Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 07:54:00 -
[1]
Remove Insurance Payout in 0.0
It makes sense from a roleplaying / backstory viewpoint:
- Why would insurance companies cover the loss of a ship you took out into lawless space, willingly?
It makes sense from a gaming balance viewpoint:
- It will increase the 'oh i lost a battleship and 50Mil fittings' to 'oh snap i lost 150mil'. - It will cause people to be ALOT more careful with their ships and take smaller / cheaper ones out instead, causing them to be rarer and more powerful at the same time. - It will put more stress on the 'healing' side of eve, (logistics, carriers) since a battleship will actually be a valuable asset.
It will reduce blobbing, too, at least the big battleship blobs, since people will be more considerate of what they fly and the consequences. It will give people a better incentive to fly T1 counterparts of currently popular ships, and at the same time reduce the prices of alot of T2 ships further.
What problem will this fix?
It will reduce the big battleship blobs which, in my opinion and that of alot of people i know, isn't a really fun way to play. It will make people more considerate of what they fly, since currently bigger = better most of the times (except solo). It will put more stress on a currently underdeveloped aspect of Eve, that of 'healing'.
Please, serious input. It's not 'my' idea i've seen it proposed several times before and recently given it some more thought and i really do believe it will improve the game.
sup /b/ |
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 07:55:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 24/07/2007 07:56:54
Sounds to me like it would increase blobbing to minimize risk of losing your ship, and overall make people hesitant in fighting eachother at all.
Why risk fighting someone when the reward is some crappy modules worth a few million isk, when you are risking a hundred million to do it?
---
Originally by: CCP Wrangler You're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, thats what hello kitty online is for.
|
umop 3pisdn
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 07:58:00 -
[3]
No.
I like being able to fly t1 stuff for cheap, getting pwned by a blob isnt as bad when i get back most of the hull cost of the ship.
Making pvp more expensive and unfriendly to noobs is bad.
What you propose would not make people take out smaller cheaper ships... bs's are used because they are heavy weapon / heavy tank platforms.
Instead, lets boost t1 frigs, AFs and the offensive ability of intys (maybe... they are annoying)
|
DeadRow
Magnificent Beavers Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 07:59:00 -
[4]
Although a good idea on paper I can't see it happening ingame. I highly doubt it would reduce blobing, most big alliances that do this can most likely afford to replace any BS thats lost. /DeadRow
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:01:00 -
[5]
The point is to make battleships more rare in 0.0, instead of them being the first thing people think of when confronted with 0.0 warfare (see first 2 replies). That mentality of 'bigger is better' needs to be broken. Not neccesarily less people in the blob, but smaller ships, focusing more on tactics than raw firepower.
sup /b/ |
umop 3pisdn
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:15:00 -
[6]
I like to solo a lot and much prefer small gangs to large ones, I have a lot of experience in all forms of warfare (god put pos's in this game to punish us) and I dont think removing insurance is the answer.
Perhaps the ability of battleships to hit smaller craft is still too high?
No matter what happens blobs will still occur unfortunately.
More costly ships and changes to the game (removal of stab whoring via WCS nerf among others) are what is making blob warfare more common imo.
I cant understand your logic of making t2 ships cheaper by increasing demand but keeping supply the same...
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:20:00 -
[7]
Originally by: umop 3pisdn
I cant understand your logic of making t2 ships cheaper by increasing demand but keeping supply the same...
Demand will decrease actually as more people will consider using cheaper alternatives. Nerfing battleship damage versus small targets will be very hard at this stage seeing as every single weapon and defense system will have to be adjusted accordingly, but it could be a possible solution.
sup /b/ |
Plave Okice
Naughty 40 Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:27:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Jim McGregor Sounds to me like it would increase blobbing to minimize risk of losing your ship, and overall make people hesitant in fighting eachother at all.
This would happen, hence this is a really bad idea.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:27:00 -
[9]
It would only make people avoid pvp. Thus it would suck ass. Hence, it would be a bad idea.
As a conclusion, I vote Hell no. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Nahia Senne
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:28:00 -
[10]
sounds like a good idea. will make all those bs's something meaningful to lose...
..and im not saying this just because i never insure my ships in the first place
|
|
Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Minmatar Grumpy Old Farts Gruntfuttocks
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:35:00 -
[11]
Awsome Idea, lets make pvp non-existant unless you have the ability to be online 24/7 grinding isk. Or have some sort of money printing going on.
Seriously i have people in my circle of friends who say this too from time to time, then i ask them whats your wallet at?
Answer, well its not below 150 Billion.
Ok, so YOU can affort it, thats nice and stuff. But what about the guy who actualy has to GRIND hours on end to replace every single t2 fitted BS. That guy that never saw more than 300mil in his wallet at one time.
Less people will pvp if this is implemented, yes it will decrease the blob as les people will be able to afford to fly into pvp. And thus just dont bother to pvp at all. And those that can affort to wont ever solo/small gang again as its 'safer' to outblob anyone since you wont lose a ship then. As even the rich dont like losing 150 mil every day.
|
Strategos
Banned Society
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:36:00 -
[12]
I got an idea! No!
---Sig--- Sig removed, not appropriate for the forum. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -Pirlouit
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:38:00 -
[13]
I see people still dont get it.
The point is NOT to make people have to grind hours to afford that battleship.
Point is to get them out of that battleship in the first place. Small ships are useful in pvp, really
sup /b/ |
Darius Shakor
Minmatar Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:03:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Sokratesz I see people still dont get it.
The point is NOT to make people have to grind hours to afford that battleship.
Point is to get them out of that battleship in the first place. Small ships are useful in pvp, really
People will always go for the biggest gun because they want to win fights.
And ultimately a well sorted alliance will not feel the pinch of a battleship fleet being half decimated as they will have stocks to replace them by their industrial might.
This idea hands advantage to those biggest of the big alliances and does not encourage people to move into 0.0 and start making their own empire from scratch. Which is the whole point of 0.0 space. ------ Shakor Clan Information Portal |
Weyoun 1
Gallente Soviet Star Federation Celestial Frontier
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:03:00 -
[15]
No. Remove insurance payout in highsec, not in 0.0!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Sartaron
Amarr Quantar Swords SynchronizerZ
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:04:00 -
[16]
Why reduce the amount of BS artificially by removing the insurance?
The problems are the BSs, not the insurance.
Imho BS are just overall too powerful. They need a real drawback. Like less Speed and much longer warp-activation time.
BTW: The speed and agility gap between any of the ship classes is to small.
|
Daimos Bellurdan
Black Reign FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:12:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Daimos Bellurdan on 24/07/2007 09:13:38 Remove Insurance Payout for losses in missions
It makes sense from a roleplaying / backstory viewpoint:
- Why would insurance companies cover the loss of a ship you took out into dangerous dead space areas full of hostiles willingly ?
It makes sense from a gaming balance viewpoint:
- It will increase the 'oh i lost a battleship and 50Mil fittings' to 'oh snap i lost 150mil'. - It will cause people to be ALOT more careful with their ships and take smaller / cheaper ones out instead, causing them to be rarer and more powerful at the same time. - It will put more stress on the 'healing' side of eve, (logistics, carriers) since a battleship will actually be a valuable asset.
What problem will this fix?
It will put the risk/reward ratio of missions were it should be and finally put missions on par with other means of income. It will put more stress on a currently underdeveloped aspect of Eve, that of 'healing'.
Please, serious input. It's not 'my' idea i've seen it proposed several times before and recently given it some more thought and i really do believe it will improve the game.
---
I know. lets do both and abolish insurance altogether.
|
eve warrior
Minmatar Infinitus Odium The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:20:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Sokratesz I see people still dont get it.
The point is NOT to make people have to grind hours to afford that battleship.
Point is to get them out of that battleship in the first place. Small ships are useful in pvp, really
Not everyone wants to fly around 0.0 in a frig, some of us find frigs to be very lame indeed. ALso how many pilots will use Capital ships in 0.0 if there is no payment of the lost of ships ?
Plz, stop tring to make ppl fly frigs in 0.0, there are more than enuf ppl running around in them. Its actualy nice to come across a bs as the loot is worth more and the risk of flying a bs is alot higher than a frig.
Eve warrior
|
Spank YouLater
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:26:00 -
[19]
Congrats you win the award for the ""Stupidest idea EVER"".
|
cal nereus
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:35:00 -
[20]
First, I want to commend the OP for the organization of the post. :)
Aside from the lag, blobbing is fine in my opinion. A successful tactic, reasonable when taking into consideration human nature. The only major fault is the lag. The problem with blobbing isn't the types of ships used, but the amount. 500 battleships lag as much as 500 frigates right?
|
|
Barthezz
Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:38:00 -
[21]
It'll do nothing to reduce blobbing, if anything it'll increase blobbing for one simple reason:
Safety in numbers
We already see it day after day when we go out in small-gang pvp, people that fight us dont bring equal numbers, they bring more. I cant really blame them as thats the way of the gank.
If anything you want people to risk -more- and to do that I think you could actually beef up insurance to include modules. At additional cost of course you should be able to insure your modules (and perhaps even implants).
However, this insurance should be a little bit different then what you have now and should include the frequency at which you lose ships.
Its pretty normal in car insurance, if you get into an accident your insurance fees go up. Also additionally to this you'd want to only pay out modules that got destroyed. If you didnt lose your ship at the end of the insurance period, you'll get a discount on the next insurance.
Insure a bit below average contract / market prices, even T2 ships.
End result (instead of what happens now), people could possibly think "oh a 5 man gang is coming, lets try and beat them with our 3 or 4 man gang" instead of "lets wait till we have 10 online so we can gank them".
Doubt it'll happen though, but we can keep on dreaming...
|
Gojyu
Gallente Ever Flow FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:39:00 -
[22]
I'm sorry, although it's a good idea, this will only increase the size of blobs, it won't do anything to decrease them.
|
Copine Callmeknau
Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:41:00 -
[23]
This would in all likelyhood increase blobbing, as small gang and solo you would me more likely to die.
Will increase demand on T2 ships, not decrease it. T2 ships currently have sfa insurance payout so it won't make a difference to them, however people like me who fly T1 ship because I lose very little due to insurance, will move to T2 ships when the only advantage of T1 is gone.
-----
Originally by: Patch86 Depressing as hell though. By the end, you feel like someone's eaten your kitten.
|
Syril Mert
Dawn of a new Empire Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:42:00 -
[24]
T2 ships cheaper? No. The one advantage T1 has over T2 is that T1 can be fully insured. If I can't fly a bs then I'll fly a T2 ship instead. Demand will increase and so will price.
Remove insurance in high sec instead. With just a little bit of care you don't need it.
|
murder one
Gallente Death of Virtue FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:42:00 -
[25]
I agree with the OP. Remove insurance. Only remove insurance from everywhere. 0.0, lowsec, highsec. Just get rid of it.
No need for it in todays Eve Economy. Half the players out there fly T2 ships anyway. Faction ships arn't insurable either.
Removing insurance would increase the ISK loss and help control the economy. It would add even more 'real' value to ISK and ships. Losing a battleship would hurt. A lot. Just like losing a HAC or a CS.
It wouldn't stop people from PVPing. But I do think it would push them into smaller ships for costs sake, which is a good thing.
Originally by: Goumindong it is at the point where it is impossible to determine whether or not you are trolling or if you area really out of your freaking mind.
|
R3dSh1ft
Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:45:00 -
[26]
Simply put, insurance means more pew pew.
Why would a life insurance company cover soldiers sent to Iraq? But they do. Not every ship in 0.0 dies. In fact I haven't lost a ship in 0.0 for many months but have insured several - they are making a profit out of me.
DKOD - an awesome synchronised killing machine |
BluOrange
Gallente Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:49:00 -
[27]
I like this idea. Make losing ships a scary and painful thing. Make saving ships something that's really worth doing. And, if you maintain insurance payments in lowsec, it's kind of a stealth-buff to lowsec.
Recruitment FAQ |
BluOrange
Gallente Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:51:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 24/07/2007 07:56:54
Sounds to me like it would increase blobbing to minimize risk of losing your ship, and overall make people hesitant in fighting eachother at all.
Why risk fighting someone when the reward is some crappy modules worth a few million isk, when you are risking a hundred million to do it?
What if wrecks in 0.0 dropped a significant portion of the minerals you'd need to build the ship? It could be less than the insurance payout, more inconvenient, and it would reward the person who holds the field at the end of the battle.
Recruitment FAQ |
Elaine Wiggan
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:57:00 -
[29]
It would also STOP people going to 0.0 as you not only increased the risk twofold. People simply will not venture out of lowsec to 0.0
|
Neena Valdi
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 10:23:00 -
[30]
The op seem to not understand removing the insurance payout in 0.0 will badly increase blobing and cloak / wcs whoring.
I'd say, make it worth insuring all t2 ships instead. Less trash fitting, less blobing - more pew pew.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |