Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
834
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 15:02:00 -
[121] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Tip has lost objectivity on the issue and is willfully distorting contexts, arguments and positions. Asking people what it is they want to achieve is not the same thing as losing one's objectivity.
And let's not kid ourselves about the GǣobjectivityGǥ of those who want to alter gameplay for reasons they are not willing to explainGǪ
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics BRABODEN
325
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 15:09:00 -
[122] - Quote
These threads all end with those who support insurance payouts for suicide ganking twisting themselves into the same ridiculous logical pretzels every time. And they always fall back on the same crutch, accusing those who point out the silliness of the situation of comparing Eve to the real world, as if all notions of common sense and reason are tossed out the window in the Eve universe and Pend insurance hired a bunch of tard-monkies for actuaries who thought that signing insurance papers with an immortal grinning Goon with explosives strapped to his vest and a history of 50 suicide shootouts with Concord is somehow a justifiable insurance risk.
If that makes sense to you, you're lying. Because that doesn't make sense to anyone with a brain. You know it. Everyone else knows it. You just want the game to cater entirely to you and your gameplay, damn the torpedoes or any common sense. Just admit it and I'd have more respect for your position.
I want 100% of Eve's resources devoted to wormholes. There I said it. It's called honesty. I'm not shovelling **** down your throat and attempting to justify it. I know it's ridiculous to expect the game to be entirely about me without regards to any other player. But I want it anyway. See? Honesty.
To those who complain about Concord's invincibility, they wouldn't have to be invincible if the alternative wasn't the total chaos that the suicide gankers (the only ones who really support this nonsense) would create. And if you want a more realistic RP reason, remove Concord and say that all ships allowed to pass through high sec gates are subject to be programmed for automated self destruction upon law violations or they can't enter. Same effect.
That even makes wardecs make more sense -- allow special agents to hack the system to allow you to destroy ships in a certain alliance or corp. But that's another thread.
Back on point: end insurance, period. Pend Insurance would be out of isk by now anyway. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
835
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 15:24:00 -
[123] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:These threads all end with [GǪ] GǪand you've carefully read them all, presumably?
Quote:If that makes sense to you, you're lying. Obviously, the answer is no, because then you'd know that no-one is claiming that it makes sense from a RL perspective. The point is that it doesn't matter if it makes RL sense or not GÇö it's a game mechanic. Tons of stuff in EVE doesn't, so why does this particular detail have to?
Quote:To those who complain about Concord's invincibility It's not a complaint GÇö it's the counterpart of the GÇ£it doesn't make senseGÇ¥ argument. Again, if you want the game to make RL sense in one area (insurance) why not in the other (police)? The reason they don't make sense is the same: because they're not real-life simulations, but game mechanics put in place for a particular purpose. Removing them because they don't make sense makes no sense. The argument needs to be aimed towards the mechanics: why aren't they doing what they're supposed to do? Or why should they no longer do what they're supposed to do?
Quote:Back on point: end insurance, period. Why?
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Silent Lamb
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 15:24:00 -
[124] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:These threads all end with those who support insurance payouts for suicide ganking twisting themselves into the same ridiculous logical pretzels every time. And they always fall back on the same crutch, accusing those who point out the silliness of the situation of comparing Eve to the real world, as if all notions of common sense and reason are tossed out the window in the Eve universe and Pend insurance hired a bunch of tard-monkies for actuaries who thought that signing insurance papers with an immortal grinning Goon with explosives strapped to his vest and a history of 50 suicide shootouts with Concord is somehow a justifiable insurance risk.
If that makes sense to you, you're lying. Because that doesn't make sense to anyone with a brain. You know it. Everyone else knows it. You just want the game to cater entirely to you and your gameplay, damn the torpedoes or any common sense. Just admit it and I'd have more respect for your position.
I want 100% of Eve's resources devoted to wormholes. There I said it. It's called honesty. I'm not shovelling **** down your throat and attempting to justify it. I know it's ridiculous to expect the game to be entirely about me without regards to any other player. But I want it anyway. See? Honesty.
To those who complain about Concord's invincibility, they wouldn't have to be invincible if the alternative wasn't the total chaos that the suicide gankers (the only ones who really support this nonsense) would create. And if you want a more realistic RP reason, remove Concord and say that all ships allowed to pass through high sec gates are subject to be programmed for automated self destruction upon law violations or they can't enter. Same effect.
That even makes wardecs make more sense -- allow special agents to hack the system to allow you to destroy ships in a certain alliance or corp. But that's another thread.
Back on point: end insurance, period. Pend Insurance would be out of isk by now anyway.
just so you are aware, I was not complaining about concord's invincibility. I really don't care if they're invincible or not. what I'm getting at is that removing the insurance payout isn't going to stop people from suicide ganking. and let's be honest here... almost everyone who wants the insurance payout removed also wants to have some sort of restraint (like CCP did with bombs) so that it's impossible to suicide gank to begin with. the problem with doing that is simple and obvious. some people wouldn't be able to do what they want to do in game that has Devs, GMs, and all manor of employees stating at various times of the game's existence that part of the game is indeed suicide ganking. if you don't like the suicide ganking go back to WoW where the game mechanics actually restrict it.
This isn't WoW, it's EVE. get used to it. besides, it's a game. don't take it so serious.
|
Killstealing
Broski Enterprises Elite Space Guild
61
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 15:30:00 -
[125] - Quote
eve isreal |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics BRABODEN
326
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 15:43:00 -
[126] - Quote
Silent Lamb wrote:. the problem with doing that is simple and obvious. some people wouldn't be able to do what they want to do in game that has Devs, GMs, and all manor of employees stating at various times of the game's existence that part of the game is indeed suicide ganking. if you don't like the suicide ganking go back to WoW where the game mechanics actually restrict it.
Part of.
But suicide gankers don't want it to be part of high sec. They want it to be a virtual norm of high sec because they're bored of low and null and want easy targets to pad killboard e-peens. They're like the worst kind of immigrant - the kind that leaves their rathole of a country complaining what a terrible pile of **** it is -- then demand their new home be just like the crap-pile they just left and no one wants to go to.
High sec isn't a playground for bored low sec/null sec players to take over, drop their pants, and poo all over the place like a public bathroom in Tijuana. It has to have a level of normalcy and safety. Doesn't mean totally safe. But it sure as certainly doesn't mean subsidizing suicide ganks with insurance payouts either.
And given what happened with subscriptions over the summer, I'm not sure CCP wants to high sec dwellers "going back to WoW." Because guess what? They will. And I want them here paying for Eve's development so CCP can make more wormhole things.
And Eve is real. Don't you pay any attention to marketting? |
DireNecessity
The M.P.I. Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 15:52:00 -
[127] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:DireNecessity wrote:[quote=Adunh Slavy]It should be removed because it distorts behaviors outside what humans would other wise conclude as a reasonable action. It distorts Eve's sandbox as a crucible of human nature into the realms of the frivolous.
I take great affront at this comment. IGÇÖm no mere human. IGÇÖm a Demigod. So are you. Watch the intro son.
DireNecessity Daft equivocations don't count. And to Tip - BullSh on your last comment. :)
Wishing that EvE not be "frivolous" but rather a sandbox study of reasonable human action is daft.
Unless one is real money trading, EvE isn't real (though claiming so is marketing genius).
Acting the reasonable human in game is a wonderful option if thatGÇÖs your desire but thereGÇÖs much else to explore as well GÇô like being an IMMORTAL bloodthirsty space criminal.
Game balance issues remain (and thereGÇÖs been an interesting discussion about just that) but both play options are supported by CCP and, though you may not see the point in one of the options, others do.
DireNecessity |
Silent Lamb
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 15:57:00 -
[128] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:Silent Lamb wrote:. the problem with doing that is simple and obvious. some people wouldn't be able to do what they want to do in game that has Devs, GMs, and all manor of employees stating at various times of the game's existence that part of the game is indeed suicide ganking. if you don't like the suicide ganking go back to WoW where the game mechanics actually restrict it.
Part of. But suicide gankers don't want it to be part of high sec. They want it to be a virtual norm of high sec because they're bored of low and null and want easy targets to pad killboard e-peens. They're like the worst kind of immigrant - the kind that leaves their rathole of a country complaining what a terrible pile of **** it is -- then demand their new home be just like the crap-pile they just left and no one wants to go to. High sec isn't a playground for bored low sec/null sec players to take over, drop their pants, and poo all over the place like a public bathroom in Tijuana. It has to have a level of normalcy and safety. Doesn't mean totally safe. But it certainly doesn't mean subsidizing suicide ganks with insurance payouts either. And given what happened with subscriptions over the summer, I'm not sure CCP wants to high sec dwellers "going back to WoW." Because guess what? They will. And I want them here paying for Eve's development so CCP can make more wormhole things. Besides, we all know EVE isn't real.
if there's really such a problem with high sec suicide gankers, why have none of my 3 hulk toons (on seperate accounts) gotten suicide ganked for the past ... 4 years or so? I'll tell you the answer. I don't do my industry within 3 jumps of the major hubs where over 90% of suicide ganks take place. high sec is a very very very very very very large place. I have been in entire constellations that have had maybe 1 or 2 other people in it tops besides my toons... and they had 0.5 and 0.6 sec systems with nice belts. if you don't get what I'm hinting at, then you're an idiot. I am not one of the suicide gankers. to be honest, I don't even like combat, which does include missions. also, what makes you think suicide gankers don't want to be a part of high sec? I know people who have employed small corporations to suicide gank former WT's when the war targets would only run and hide. hell, I've paid 1 specific merc corp to suicide gank a few specific corps to get them to leave the area I wanted for my buddies and myself. so yes, suicide gankers do indeed want to be in high sec. it's why they do a lot of 0.0 ratting and/or missions to get their sec status up to be able to fly in high sec. also, if there weren't suicide gankers, high sec would really be totally safe (except for the potential corp spy) as only an idiot flies a substandard ship with or without a substandard fleet for pve. |
Djakku
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 16:05:00 -
[129] - Quote
Tarkoauc wrote:It is about time that Pend insurance in Eve wakes up to what Earth insurance companies have done for ever.: Stop paying for insurance claims where the insured item was used in a criminal activity or if the item gets destroyed through your deliberate actions.
Insurance should not pay out if CONCORD kills your ship because of your criminal actions. Insurance should not pay if you self-destruct your ship.
Any self-respecting insurance company would not pay for these shenanigans and neither should
Sounds like you go suicide ganked and are demanding a blanket punishment for anyone who gcc's.
Are you trying to completely kill low sec pvp?
EVE is dead. |
Tarkoauc
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 16:30:00 -
[130] - Quote
Djakku wrote:Tarkoauc wrote:It is about time that Pend insurance in Eve wakes up to what Earth insurance companies have done for ever.: Stop paying for insurance claims where the insured item was used in a criminal activity or if the item gets destroyed through your deliberate actions.
Insurance should not pay out if CONCORD kills your ship because of your criminal actions. Insurance should not pay if you self-destruct your ship.
Any self-respecting insurance company would not pay for these shenanigans and neither should Sounds like you go suicide ganked and are demanding a blanket punishment for anyone who gcc's. Are you trying to completely kill low sec pvp? EVE is dead.
Oh please. If you can't afford to lose something you shouldn't fly it. Stop being such a whiner and make such ridiculous statements. You give more tears than a carebear. No insurance payout for acts that invoke Concord or self-destruction. Now cry some more, please. |
|
Silent Lamb
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 16:37:00 -
[131] - Quote
Tarkoauc wrote:
Oh please. If you can't afford to lose something you shouldn't fly it. Stop being such a whiner and make such ridiculous statements. You give more tears than a carebear. No insurance payout for acts that invoke Concord or self-destruction. Now cry some more, please.
ok, why isn't anyone paying attention to 1 simple fact? suicide gankers that don't suicide gank hulks usually get more than enough to pay for their ship and modules from the loot of the target ship, hence why the target ship is targeted to begin with. suicide gankers that target hulks can simply switch to using 2 to 3 destroyers which usually gets paid for by the idiots that fit their hulks with deadspace and faction modules.
also, tip is right... no one has actually stated anything wrong with the game mechanic, they've only voiced opinions they have based on losses they've had.
EDIT: also, if you're saying only fly what you can afford to lose, doesn't that go for you as well? or are you a hypocrite? |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
879
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 16:38:00 -
[132] - Quote
Tarkoauc wrote:Stop being such a whiner and make such ridiculous statements. But making comparisons of a game mechanic, with RL insurance isn't ridiculous? Amirite?
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Roadkill Rhino
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 16:53:00 -
[133] - Quote
. |
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
155
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 16:54:00 -
[134] - Quote
Silent Lamb wrote:what I'm getting at is that removing the insurance payout isn't going to stop people from suicide ganking. and let's be honest here... almost everyone who wants the insurance payout removed also wants to have some sort of restraint (like CCP did with bombs) so that it's impossible to suicide gank to begin with.
No. I think the majority of those opposed just wants to get rid of something illogical and nonsensical.
Suicide ganks will still happen, they will just have to target slightly more profitable targets.
|
Silent Lamb
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 17:03:00 -
[135] - Quote
Roadkill Rhino wrote:"Eve is a game driven by consequences for actions."
Yet the suicide gankers have no consequence. Being destroyed yet refunded for your losses is not a consequence of any meaning.
Let's look at it this way, people are able to fill freighters up with battleships and modules, pick an area, go there and gank the hell out of the miners there, all they need is a ganking character and character to give it the ship. That people can do this just goes to show that EVE is a game of consequences, but only if you're a miner.
first off, most suicide gankers don't use battleships on miners, they use battleships on freighters. second, if a person is going to suicide gank with a battleship, the target is almost always equipped with enough high isk modules to pay for the battleships and modules lost in the suicide gank while still giving a profit. If the ships targeted were not that way then they would not be targeted. third, if you're a miner, why not just insure your ship like they do so you get reimbursed for it like they are? oh wait... you're hulk pilots that only do things in high sec.... ah, in that case, yeah, sure, take away the insurance payout. they'll switch to destroyers, primary hulks with deadspace and faction modules that more than pay for the destroyers lost, and continue doing what they've always done.
Roadkill Rhino wrote:Why do threads like this get so big? Because half the people posting are gankers who don't want their insurance payout taken away. They preach lines like "EVE is hardcore" "You're not safe anywhere, always at risk" But that's not true, there is a group of people who take no risk atall, and that is the gankers, there is no risk in what they do, they break even or sometimes profit, they risk nothing to do a suicide gank. They will die, they know this, they also know that insurance will pay the bill.
This game has some really stupid features, insurance payout for suicide ganking is one of them.
let's be blunt here.... this isn't WoW. it's EVE. you will get shot. you will lose ships. you will lose things you worked hard for. get over it. |
Silent Lamb
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 17:10:00 -
[136] - Quote
Jennifer Starling wrote: No. I think the majority of those opposed just wants to get rid of something illogical and nonsensical.
Suicide ganks will still happen, they will just have to target slightly more profitable targets.
I think what the majority of the opposed want is to have CCP put restrictions on suicide ganking, but aren't bold enough to say it. Someone above asked something or stated something about low sec pvp.... how it would die if you didn't get insurance when you were the first to aggro... I can think of a number of ways in which aggroing your aggressors first can often save your ship (not all the time though). still, even if you aggro pirates/pvpers first in an attempt to either get them to back off or at least do some damage to them since they're going to pop you anyway, shouldn't you (the target who struck first in self defense) still get insurance for your lost ship even though you took GCC? i mean, weren't you the victim?
and suicide gankers don't have to find more profitable targets... they just have to cut costs which is actually quite easy in most circumstances. |
DireNecessity
The M.P.I. Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 17:41:00 -
[137] - Quote
Jennifer Starling wrote:Silent Lamb wrote:what I'm getting at is that removing the insurance payout isn't going to stop people from suicide ganking. and let's be honest here... almost everyone who wants the insurance payout removed also wants to have some sort of restraint (like CCP did with bombs) so that it's impossible to suicide gank to begin with.
No. I think the majority of those opposed just wants to get rid of something illogical and nonsensical. Suicide ganks will still happen, they will just have to target slightly more profitable targets.
Nonsensical to you. Have you seen Pend's financials? Do payouts to obvious sucide gankers lose them money in total? Like so many of the NPC institutions in EvE, Pend looks to be thoroughly corrupt. Perhaps they treat incentivizing suiciders as an advertising expense. GÇ£Always Insure All Of Your Boats GÇô Suiciding Ganking Criminals Lurk Everywhere!GÇ¥
I fully appreciate that you find PendGÇÖs in game actions so jarring that it breaks immersion for you.
If I may ask, why does that bust the game for you but bizarre police procedures like merely blowing up a criminalGÇÖs boat and lowering their sec status (which means GÇ£Clear some ever repopulating rats for us or weGÇÖll continue to treat you like a bad guyGÇ¥) doesnGÇÖt?
DireNecessity |
Silent Lamb
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 17:58:00 -
[138] - Quote
Dire, I do appreciate your attempt to poke fun at people... I really do. and honestly I have a raging desire to do the same. I am probably one of the biggest trolls you will ever find anywhere. hell, it's why I'm using this alt instead of one that people actually know.
that said, I truly am attempting to get people to accept a few facts that no one on either side seems to be focusing on except me, and to an extent tip since his writing and people's responses to it got my gears thinking harder. please don't troll on this issue. I really do think that people should switch from this focus (which is utterly pointless because most suicide gankers target ships that drop modules with high enough values to pay for the ganker's lost ships and modules and still pull a profit without insurance) and focus on how the insurance mechanic doesn't allocate for t2 ship values that are derived from moon goo more than they are from the minerals to make the t1 equivalent.
EDIT: I mean... isn't that why this was brought up to begin with? people can't afford for replacement hulks they shouldn't fly since they can't afford to lose them, which in turn makes them hypocrites when they say back 'you shouldn't fly what you can't afford to lose'?
have insurance allocate for t2's and t3's, miners in hulks pay less out of pocket to replace, easing tensions and everyone wins. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1121
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 18:02:00 -
[139] - Quote
Silent Lamb wrote:Dire, I do appreciate your attempt to poke fun at people... I really do. and honestly I have a raging desire to do the same. I am probably one of the biggest trolls you will ever find anywhere. hell, it's why I'm using this alt instead of one that people actually know.
that said, I truly am attempting to get people to accept a few facts that no one on either side seems to be focusing on except me, and to an extent tip since his writing and people's responses to it got my gears thinking harder. please don't troll on this issue. I really do think that people should switch from this focus (which is utterly pointless because most suicide gankers target ships that drop modules with high enough values to pay for the ganker's lost ships and modules and still pull a profit without insurance) and focus on how the insurance mechanic doesn't allocate for t2 ship values that are derived from moon goo more than they are from the minerals to make the t1 equivalent.
t2 ships don't insure well deliberately moron |
Silent Lamb
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 18:03:00 -
[140] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Silent Lamb wrote:Dire, I do appreciate your attempt to poke fun at people... I really do. and honestly I have a raging desire to do the same. I am probably one of the biggest trolls you will ever find anywhere. hell, it's why I'm using this alt instead of one that people actually know.
that said, I truly am attempting to get people to accept a few facts that no one on either side seems to be focusing on except me, and to an extent tip since his writing and people's responses to it got my gears thinking harder. please don't troll on this issue. I really do think that people should switch from this focus (which is utterly pointless because most suicide gankers target ships that drop modules with high enough values to pay for the ganker's lost ships and modules and still pull a profit without insurance) and focus on how the insurance mechanic doesn't allocate for t2 ship values that are derived from moon goo more than they are from the minerals to make the t1 equivalent. t2 ships don't insure well deliberately moron
I am aware of this. I am attempting to provide a fix so that the people whining about gankers getting insurance have an alternitive to focus on instead of this completely pointless topic. |
|
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 18:18:00 -
[141] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:t2 ships don't insure well deliberately moron And T2 ships should have better insurance (not full price though, like 3x T1 hull price and you still take a loss), while T1 shouldn't pay squat and all modules are destroyed (would create a huge isk sink right there). T1 are throw away, like a condom/tampon/burger wrapper once you are done with them while T2/T3 kills should be highly coveted for the KM and loot. Why does the Hulk pilot have to risk it all? If you can just blow up a Hulk worth 200m and laugh it away with a 20m Brutix and 2 mill in fittings are you risking it? Not really, zero risk with full reward becaue you can continue to play your game as sec status loss is a joke and how often are kill rights claimed? There should be risk to both parties (the hulk pilot and you). If you want to gank someone, there should be sufficent penalty to make you stop and think "is it worth it?" before you pull the trigger because the Hulk pilot knows he will loose the ship as soon as he undocks but nothing really stops you from repeatedly blowing up bargers/exhumers while the miners can do it only so many times until their wallet is suffering because they cannot continue their choosen career |
Tarkoauc
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 19:00:00 -
[142] - Quote
Silent Lamb wrote:
just so you are aware, I was not complaining about concord's invincibility. I really don't care if they're invincible or not. what I'm getting at is that removing the insurance payout isn't going to stop people from suicide ganking. and let's be honest here... almost everyone who wants the insurance payout removed also wants to have some sort of restraint (like CCP did with bombs) so that it's impossible to suicide gank to begin with. the problem with doing that is simple and obvious. some people wouldn't be able to do what they want to do in game that has Devs, GMs, and all manor of employees stating at various times of the game's existence that part of the game is indeed suicide ganking. if you don't like the suicide ganking go back to WoW where the game mechanics actually restrict it.
This isn't WoW, it's EVE. get used to it. besides, it's a game. don't take it so serious.
This isn't about stopping suicide ganking. As you correctly stated, nobody will stop that as long as many 0.0 alliances are sponsoring it. This is about making this game a bit more realistic. Something that people who engage in activities that create a Concord response always hold so high, but the moment it is about making it a bit more realistic for them they are all up in arms.
The responses range from "it won't change anything" which would actually mean they should not be against the change since nothing will change for them to "this is how it has always been" which would indicate that they are living in caves because humans have way back when lived in caves and we should keep it how it always has been. Other arguments say that this game is not realistic - I guess the tag line "Eve is real" has not reached the cave that they have been living in.
Silent Lamb said it well: let's be blunt here.... this isn't WoW. it's EVE. you will get shot. you will lose ships. you will lose things you worked hard for. get over it.
I fully agree with the above statement. you will lose things and you should and those who engage in activities that are against Concord rules should lose their ship and not get insurance. HTFU as that nice Eve songs says. If you want to suicide gank, go for it, but don't be such a poor loser and whine if you don't get the insurance payout. Take it like a man (or woman) |
Tarkoauc
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 19:00:00 -
[143] - Quote
double post removed |
DireNecessity
The M.P.I. Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 19:02:00 -
[144] - Quote
Silent Lamb wrote:Dire, I do appreciate your attempt to poke fun at people... I really do. and honestly I have a raging desire to do the same. I am probably one of the biggest trolls you will ever find anywhere. hell, it's why I'm using this alt instead of one that people actually know.
I donGÇÖt mean to troll. Well, not only troll.
I take the real life comparisons seriously. Not because thereGÇÖs any logical sense to them but rather because they display how thoroughly immersed the poster is in the game -- so immersed that the seemingly bizarre actions of an in game NPC corporation generates player outrage.
One certain reason for this outrage is that some players find it incredibly unfair to their preferred play style and that busts the game for them. I complement you on trying to navigate a solution to this.
Another reason may be that itGÇÖs so GÇ£illogicalGÇ¥ and so GÇ£nonsensicalGÇ¥ that it busts my precious immersion. One of the fascinating things about being pushed one suspension of disbelief too far is how the often unquestioning interjection GÇ£This is just absurd!GÇ¥ pops out with little recognition that the previous suspension of disbelief sits right adjacent to it but didnGÇÖt destroy immersion.
Immersion isnGÇÖt terribly important in a game like chess but for a game like EvE itGÇÖs one of the central components. Given that, I think itGÇÖs worth exploring how immersion gets busted by a game mechanic like insurance.
DireNecessity
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1128
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 19:02:00 -
[145] - Quote
do you want to know why I gank?
it's this, this right here:
Quote: Re: customer satisfaction survey From: Crystal Solette Sent: 2011.10.23 18:54 To: Weaselior,
just wanted to thank you for showing me that this game really IS a complete waste of time and rl money... saving for months and months, barely getting by but looking forward to advancing myself.. and all gone in less than 2 seconds. Really cool game.. anyway, have fun in your lil cartoon world. Maybe you will grow a ***** some day?
no amount of insurance changes will keep me out of these belts :3: |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
904
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 19:08:00 -
[146] - Quote
Tarkoauc wrote:This is about making this game a bit more realistic. So if this change is implemented, then so should a change to Concord.
Then when you've done with that, actual space interaction should be changed. Because at the moment it's based upon underwater physics, rather than those of a vacuum.
I'm sure there are many many more we can change, in order to aid your sense of realism in this internet spaceship game.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
7
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 19:28:00 -
[147] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Tarkoauc wrote:This is about making this game a bit more realistic. So if this change is implemented, then so should a change to Concord. Then when you've done with that, actual space interaction should be changed. Because at the moment it's based upon underwater physics, rather than those of a vacuum. I'm sure there are many many more we can change, in order to aid your sense of realism in this internet spaceship game.
taking comments about making EVE realistic seriously. No, that's not the case. I'd say, that's not the deal here. It's about fair. Each playstyle should have it's merits, rewards, advantages and weaknesses.
Here Is a poster that reports doing 22b in damages in a single kill, with a KB link as proof. If you can make that sort of isk, you certainly don't need any subsidies. That's certainly not balanced.
And that folks, is what this thread is really about. Game balance. Stop talking about reality and realistic. It's a game. Games are supposed to be fun. Realism tends to ruin that. In EVE, unfortunately for some people, some people have fun by ruining other peoples fun. Which is part of EVE and it's meant to be that way. Take that away and you take away the very thing that makes EVE be EVE.
HOWEVER, the reason this is fine and why it works is because there is some level of game balance. You can fight back. You can hide. You can ask for help. There are options. But if the other guy is abusing a game mechanic to get an advantage he absolutely does not need, then changes need to be made to level the playing field.
If you remove the level playing field, then you will also have ruined the very thing that makes EVE be EVE. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1128
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 19:30:00 -
[148] - Quote
protip for idiots: killing 22b worth of mackinaws doesn't get you 22b isk |
Roadkill Rhino
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 19:34:00 -
[149] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:do you want to know why I gank? it's this, this right here: Quote: Re: customer satisfaction survey From: Crystal Solette Sent: 2011.10.23 18:54 To: Weaselior,
just wanted to thank you for showing me that this game really IS a complete waste of time and rl money... saving for months and months, barely getting by but looking forward to advancing myself.. and all gone in less than 2 seconds. Really cool game.. anyway, have fun in your lil cartoon world. Maybe you will grow a ***** some day?
no amount of insurance changes will keep me out of these belts :3:
So you successfully made a player unsub? Great, i'm sure that the CCP team must be over the moon about players quitting. |
Roadkill Rhino
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 19:35:00 -
[150] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:protip for idiots: killing 22b worth of mackinaws doesn't get you 22b isk
No, but if you loot and salvage it does get you a few bill, and that's way more than you lost from the suicides.
Anyway, if you'll still gank even without insurance, then why should you care about this thread? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |