Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dennmoth Ferdier
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 23:28:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Dennmoth Ferdier on 11/12/2009 23:28:37
Originally by: Captain Pompous
Indeed.
However, of more pressing concern is that of your avatar. What's it all about, oh-hypercharged puncutation mark? :D
You're seeing my avatar as the infamous alt puncuation mark? Strange as this is my main char of 2-2+ years
------ Dare to challenge me? |
Ard UnjiiGo
The Bastards The Bastards.
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 23:40:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Psiri Edited by: Psiri on 11/12/2009 23:14:04 It's important to be hardcore, that's why WoW is **** and we pretend never having played it.
I'm not pretending.
Regarding the topic: Yep, it's a dead horse.
If you remove insurance for ships blown up by concord then the same logic calls for removing insurance from self-destructed ships.
I could live with that.
|
Mocam
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 23:43:00 -
[33]
Originally by: KaarBaak
Or insurance should work like regular insurance and your premium should be based on your flying record.
Basing the insurance premium purely on the type of ship and equal for everyone is not logical.
That would be counter to PvP and hold back a hell of a lot of players in higsec. "If I go do PvP early, I'll lose ships and I won't be able to afford insurance when I get better..."
Instead I'd go with other means of controlling it: Concord gets you, voided insurance. Self destruct? voided insurance.
The above or something other than raising premiums should be implemented vs anything like your suggestion. Most really don't want to discourage folks from getting into the PvP part of the game where they will lose ships early on.
|
Wet Ferret
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 23:45:00 -
[34]
Many of us would have preferred insurance removal for CONCORD kills over the buffing of CONCORD they did recently.
Suicide ganking didn't need to be made harder, it just needed to be more costly for the ganker. As it is, hauling light cargo still makes you a viable target because you can make money off of ganking just about anything due to insurance.
But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started. EVE has devs that care about sound? (Ha ha ha! Gotcha. It actually doesn't!) |
Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
|
Posted - 2009.12.11 23:57:00 -
[35]
insurance is bogus. In this so called "harsh cold universe" based on ruthless capitalism, why is there this company that is so eager to take losses over and over with no end in sight?
|
Barakkus
Caelestis Iudicium
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 00:20:00 -
[36]
You can actually make suiciding proffitable sorta.
Get yourself minerals, get a BPC of your gank ship of choice, build it, insure it, instant money for pretty much very little cost. You can get most of the minerals to make a BS from running a few level 4 drone missions and buying a few more of the refinables at very little cost. BS BPC costs ~1-3 million for a multi run copy. Insurance cost ~40million, payout ~100mil. ~30-50mil proffit just for getting blown up + lulz.
I just cranked out 5 dominix the other day for ~5 million investment and some time mining (not specifically for minerals for a BS, just general mining spoils from the last 5 or 6 months). I still have plenty of minerals to make more. Sold most of them for an easy 150mil, with very little investment or time invested. Keeping one around for something special ;)
I could have easily cranked out 4 or 5 suicide Maelstroms, Typhoons, Apocs etc and made about the same in suicide insurance proffits and had lulz to go with it.
|
Awesome Possum
Imperium Signal Corps
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 00:31:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Saxon Briggs So i'm flying around doing some hauling, and following the various chat chanells to help pass the time, when I here someone in empire talking about sitting off a gate looking for someone to gank.
fail ♥
Wreck Disposal Services |
Sillas Cov
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 00:39:00 -
[38]
Criminals are flagged via sec loss in Eve.
Why then are not criminal actions flagged and penalized accordingly?? Why insure pay outs to concord policing action of this type??
Immersion to the game is instantly compromised when payouts are handed to high sec gangkers.
Sillas
|
James Tritanius
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 00:40:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Barakkus You can actually make suiciding proffitable sorta.
Get yourself minerals, get a BPC of your gank ship of choice, build it, insure it, instant money for pretty much very little cost. You can get most of the minerals to make a BS from running a few level 4 drone missions and buying a few more of the refinables at very little cost. BS BPC costs ~1-3 million for a multi run copy. Insurance cost ~40million, payout ~100mil. ~30-50mil proffit just for getting blown up + lulz.
I just cranked out 5 dominix the other day for ~5 million investment and some time mining (not specifically for minerals for a BS, just general mining spoils from the last 5 or 6 months). I still have plenty of minerals to make more. Sold most of them for an easy 150mil, with very little investment or time invested. Keeping one around for something special ;)
I could have easily cranked out 4 or 5 suicide Maelstroms, Typhoons, Apocs etc and made about the same in suicide insurance proffits and had lulz to go with it.
That has to be the weakest argument that I've ever heard.I bet if you had sold the ships at market price, you'd get more money. If not, then insurance scams are viable and it would not even matter if you built those ships or bought them.
|
5pinDizzy
Amarr Pillow Fighters Inc
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 00:40:00 -
[40]
Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 12/12/2009 00:44:28
The same old rubbish replies in this thread.
Going around in the same old circles, I'm suspicious someo of you have just takena reply from one of the 3943209584390 old threads and pasted it as your response.
Let's go over a few of the main things shall we?
1. There should be no insurance for people that are killed by concord.
So say if you lost a tier 3 battleship, you go from a 150 million odd isk payout to nothing.
Balance is like a seesaw, this suggeston is like taking two feathers off one side o the scales and putting a brick on the other side.
2. There should be no insurance whatsoever
If this happened on its own, battleships would near enough drop out of common use and people would just swap for HACS and battlecruisers.
There's a 40% insurance payout for all tech one ships no matter what.
When you're buying a battleship your practically only ever really paying just over half what you brought it for unless you're dumb enough to get it scammed off you or hijacked in space.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I'd rather have for now
Remove all insurance, remove the base payout, Reduce the mineral build requirement of all tech 1 ships by;
frigates - unchanged cruisers - 10% battlecruisers - 20% battleships - 40%
|
|
Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 03:41:00 -
[41]
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
2. There should be no insurance whatsoever[/b]
If this happened on its own, battleships would near enough drop out of common use and people would just swap for HACS and battlecruisers.
Great! Why should massive and crew-intensive battleships be one of the most common weapons wielded by players in battle?
|
Manu Hermanus
FaDoyToy
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 04:00:00 -
[42]
poor ill eagles, I hope they have some medicine for them and they get better soon You're posting again!? Has it really been 5 mins?
|
Napro
Caldari The New Eden Syndicate IMPERIUM.
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 07:10:00 -
[43]
The sec hit ensures this wont be abused.. I think if someone maintains their sec rating by killing rats enough.. they earn a gank or two every month. Thats how real life works anyway. You snitch on some criminals, you get off with a light sentence or none at all
|
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 10:37:00 -
[44]
Originally by: 5pinDizzy The same old rubbish replies in this thread.
Going around in the same old circles, I'm suspicious some of you have just taken reply from one of the 3943209584390 old threads and pasted it as your response.
Did you read my post in this thread?
AK EVE-ONLINE VIDEO-MAKING TUTORIALS |
Herr Wilkus
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 11:30:00 -
[45]
Actually, avoiding the majority of the sec-status hit is quite easy, within legal game mechanics.
When you suicide attack a player you get a small roughly -'0.08' sec status hit for 'aggression'. THEN, if you succeed in killing the target, you generally will get a much larger '-0.4' sec status penalty for 'ship kill'. (This is in 0.5 space)
For reference, it takes about 5 hours of ratting battleships to wipe out that 'ship kill' penalty, and about 1 hour of ratting to neutralize an 'aggression' hit.
Story: Some friends and I were out taking turns instapopping miner Hulks, (and even a T2 rigged jetcan Orca), getting loads of tears in local with the new 1400MM Arty Tempests. The fact that they are nearly free due to insurance, makes it even a bit profitable with a few good mods and T2 salvage.
as an aside **(Yes, I think that insurance should be removed entirely - if only for economic reasons. Right now it keeps the price of minerals artificially high. But if insurance stays, I think suicide gankers should still get insurance, just like everyone else. Insurance for suicide attacks is no more illogical than insurance for any ship entering a potential battlefield, 0.0 or otherwise.)
Anyway, back to the story: I noticed that Hulks (and the Orca) that aggressed me with their defensive drones - ended up getting a KM on my suicide Tempest, even though it was Concord that killed me 20 seconds after they were dead. At first, I was kind of irritated - but then I realized that I had taken NO SHIP KILL penalty! As an added bonus, the victim got no kill rights. (not that a miner poses a threat, but there you have it.)
So, that means you can pop 160+M ISK Hulks repeatedly, all evening - and only take small sec status hits, closer to the old 'pre-gank-nerf' sec status penalty. Which means less ratting and more ganking and more miner tears - as long as you only target Hulks with drones set up.
But wait, what if your target doesn't have drones, what then?
Discovered also, quite by accident - that if a 3rd party (a random interloper - or say, a trial account in a Reaper) attacks the suicide gank boat while the 'concord attack' is imminent/occurring, the 3rd party somehow snags the KM - and once again - the suicide ganker takes NO SHIP KILL penalty, and no killrights are conferred.
Of course I don't believe this to be a problem - its probably just related to the funky KM mechanics that CCP hasn't bothered to fix....well, ever. So, working as intended, in my book.
And the upside - extended Hulk ganking sessions with very little ratting required to stay in empire - is just how EVE was meant to be, especially when I'm selling them new Hulks at a 25% markup.
Have others noticed this as well? Just sharing so more people get out there and instapopping more miners/haulers/mission runners in Empire, especially if they are 'sec status repair ratting' adverse. The quarterly Economic report said that HULKS are the most common ship flown in EVE. Isn't that sad? Lets work together and try to change that, one crying miner at a time.
|
Boink'urr
Minmatar Wasserette De Tarthorst
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 11:43:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Boink''urr on 12/12/2009 11:43:30 LMAO. Subject is ******ed. It's a non subject - its where eve design fails, but 'lets call it dark cold place' XD
|
gallchecker
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 12:00:00 -
[47]
I'm astonished to see ccp so wholeheartedly supporting such carebears as the suicide ship dudes obviously are :o
Even more surprised at how much support these no risk carebears that suicide in empire get from supposed pvp'ers.
I'm beginning to realise eve isnt so much a pvp game as a game where those who were bullied try to hide away and talk big.
So any good pvp games coming out soon?
|
Henk IV
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 13:01:00 -
[48]
Lolz at the ganking bears... And more lolz at the 'don't wanna hear it' g**** piwat above... Doesn't sound like he's playing a game as much as being a private bug tester or something... To each his own i guess...
|
Psiri
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 13:45:00 -
[49]
Originally by: gallchecker So any good pvp games coming out soon?
Nope.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 13:58:00 -
[50]
Blockade runner with cloak and warp to 0 = no risk
|
|
Junko Togawa
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 14:12:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Mr Epeen First off.
I firmly believe that EVE should remove all insurance. It's supposed to be a cold, harsh universe, but what we get is the next best thing to a respawn button.
Now that I have that off my chest, here's how to have some fun and savor ganktard tears.
Gankers always come in twos. There will be the gank ship and then a hauler alt to pick up the pieces. They will normally be parked right up next to each other.
First thing go over to C&P, read up on a good gank fit for blowing up indies and fit out a ship. Then park your ass at one of the many high sec bottlenecks where the most gankers hang out. Sit and watch for a pair of ships sitting elbow to elbow and blow up the hauler part of the team. Or, if you are patient, and for more satisfation, wait for the gank ship to get Concorded and then blow up the hauler.
Local will come alive with the righteous indignation of the ganker that got ganked and you will be called many not nice things.
Relish that moment. It will be the first of many.
Then simply buy a new ship with the insurance payout and come back and gank him again. And again. And again.
Mr Epeen
This. Posting to confirm that the griefer of my griefer is my brosef.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 14:36:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Mag's Blockade runner with cloak and warp to 0 = no risk
Why people refuse to recognise this...
Oh well.
|
Boink'urr
Minmatar Wasserette De Tarthorst
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 15:28:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Mag's Blockade runner with cloak and warp to 0 = no risk
Why people refuse to recognise this...
Oh well.
They do?
|
Droog 1
Black Rise Inbreds
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 17:37:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Mr Epeen First off.
I firmly believe that EVE should remove all insurance. It's supposed to be a cold, harsh universe, but what we get is the next best thing to a respawn button.
Now that I have that off my chest, here's how to have some fun and savor ganktard tears.
Gankers always come in twos. There will be the gank ship and then a hauler alt to pick up the pieces. They will normally be parked right up next to each other.
First thing go over to C&P, read up on a good gank fit for blowing up indies and fit out a ship. Then park your ass at one of the many high sec bottlenecks where the most gankers hang out. Sit and watch for a pair of ships sitting elbow to elbow and blow up the hauler part of the team. Or, if you are patient, and for more satisfation, wait for the gank ship to get Concorded and then blow up the hauler.
Local will come alive with the righteous indignation of the ganker that got ganked and you will be called many not nice things.
Mr Epeen
....or you could just shoot the can before the hauler gets to it. |
nakKEDK
Gallente tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 18:21:00 -
[55]
Well tbh dominix cost like 1-2 mill after full insurance and death. All the ******ed pirates crying about carebears must risk stuff. I've sucided alot, and will continue it, but that doesn't make it a less ******ed system.
I kill a hauler in uemon ofc - Concord kills me - Concord pays me 66 mill for my domi
k
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 18:40:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Tippia on 12/12/2009 18:46:23
Originally by: Psiri It sadly often more profitable than actual piracy, you know, the kind of PvP that has some risk to it aswell for the evil doers.
Yes? And? The profitability is directly related to people's willingness to carry far too expensive stuff in far too flimsy ships and at the same time making themselves easy targets. The whole "where's the risk?" argument conveniently forgets that there are two parties involved, and more often the not the risk is completely and willingly removed by the victim. As long as they do that, the whole "zero risk" complaint is void and null – there is no risk because the target wanted it that way. Since they wanted it that way, they have sfa reason to complain about it.
Quote: The mechanics revolving it are flawed, security status penalties aren't always given as they should be and it strikes carebears very hard.
As mentioned previously, this is once again because the target chooses to reduce the penalties for the ganker.
Quote: Nerf suicide ganking into oblivion, nerf highsec lvl IV and mining profits. Boost lowsec belts and rat bounties, make empire into a place for beginners, RnD, trade and logistics.
No. Beginners already have protected systems, and shielding RnD, trade and logistics even more is a bad idea – they need to be possible to disrupt, and it should be far easier than it is right now. Boost ganking and reinforce the notion that highsec isn't safe – it's just a place where aggression costs.
In short: I don't see why CCP should curb gameplay that players have made possible – if anything, they should loosen the reigns on it and let that the system balance itself. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Boink'urr
Minmatar Wasserette De Tarthorst
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 19:31:00 -
[57]
Lol Tippa. As usual you twist your brain into impossible angles to defend silly stuff.
'Disrupting logistics' by suicide ganking might be cool when you're young, Japanese and in a ww2 fighter at the end of a world war, in a futuristic space game it's simply a failed piece of gamedesign.
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 19:48:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Boink'urr 'Disrupting logistics' by suicide ganking might be cool when you're young, Japanese and in a ww2 fighter at the end of a world war, in a futuristic space game it's simply a failed piece of gamedesign.
So you're saying we should remove NPC corps and CONCORD entirely? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Elena Laskova
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 20:12:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Elena Laskova on 12/12/2009 20:12:20
Originally by: Tippia So you're saying we should remove NPC corps and CONCORD entirely?
So you're saying suicide gankers should be given Loyalty Points, a Standings buff, and three free day's play?
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.12 20:13:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Boink'urr
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Mag's Blockade runner with cloak and warp to 0 = no risk
Why people refuse to recognise this...
Oh well.
They do?
They do. Using T1 haulers fitted with nothing more than Expanded Cargo Hold II to move relatively valuable cargos - often while AFK - is still appallingly common.
People who want hi-sec made "starter area safe" need to admit that hi-sec is not a starter area. No place where you can make multiple billions of ISK is just a starter area. The people who whine about suicide ganking are not poor new players, they are rich old players who want to get even richer.
Remember Malcanis' Law: Whenever someone propose a change "to help the new players" it is always overwhelmingly to the benefit of older players.
Just like in real life when some politician proposes a new law to "protect the chldren".
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |