Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Darrow Hill
Eight Bit Industries
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 15:51:00 -
[271] - Quote
Meh.
The destroyer buff and the new BC's necessitated this change.
The primary gank target this winter will be mission runners with multi-billion deadspace / officer fits.
CCP is throwing bears a bone in anticipation of a flood of tears.
|
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:06:00 -
[272] - Quote
Tippia has to much free time out of game that I wonder if an account isn't kept active just to troll the forums. Think I am only up to page 5 so far, only gone from the boards for 10 hours and wow did this turn into a threadnaught I didn't see before I left.
Tippia wrote: We have long since had that situation: ganks are ridiculously rare because the costs have been increased time and time again over the years. Highsec is now far too safe. This change makes it even safer.
Question for the Riddler her self: Why should it be more safe for the ganker then the gankee? Who is "safer" being applied to, unless you look at from the perspective of both the miner and ganker - Ganker is safe from total loss while the miner looses everything in the hull (cause insurance doesn't even come close to what a hulk is priced at). If the miner can keep on mining until ganked and the ganker can keep on ganking without something stopping them, why can only one be stopped but not the other? Oh wait....this new insurance change will only curb rampant destruction not stop it. It just makes the aggressor think "Is it really worth it?" before they pull the trigger cause being -10 doesn't stop them, kill rights arenot redeemed often, and getting a good amount of isk back after CONCORD comes at you just lets the ganker keep on going cause he knows nothing is stopping, now the ganker pays the full amount and will have to find more valuable targets instead of padding killboards with cheap losses. |
yumike
Eve of Madness
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:08:00 -
[273] - Quote
Darrow Hill wrote:Meh.
The destroyer buff and the new BC's necessitated this change.
The primary gank target this winter will be mission runners with multi-billion deadspace / officer fits.
CCP is throwing bears a bone in anticipation of a flood of tears.
Pretty much this, It's already ridiculously easy to suicide gank casually in highsec (with a bit of ratting the sec status comes back relatively quickly) and make good coin doing it.
It's a much needed change for the new BC's that do BS-like damage for bc-like cost. It's already easy to pop most pve ships with one or two t1 bs's, to move that threshold down to bc's and to still be fully insured is craziness.
Tippia wrote: We have long since had that situation: ganks are ridiculously rare because the costs have been increased time and time again over the years. Highsec is now far too safe. This change makes it even safer.
You don't suicide gank much do you? Admittedly I haven't for a few months now, But it's all I did most weekends for about a year and it was retardedly easy to make good money doing it.
Few people do it more likely because it's a pain in the ass to repair your sec status constantly. (The best way I found was to get several L4's with BS spawns in systems around you, 3-4missions is best. leave them active and do a 'roam' every 10 minutes, kill one let it respawn at downtime rinse repeat, finish missions on friday and gank the weekend away.)
The isk change is meh, My insurance payout never mattered when I had 5 or more pre-fit ships already sitting in station it was just free money and will continue to be. This change makes perfect sense..
Now we need them to remove insurance from self destructing so we aren't losing freighter/capital/supercapital kills when they know they are screwed :) |
Ann133566
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:11:00 -
[274] - Quote
As long as we can target and shoot at eaxh other in hi-sec, suicide ganking is here to stay. |
Ann133566
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:11:00 -
[275] - Quote
srry about the double post. |
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:20:00 -
[276] - Quote
Let's play the *****-game.
I'll start:
(/Me whispers) *****. I A/F/K cloak in Jita. Does that count? |
Kyneska
RONA Midgard Academy RONA Directorate
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:22:00 -
[277] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kyneska wrote:I think tippias ideas to remove concorde are stupid, its like she isnt aware that a giant blob force resides in 0.0 and the only thing holding them out of empire is concord. It's like you didn't quite get what the idea was born out of: the use of real-world logic to dictate how game mechanics should behave. And no, CONCORD is not what keeps the giant 0.0 blobs out of empire. In fact, they enter empire with some frequency. Nor is CONCORD what keeps the blobs out of highsec GÇö completely different game mechanics are at play in that particular case. Mr Kidd wrote:I never thought I'd live to see the day. Tears from Tippia We'll see. How long do you think you'll live? We have yet to see the dayGǪ
I must have misunderstood you when you say gameplay perspective i think you mean game mechanings and not some rp fluff. are you honestly saying that the blob wouldnt rampage all over empire if it wasnt for concord. you dont know the zombei incident when zombei corp tanked concord and rampaged empire.
|
Nam Noissim
Red Lobsters Unilateral
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:35:00 -
[278] - Quote
Insurance fraud is a real thing, and even in our internet spaceship game the RP part of your brain has to think the corps/orgs/whatevers that are doing insurance for these ships would *have* to be getting pissed off about constantly losing money to these suicide gankers. I mean...think about it in RP terms, "Thanks for the 10K isk sir. Fly safe!" *gets blown up* "I'll take that 11M isk payout please." "It's your 30th one today...we are in the hole 329.7M. Anyway, here are your funds. Fly safe!"
