic)


[1] just in case you didn't work it out yet, I'm referring to the Logical Deduction that some ships are definitively not capable to be in the same class as a top tier uber-engineered and combat kitted PvP vessel. This should be self evident to you by now.
My argument is that if you want to SAY that you're only looking for credible PvP combat engagements (and by implication not looking to one-shot that Hauler with gimballed pulse lasers, cargo racks and no shield boosters... gameplay that a "griefer" might pursue, for instance), then you could do a lot worse than down-grading your ship just a bit (?)... and this would also go a long way to distancing the undesirable proponents of PvP combat from the "good guys", would it not - just by sheer presence of logic?

User that slight downgrade, go after bigger fry than your equipment tier, make good sport and have fun with it (and if you get out-flown/outgunned, well, it's easy to escape, don't you know? <- that typical mantra of the undesirables looking for one-shot as their staple diet). Go after that Asp X fitted with shield boosters and fixed beams with impunity - if you're not flying an uber-FdL maybe they'll stick around to try their skillz whereas they'll just jump away from an uber-FdL as the first reaction. Also go after that uber-FdL in your down-classed vessel, if nothing else to boldly illustrate that you practice what you preach, while in reality, looking for a bit of fun and showing off your mad skillz by almost bringing down that FdL before you had to escape with sub 50% hull...

It's the implications of the so-called emergent gameplay that is much lauded on this subsection that is so vital. If emergent gameplay is simply associated in every other player's mind with one-shot of weak vessels, then undesirable is the fair and correct description for that gameplay (no psychology required, just raw matter of fact that non-PvP players don't desire it in their game). If the phrase "emergent gameplay" is intrinsically linked with one-shot weak vessels, then the rest of the community at large can then extend this truism of "undesirable" to include all PvPers as "undesirables". That's simple human behaviour and nothing you can put on forums can dissuade them of that truism.


If, however, emergent gameplay is viewed by the rest of the community at large as something other than one-shot weak vessels, then this goes a long way to tackling that gripe of PvPers that the rest of the community should not label all PvPers with the same crud-stick.

That really is about the long and short of it.

You could all "get in front" of this negative logical deduction. You could actually do something pre-emptively and proactively about it, while not really affecting the fun you derive from the game. It might even be more fun. Particularly as we all get encouraged to engage in PvP and not to shy away from it by the PvP advocates on a daily basis around here. Practice what you preach. Find out for yourselves if fighting a slightly more powerful vessel is as much fun as it is always made out to be around here, LOL. I'm now guilty of suggesting tactics to a group of players who I don't aspire to be, but there we are.

Your call.

Ultimately, if you just want easy kills, and also say as much, then I have no axe to grind about your honesty. That's just your game choice. However, this gameplay is absolutely able to be labelled "undesirable" by definition (without resorting to psychology).

On the other hand, if you SAY you want good combat, and yet go for easy kills, then I can conjecture about your trustworthiness. Again, this is not psychology of any kind. You're actively pursuing gameplay that you SAY you weren't...

Which way it goes is entirely up to each PvP individual. (Although I'd also suggest that some kind of group or association of PvP players preaching this same kind of ethos would also do the entire community a real big favour in terms of positive reputation.)

Yours Aye

Mark H
 
Duh, premium ammo. I didn't even consider that.

Yep, that cancer has to go.
Nah keep it. Hear me out. But make it damage your hardpoints!

Like you over tax them and it increases malfuntions.

The only reason not to run premium, is that it cost mats that are annoying to grind. Other than that whats the downside? I dont run them because of these reasons. Plus You don't actually need them lol.

 
On the formal structure part - if an argument is logical, then the end result is, indeed, Logic, as well as being the end result. It can be both, not one or the other.
No, not Star Trek - but from a bit of study I did IRL many years ago. (Hopefully, you've seen the logic puzzle about the 2 black and 2 white hats. Or played chess, when one tries to predict the opponents next few moves based on the one you're considering yourself. Behavioural logic)
I can't stand this vulgarisation of logic. The concept "Logic" originating from the Greek λογοσ or to be more specific the λέγειν is never an result. It is since antiquity and well into modern information technology the μορφή, forma or (in english) the form of something else. Mostly that of a relation.
This is pretty important, especially in the modern discourses on logic which are still staggering from the impact of Cantor.
Sorry, I don't know your puzzles. I've always preferred the original literature. Boole is an interesting read, although it's advisable to read Aristotle too, if you want to know about logic.
Now there is actually quite a huge discourse on behavioural logic, but even there the distinction between form and content is not only important, but central. A good example would be the Lacanian tradition(although they wouldn't call it behaviour), which is also quite invested in neurological research. The Ècrits are a good starting point there, if you want to learn more.
Don't confuse that for "armchair psychology".
Don't worry, I won't confuse it, I just said it was homologous to our resident armchair psychologists.

The presence of some ship modules marks out a probable non-PvP or non-combat vessel. Cargo racks are a prime example.
When was the last time you scanned a ship in supercruise? I can't test it right now, but as far as I'm aware cargo racks don't show up on that scan as well as hull and module reinforcements. Which would actually be an indication of a combat vessel.

And the whole thing about downgrading equipment is something that I'm not interested in as well as the personal attacks based on video game behaviour. I personally enjoy it to be attacked and while I've not been exploded by RoA, I certainly won't be mad if it happens even if the rebuy is that of my vette.
 
Last edited:
In what way would logic dictate that? Are you aware of the amount of hull and shield of a normal combat-fitted ship? These weapons are simply a necessity for combat. And as @Screemonster said, identifying a combat capable ship is mostly conjecture. There is certainly a a simple joy of destruction at work here, and I won't deny that (and I won't criticise it either), but your "deductions" do not really offer more than the usual armchair psychology.

Attacking an unknown ship, with only broad conjecture about their loadout is "self-evidently" not about combat? It looks as if you are obscuring your lack of knowledge behind these repeated and purely metaphorical uses of "evidence" and "logic". Despite that, why the hell should easy combat not be part of the joy of combat?

I'd not even be inclined to do that, if you'd be offering anything remotely sensible. Logic is the formal structure of an argument and not the end result. I've also never met a logician, who'd even think about nodding sagely.
Where did you get those strange ideas about logic? Star Trek?
When I was the team captain of a college debate team, I always made sure to instruct my students on what logic is and isn't.

What it is: an inductive or deductive (that is to say, a way to expand or narrow a proper context) way of reaching a conclusion based on a premise. This process may or may not result in a factual statement even if the logic itself is sound.

What it isn't:

- A smart-sounding word meant to be mentioned repeatedly when you don't actually know how it works.

- An argument enhancer when you've got nothing else.

- The foundation of any kind of persuasive argument. It took me a long time to wrap my head around this one.
 
Last edited:
TL;DR.

Sharks are always gonna shark. Think about that for a minute and take a look at humans as a species. I'm just glad it's all pixels -- and carry on flying in Open.

Because there's nothing quite like swimming with sharks.
 
Top Bottom