You get the idea. I approve this RP element. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1264
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:45:00 -
[279] - Quote
Kyneska wrote:I must have misunderstood you when you say gameplay perspective i think you mean game mechanings What are you referring to here?
Quote:are you honestly saying that the blob wouldnt rampage all over empire if it wasnt for concord. For one, the blob already runs rampage all over empireGǪ or at least over most of empire. For another, those 0.0 blobs are in 0.0 for a reason GÇö that reason doesn't exist in empire space, much less in highsec, and there are other mechanics in place to ensure that they can't blob in highsec the way they do out there (most notably when it comes to things like tactics and ship choice).
All CONCORD does is ensure that if/when they come to highsec, they have to pay the same aggression fee as everyone else. 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 |
Renan Ruivo
Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance
288
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:54:00 -
[280] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?
Tamriel's. Rated ARG for Pirates. **** you. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1264
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:56:00 -
[281] - Quote
Aqriue wrote:Question for the Riddler her self: Why should it be more safe for the ganker then the gankee? It shouldn't, nor is it. The difference between the two is how they approach ensuring that safety for themselves.
Quote:Who is "safer" being applied to, unless you look at from the perspective of both the miner and ganker - Ganker is safe from total loss while the minerGǪ GǪis also safe from total loss. It's inherent in the system.
Quote:If the miner can keep on mining until ganked and the ganker can keep on ganking without something stopping them, why can only one be stopped but not the other? Seeing as how the ganker can be stopped just fine, I don't quite see the point in this hypothetical situation. You're painting a scenario that does not correspond with the reality of the game. The ganker can keep on ganking until stopped just like the miner can keep on mining until stopped.
Quote:being -10 doesn't stop them, kill rights arenot redeemed often, and getting a good amount of isk back after CONCORD comes at you just lets the ganker keep on going cause he knows nothing is stopping So make him wrong. Stop him. Make sure that -10 status comes at its proper price. Make use of those kill rights. If there is an unwarranted amount of safety for the ganker, it's because the victim chooses to make it so.
yumike wrote:You don't suicide gank much do you? I don't suicide gank at all, so no, not muchGǪ
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 |
Kyneska
RONA Midgard Academy RONA Directorate
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 16:56:00 -
[282] - Quote
From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?
this. gameplay prespective. I think you mean gamemechanics and you say you dont. i belive you, im not very good at forum.
if you dont like concord then fight in 0.0, which im sure you do, or not, i dont care. |
Renan Ruivo
Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance
288
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 17:00:00 -
[283] - Quote
Destroyers get buffed, and gankers get a nice little toy in the Tier 3 bc's that have a bigger volley than some bettleships.
On the other hand, insurance for concordokken ships is removed.
Working as intended. Rated ARG for Pirates. **** you. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1265
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 17:04:00 -
[284] - Quote
Kyneska wrote:From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?
this. gameplay prespective. That was in response to LCO's GÇ£from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car?GÇ¥
And no, it's gameplay, not game mechanics: its the gameplay that (supposedly) needs to conform to some measure of realism GÇö the game mechanics do not. They're just there to generate that gameplay.
Quote:if you dont like concord then fight in 0.0, which im sure you do, or not, i dont care. Ok.
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 |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1419
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 17:09:00 -
[285] - Quote
oh no i'm sure this will cease our reign of terror
return to the belts, worthless peasants |
Zenda Pharedi
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 17:23:00 -
[286] - Quote
we need concord to protect the newbies, or certain d***less pirates would be camping noobstations in t3s with logi backup. that kills eve. and no, suicide ganking is not coming to an end. |
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
68
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 17:23:00 -
[287] - Quote
Even if this is all true, I don't think it's going to affect gankers very much considering several factors:
1. Who is paying and how much for certain ganks (don't forget prizes).
2. Dessies getting some love. Therefore ganking with these things will be easier.
3. How often your survive a gank. The more you survive ganks, the more likely the gankers will want to kill you just for the hatred that they have towards you. At this point, you'll have to make sure you have enough ISK to cover the loss of your mining ship because they're not gonna care for one second how expensive their next attempt will be.
EDIT:
PS: This could be a good opportunity to take advantage of ammo/ship production. |
SirHorace
Solo Artists
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 17:52:00 -
[288] - Quote
I'm totally fine with with not getting insurance from my Suicide Destroyers. This will in no way lessen my number of ganks. Like at all. The price to buy and fit a new one comes with a single dropped miner 1. |
Khors
El Barco Pirata
13
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 17:53:00 -
[289] - Quote
I love changes like this. Those who always collected tears are now spilling them at alarming rates. |
Evei Shard
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:01:00 -
[290] - Quote
Removal of insurance payouts when a ship is destroyed by Concord is nothing but an appeasement scheme that a good number of miners are going to fall for.
It will change the amount of suicide ganks by exactly zero.
The only difference is the players who have been calling for this will now be lulled into a sense of "more security" in high-sec.
They have been under the perception that insurance payouts make some huge difference when it comes to someone taking out their Hulk, which is utter crap. Once you get into ships that are somewhere above newbie-ship, insurance payouts become unbalanced, and in the end you lose money on a gank, regardless of insurance.
Sure, it may pay a small amount back, but the people who do this aren't exactly newbs most of the time, and generally have an alt/corp/alliance with a bank full of isk to back them up.
It would be interesting to see just how many gank ships are even insured in the first place.
I disagree with Tippia here. This move makes high-sec less safe, just as she'd like to see.
Insurance payouts removed = false sense of security for carebears = easier targets. |
|
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:02:00 -
[291] - Quote
You do realize goons pay their suicide gankers in tech goo right? This does nothing to save ye little mining carebears. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:04:00 -
[292] - Quote
Khors wrote:I love changes like this. Those who always collected tears are now spilling them at alarming rates.
Where are these tears you mention? I don't see any. I see loads of people who don't really care either way, the people who suicide gank being mostly indifferent about the change, while a few forum regulars troll or try to debate the issue on a theoretical basis just for the pleasure of debating it. If you truly believe what you see here are tears, you haven't actually ever read a tear filled thread in your life.
|
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:18:00 -
[293] - Quote
Well, Gankers have been saying forever "its not about the insurance" Time to put your money where yer mouth is
tho; Goons are winning EVE by making CCP break it by making it carebear land lol They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Phantom Slave
Cryogenic Creations
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:36:00 -
[294] - Quote
I'm in favor of this, but only for 1 thing. ISK Faucet is getting turned off. Now it might not be a huge amount, since its generally cheap ships being used, but it's just that much less ISK being created out of thin air.
I do feel bad for the suicide gankers who will have to work harder to find good targets of opportunity though. Best of luck to you all. Mmm, I love the smell of pod goo in the morning. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1420
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:48:00 -
[295] - Quote
Messoroz wrote:You do realize goons pay their suicide gankers in tech goo right? This does nothing to save ye little mining carebears. no we don't have any tech
highsec is safe |
Anna Hyperthron
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:50:00 -
[296] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:Khors wrote:I love changes like this. Those who always collected tears are now spilling them at alarming rates. Where are these tears you mention? I don't see any. I see loads of people who don't really care either way, the people who suicide gank being mostly indifferent about the change, while a few forum regulars troll or try to debate the issue on a theoretical basis just for the pleasure of debating it. If you truly believe what you see here are tears, you haven't actually ever read a tear filled thread in your life.
Your answer is full of tears. |
Morganta
Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia
261
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:54:00 -
[297] - Quote
I for one plan on ganking more often
insurance... feh The American public's reaction to the change was poor and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy |
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
162
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:56:00 -
[298] - Quote
This will simply seperate the true career Gankers from the wannabe's. It won't stop suicide Ganking - it will just highlight the phrase "necessity is the mother of invention".
The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another. - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars. |
XIRUSPHERE
In Bacon We Trust
78
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 18:59:00 -
[299] - Quote
This is a stealth boost to ganking, more pilots will fly asleep at the wheel believing a little more isk lost will keep them safe. The advantage of a bad memory is that one can enjoy the same good things for the first time several times.
One will rarely err if extreme actions be ascribed to vanity, ordinary actions to habit, and mean actions to fear. |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:34:00 -
[300] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Richard Hammond II wrote:Phantom Slave wrote:I'm in favor of this, but only for 1 thing. ISK Faucet is getting turned off. Now it might not be a huge amount, since its generally cheap ships being used, but it's just that much less ISK being created out of thin air.
I do feel bad for the suicide gankers who will have to work harder to find good targets of opportunity though. Best of luck to you all. You wanna turn off the faucet? Get rid of missions, incirsuions, Ice and minerals Get rid of everything .. and make one prefitted ship given after each death. No skills, no industry, no market.. pure PvP however noone would pay for such game and probably noone will play it.
gotta get rid of PVP
they already a have it AND it has WIS its called Star Trek Online. AND its gonna be F2P AND it has P2W too! They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |