Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Darthewok
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 05:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
For years, EVE has given <1/3 of the price of T2 and T3 ships in ship insurance. The message given by this to many players is: forget T2 and T3, they are a huge ISK sink. This has heavily turned off numerous players from flying T2 and T3 and therefore continuing to explore the game. This means after players have maxed out their skills on T1 ships, sometimes they just quit the game as the other ships seem to expensive to replace and are therefore just not worth using in PVP, PVE and training for.
I think CCP is doing a fantastic job starting to balance all the ship classes. However, balancing ship classes on top of an uneven insurance system is like making furniture assymetric to balance on a sloping floor!
CCP said they would resolve the technical debts of the features of past years instead of just adding new features. The poor T2 and T3 ship insurance is exactly such a debt that holds the game back from greater popularity.
Suggestion: Fix the insurance formulae for T2 and T3 ship insurance to cover at least 50% of the ship cost. Do give likes to the topic if you support this. Thanks. Watch PVP videos, post links to your PVP videos on the EVEwiki! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Player_videos |
Whiteknight03
WESAYSO Industries
28
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 05:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
You're not that smart are you? There's plenty of people who fly T2/T3. Technical Debt is a term that has absolutely nothing to do with changing a value in a database. Once you have the money and don't suck at the game, you can fly better ships.
0/10, Cry Moar |
Karak Bol
Cable Innovations
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 05:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
No Offense, but are we playing the same game? T1 ships are the rare ones, not T2/3. If you want to fly high tech, you better can afford it. T1 is expandable. This way, T1 ships have one huge advantage and frankly, often thats the only reason to use one. |
Cyzlaki
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
235
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 05:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Because insurance system is horribly outdated and broken and needs to be removed |
Luba Cibre
37
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 06:05:00 -
[5] - Quote
I never insure my ships, i'm just to lazy and this without being ****** rich. But the insurance system by itself isn't really broken, you just can't abuse it anymore. |
Diomidis
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
38
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 06:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
I am not sure but I've thought current T1 insurance return is "dynamic", monitoring current market prices etc. I am not sure if the calculation is done factoring in hull price, or mineral price to make it, still some mechanism is supposed to be in place (sorry, I don't keep track of dev blogs etc to verify).
T2 ships also did get a boost in their returns, yet not something significant to even bother.
Yes, I believe CCP could work it out should they've wanted, but on the other hand they do like money sinks in the game to move ISK out of the economy.
I strongly disagree tho with the ppl above stating that T2 pricing is not an issue "once you are good in the game", or that T1 ships are rare...T2 ships are very popular in frig sizes, and for very specialized cruisers - Recons / Logis.
HACs - other than the Vaga perhaps - have too few niche points to be used over the vastly cheaper BCs. Tier 3 BCs made that even more obvious by outclassing sniping HACs (even tho the price difference is smaller than it was with Tier 2 BCs).
T3s are popular for PVE and rarely encountered in PvP - unless it's a booster, a 100mn Tengu or some bait Proteus. Yes, some alliances had their FOTM months with tengu fleets etc, but that won't make T3s a "popular" PvP vessel. More ppl have seen videos etc, than have actual experience flying those. Nevertheless, T3s do have niche roles, that no other class can cover atm, so people flying those do have a reason to reach deeper in their pockets.
I tend to believe that HAC balancing should be accomplished through twicking their niche, probably in a similar way they've worked out the AF class lately. I would not mind HACs being more expensive, as long as those would give me good bang for my isk.
The "mobile-glass-cannon" role is already covered by the new Tier 3 BCs - pretty successfully that is. I really don't know how CCP will go around the above fact - probably with a sig radius bonus? Maybe with a buff in speed? ATM Tier 3s can keep up with the speed of HACs and obliterate them despite the tracking "handicap" using large guns...even if HACs were fully insurable, why would I pick one?
Give me a good "cause", and price will be balance by the market.... "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -- Bertrand Russell |
Darthewok
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 06:19:00 -
[7] - Quote
Insurance tracks raw material costs of ships.
The reason T1 insurance is OK is because raw material costs are a large part of the ship manufacturing.
The reason T2 insurance is terrible is because a large part of T2 ships cost is invention and the insurance formulae simply does not calculate this, only the raw material price. Is it rocket science to revise the formulae to include invention costs? No!
The reason T3 insurance is terrible is because a large part of T2 ships cost is re-engineering and the insurance formulae simply does not calculate this, only the raw material price. Is it rocket science to revise the formulae to include reengineering costs? No!
As to players who pay so much attention to balancing of T2/T3 ships with T1 and ignore insurance issues, think on this: You are talking about how to modify furniture to balance on a sloping floor rather than making the floor even first. Watch PVP videos, post links to your PVP videos on the EVEwiki! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Player_videos |
Cindy Marco
Expanse Security
42
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 07:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
If T2 and T3 had full insurance, why would anyone ever use T1? |
Darthewok
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 07:27:00 -
[9] - Quote
Cindy Marco wrote:If T2 and T3 had full insurance, why would anyone ever use T1?
Why would people not use Drakes, Hurricanes, Ravens, Dominixes, Capitals, Supercapitals? Because they are great ships in their own right!
Also, because T2 and T3 are still very much more expensive. Note: I am not asking for full insurance, just maybe like 50-60%.
Watch PVP videos, post links to your PVP videos on the EVEwiki! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Player_videos |
Mike Whiite
Progressive State
13
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 07:40:00 -
[10] - Quote
Cindy Marco wrote:If T2 and T3 had full insurance, why would anyone ever use T1?
That might sound like a reasonable arguement, though now every body is complaining of the over use of T1 Battlecruisers.
If the Insurance of T2 ships would be reasonable there wouold be a bigger variaty of ships arround.
Usualy the top insurance is about 30% to 50%, of the total price of the ship fitting included, if the insurance concerning T2 and faction hulls would be arround the same percentage it would boost the divercity of ships, while it still is a big (Financial) step to take.
It would work as a nerf to all T1 ships considering cost efficientness, As long as the price difference between T2 cruisers or even faction cruisers stays as it is now, you need to reduce the current Drakes and Canes dead before people are going to consider flying something else, by making that gap a little smaller you might get people in the T2 hulls. |
|
Darthewok
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 08:17:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:As long as the price difference between T2 cruisers or even faction cruisers stays as it is now, you need to reduce the current Drakes and Canes dead before people are going to consider flying something else, by making that gap a little smaller you might get people in the T2 hulls.
Exactly. We are talking about making the cost gap between T2 and T1 smaller, not removing it completely.
Let's say ship insurance is evened out for example to a flat 60% of the ship (after deducting the cost of the insurance). A BC costs 35mil. After 60% insurance, ship replacement cost is 14mil. A HAC costs 135mil. After 60% insurance, ship replacement cost is 54mil. A CS costs 300mil. After 60% insurance, ship replacement cost is 120mil.
A HAC still costs 40mil more to use, or 3.85x that of a BC. A CS still costs 106mil more to use, or 7.56x that of a BC. So BC is still expendable in comparison.
T2 still costs more upfront, and requires higher SP to use than T1. Just not such the incredible cost gap there is currently!
Watch PVP videos, post links to your PVP videos on the EVEwiki! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Player_videos |
Aestivalis Saidrian
SplitPush Mercantiles
27
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 08:19:00 -
[12] - Quote
Assuming they have a reason to exist. Shield Harbingers outperform Zealots. Sacrileage, Cerb and Eagle have 99 problems but being effective isn't one. Diemost is well... Ishtar needs some CPU but is a great ship. Vagabond is fine while I don't think the Munin has a right to exist peacefully while the Hurricane exists.
So, make HACs competitive across the board rather then specific examples of HACs being competitive
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
1845
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 08:20:00 -
[13] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:Cindy Marco wrote:If T2 and T3 had full insurance, why would anyone ever use T1? That might sound like a reasonable arguement, though now every body is complaining of the over use of T1 Battlecruisers. If the Insurance of T2 ships would be reasonable there wouold be a bigger variaty of ships arround. Usualy the top insurance is about 30% to 50%, of the total price of the ship fitting included, if the insurance concerning T2 and faction hulls would be arround the same percentage it would boost the divercity of ships, while it still is a big (Financial) step to take. It would work as a nerf to all T1 ships considering cost efficientness, As long as the price difference between T2 cruisers or even faction cruisers stays as it is now, you need to reduce the current Drakes and Canes dead before people are going to consider flying something else, by making that gap a little smaller you might get people in the T2 hulls.
Your experiences don't really coincide with mine. The cost of T2 ships isn't the issue why people don't fly some of them anymore. It's simply because the T3 and T1 ships outperform them in all important aspects. Point being the insurance/cost isn't the reason people don't like flying them. The reason is they aren't as competative ships as they used to be. Flying a pirate cruiser, T3 or T1 battlecruiser is almost always a better option performance wise these days. With T1 ships the lower cost is a bonus, but not the main reason to use them, unless you're fighting an ISK war.
A more effective solution to get people to fly more T2 again is simply to give a reason to do so and that means buffing them especially compared to T1 battlecruisers and faction ships. Going with insurance changes will just increase the all ready too abundant ISK faucets in the game even more and won't solve the problem, since you would still be better of flying something else. |
Darthewok
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 08:31:00 -
[14] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:The cost of T2 ships isn't the issue why people don't fly some of them anymore. On this point I disagree. 300mil+ cost for command ships with tiny insurance is definitely the reason why people don't fly them. CS and HACs: Absolutions, Sleipnirs, Ishtars, Vagabonds etc. are very very tasty ships.
There are definitely players out there who want to use them in PVP but stick only to the same old boring BCs year after year because of the insurance issue. Watch PVP videos, post links to your PVP videos on the EVEwiki! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Player_videos |
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
203
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 08:55:00 -
[15] - Quote
I have a simple solution to this problem, delete insurance entirely. Players are just too rich these days, even the newbies. BTW, I don't fly t3's because my race's (minmatar/amarr) t3's are inferior to ordinary t1/t2 ships. I fly t2 and faction all the time though. I'm by no means one of the richest players in eve. Abso's are wonderful ships btw, I don't fly harbs anymore now that I have CS5 . Still fly nano-canes though, it's just a hell of a nano gunboat. Obligatory wtb t2 hurricane.
Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7 |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
152
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 10:16:00 -
[16] - Quote
You insure your ships? I stopped insuring all my ships a while ago. Total waste of money to insure anything other than a Carrier you're jumping in too bait a fight. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2911
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 11:10:00 -
[17] - Quote
Aestivalis Saidrian wrote:Assuming they have a reason to exist. Shield Harbingers outperform Zealots.
No, they don't
Well, at PvE maybe, but who cares about that.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
86
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 11:24:00 -
[18] - Quote
I just paid a billion isk for my faction battleship and someone killed me. Why do I only get insurance like a T1 battleship?
Simply because you are paying more than the ships are worth. People are either manipulating the market prices for materials or people buy so many T2 and T3 ships that supply of materials can't keep up enough to make the selling prices go down.
Technically CCP could try and lower prices by seeding more materials, but chances are it might not help. Another issue is the fact very few people would fly T1 ships if T2 and T3 ships came down in price. Especially T3 ships have a few ridiculous stats already making them worth their 500m+ pricetag + the modules... |
Mike Whiite
Progressive State
14
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 11:38:00 -
[19] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:Your experiences don't really coincide with mine. The cost of T2 ships isn't the issue why people don't fly some of them anymore. It's simply because the T3 and T1 ships outperform them in all important aspects. Point being the insurance/cost isn't the reason people don't like flying them. The reason is they aren't as competative ships as they used to be. Flying a pirate cruiser, T3 or T1 battlecruiser is almost always a better option performance wise these days. With T1 ships the lower cost is a bonus, but not the main reason to use them, unless you're fighting an ISK war.
A more effective solution to get people to fly more T2 again is simply to give a reason to do so and that means buffing them especially compared to T1 battlecruisers and faction ships. Going with insurance changes will just increase the all ready too abundant ISK faucets in the game even more and won't solve the problem, since you would still be better of flying something else.
Your argument is based on the T1 battle cruisers and something else from what the OP is putting forward. The T1 Battle cruiser only hurts the HAC, as the T1 Cruisers hurts the AF. I think that is more because of the game mechanics and the role appointed to these ships then their power, Where all other T2 ships have a niche in their performance (stealth, Ewar, Logistics, ect, ect) Assault ships need very general skills to do what they are good at, which will make them look like the next ships in line. The other T2 cruisers have their use over T1 Battle cruisers, within the Niche they where build, though their price keeps people away from using these in greater numbers and insurance could make that gap a little smaller A part of the community is screaming about the Drake it makes t2 ships useless, in fact the only ships the Drake really surpasses is the Cerberus and the Nighthawk. The other ships are not in competition with it, the Nighthawk should be looked at, if youGÇÖre less interested then your T1 hull something is wrong. The Cerberus on the other hand isnGÇÖt so much different from a Hawk compared to a Caracal, with the only difference that a hawk is fitted a difference of 10 to 15 million times the price of a caracal en the Cerberus close to 70 to 100 million more expensive to the Drake.
|
Darthewok
Perkone Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 11:55:00 -
[20] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:I just paid a billion isk for my faction battleship and someone killed me. Why do I only get insurance like a T1 battleship? Simply because you are paying more than the ships are worth.
Let's be clear on the difference between the market and the insurance system: The MARKET PRICE of your ship was decided by demand and supply. You paid more on the market for a faction battleship because it is more powerful than a T1 battleship. That much is already in the price of the battleship. The market did its job. Fine.
INSURANCE on the other hand, is a formula that is decided by CCP alone. It is directly Devs directly fixing cost efficiency of ships by NON-MARKET methods. The insurance formula is whatever it is decided by Devs, NOT THE MARKET. The situation is Devs have differentially treated T2 and T1 insurance by not a minor amount but by an enormous amount. I just think the gap in insurance treatment of T1 and T2 is far too wide and should be narrowed. Watch PVP videos, post links to your PVP videos on the EVEwiki! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Player_videos |
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
86
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 13:11:00 -
[21] - Quote
If the insurance is that bad why does people continue to fly T2 and T3 ships? It's becauase they are still worth it... |
Felin Holtz
Frequent Moose
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 13:43:00 -
[22] - Quote
If T2 & T3 insurance paid out more than they would a huge ISK sink would be removed from the game. Money that comes into the economy needs to be able to leave it, and the amount of 'free isk' being injected into the game economy is already higher than the sinks that are around to reduce it, without making the situation even worse.
It is not simply a question of how 'easy' it would be to redesign the insurance formula to include T2/T3 ship production costs, the wider economical implications also have to be considered and it is these implications that mean what you're asking for will never be put in game.
Besides which, there should be a drawback for using T2/T3.
I'd be up for them reducing T1 insurance to 50-60% and removing insurance on T2/3 completely.
The whole insurance mechanic makes absolutely no sense anyway. What insurance company in their right might would insure ships specifically designed to be taken into a combat situation?
Also, new players leaving because they can't afford T2/T3? Is that some sort of joke? I've never once met or heard of anyone that has claimed to be leaving because of T2/T3 ship price levels. Maybe you need to learn how to make more isk.... |
Darthewok
Perkone Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 14:14:00 -
[23] - Quote
Felin Holtz wrote:If T2 & T3 insurance paid out more than they would a huge ISK sink would be removed from the game. Money that comes into the economy needs to be able to leave it, and the amount of 'free isk' being injected into the game economy is already higher than the sinks that are around to reduce it, without making the situation even worse.
Too much ISK in the economy is one problem. Ship balance is another problem. Messing with ship insurance to solve too much ISK is transporting an economic problem to mess up another unrelated area, which is PVP ship balance. Excess ISK needs to be solved by some other method anyway, insurance is not the right method to deal with it! In trying to soak up excess ISK of a small segment of EVE, it is screwing over the balance for the average player of EVE. CCP is going to have to come up more ISK sinks anyway regardless of the situation with insurance.
Felin Holtz wrote:Besides which, there should be a drawback for using T2/T3. T2/T3 already costs more in the market. T3 loses skills when you die! Why do you need MORE drawbacks?? Watch PVP videos, post links to your PVP videos on the EVEwiki! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Player_videos |
Mike Whiite
Progressive State
14
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 14:27:00 -
[24] - Quote
[Felin Holtz wrote:If T2 & T3 insurance paid out more than they would a huge ISK sink would be removed from the game. Money that comes into the economy needs to be able to leave it, and the amount of 'free isk' being injected into the game economy is already higher than the sinks that are around to reduce it, without making the situation even worse.
It is not simply a question of how 'easy' it would be to redesign the insurance formula to include T2/T3 ship production costs, the wider economical implications also have to be considered and it is these implications that mean what you're asking for will never be put in game.
That would be a solid arguement if the use of T2 hulls would stay the same, though there would probably a increase in the use, which would be more money rolling in the economy, nor are the insurances infinate, several of my insurances ended without the need to pay out, wich is money that really doesn't come back.
Quote:Besides which, there should be a drawback for using T2/T3.
Nobody said it should be a total insurance, T1 platina insuranses roughly pay up 30% to 50% of the invested amount.
Quote:I'd be up for them reducing T1 insurance to 50-60% and removing insurance on T2/3 completely.
The whole insurance mechanic makes absolutely no sense anyway. What insurance company in their right might would insure ships specifically designed to be taken into a combat situation?
Within a time limit and a to a percentage of the new value, that is actualy quite possible. but completely irellevant for this discussion.
Quote:Also, new players leaving because they can't afford T2/T3? Is that some sort of joke? I've never once met or heard of anyone that has claimed to be leaving because of T2/T3 ship price levels. Maybe you need to learn how to make more isk....
Neverheard that either, though I do hear a lot of complaining about EVE being dominated by T1 Battlecruisers, and it's quite safe to assume price has something to do with that, CCP has spoke out they like to see more divercity in the ships flying New Eden.
The only way to do that is by making the gap (cost effective) smaller between the lines of spaceships, untill then there will be a small group of T1 ships that will dominate the battlefield. There should be a gap between T1 and T2 ships I totaly agree, though it should be in proportion. |
Wacktopia
Noir.
170
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 15:14:00 -
[25] - Quote
sYnc Vir wrote:You insure your ships? I stopped insuring all my ships a while ago. Total waste of money to insure anything other than a Carrier you're jumping in too bait a fight.
I pretty-much go along with this. if you're in a habbit of dying all the time then insurance is worth it on sub-cap T1 hulls. Otherwise its not. Vote Alekseyev Karrde for CSM7. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=67574 Get War Decs, Sov, Low Sec that works.-á |
Firh
Duct Solutions
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 20:43:00 -
[26] - Quote
T2 costs aren't the issue, T1 costs are. Several T1 ships have become increasingly more expensive and it's making the low-cost PvP alternative less and less viable.
You shouldn't be crippled in PvP just because you don't wish to invest (I say invest but most people don't expect to see a return on their isk spent) in T2 or faction ships. We're not at that point yet but we're getting there as the arsenal of ships available to the impoverished PvP'er has greatly been reduced in size.
Cheaper PvP would mean more people pew-pew'ing (= more fun) and a little more forgiving profit margins to the for-profit PvPers. |
Darthewok
Perkone Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 21:05:00 -
[27] - Quote
Firh wrote:T2 costs aren't the issue, T1 costs are. Several T1 ships have become increasingly more expensive and it's making the low-cost PvP alternative less and less viable.
You shouldn't be crippled in PvP just because you don't wish to invest (I say invest but most people don't expect to see a return on their isk spent) in T2 or faction ships. We're not at that point yet but we're getting there as the arsenal of ships available to the impoverished PvP'er has greatly been reduced in size.
Cheaper PvP would mean more people pew-pew'ing (= more fun) and a little more forgiving profit margins to the for-profit PvPers.
Somehow the nature of EVE PVP has gone from affordable, fun and common to expensive, risk-adverse and rare. This is directly because of continual PVP inflation.
The devs are trying to deal with the problem with the rich having excess ISK so they engineer rising costs of ships and deny insurance for T2 and T3. However, in so doing, they directly are hurting EVE PVP for the not-rich.
This is the direction EVE is headed. PVP is becoming more expensive, more rare, more cautious and less fun. Find some other ISK sinks that do not hurt PVP. Stop taxing PVPers and PVP in order to deal with the completely unrelated problem of income inequality and excess ISK in EVE! Watch PVP videos, post links to your PVP videos on the EVEwiki! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Player_videos |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
154
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 21:51:00 -
[28] - Quote
Somehow the nature of EVE PVP has gone from affordable, fun and common to expensive, risk-adverse and rare. This is directly because of continual PVP inflation.
The devs are trying to deal with the problem with the rich having excess ISK so they engineer rising costs of ships and deny insurance for T2 and T3. However, in so doing, they directly are hurting EVE PVP for the not-rich.
This is the direction EVE is headed. PVP is becoming more expensive, more rare, more cautious and less fun. Find some other ISK sinks that do not hurt PVP. Stop taxing PVPers and PVP in order to deal with the completely unrelated problem of income inequality and excess ISK in EVE![/quote]
PvP is not expensive, nor is it hard to find.
A Rupture Fit, Rigged, Droned and with ammo is a mere 35m isk. Cheap as ****. Buy 10 of them stage yourself in a low sec entry system undock fly around kill or die, come back rinse and repeat. 10 chances of pew pew fun, and all for 350m isk. This is cheap pvp.
However if you're stupidly poor replace rupture with rifter and 35m a ship with 4m and go be a poor ass scurb pvp'er for a while. You'll have fun, but its frigs and only poor people fly frigs. |
Darthewok
Perkone Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 22:01:00 -
[29] - Quote
sYnc Vir wrote:A Rupture Fit, Rigged, Droned and with ammo is a mere 35m isk. Cheap as ****. Buy 10 of them stage yourself in a low sec entry system undock fly around kill or die, come back rinse and repeat. 10 chances of pew pew fun, and all for 350m isk. This is cheap pvp.
However if you're stupidly poor replace rupture with rifter and 35m a ship with 4m and go be a poor ass scurb pvp'er for a while. You'll have fun, but its frigs and only poor people fly frigs.[/i]
What you are in effect saying is that PVPers should fly obviously inferior ships because the competitive ones are being priced more and more out of their hands. The performance bar has already moved on from Ruptures and Rifters. Ruptures are a joke when T3 cruisers are not uncommon sights in PVP. Rifters are a joke when frigate PVP is now dominated by AFs. This in no way contradicts the point that PVPing is becoming more and more expensive in general. Watch PVP videos, post links to your PVP videos on the EVEwiki! http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Player_videos |
Ehn Roh
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 22:11:00 -
[30] - Quote
35 or 350 million isn't cheap PvP, 900k is cheap PvP.
I don't care about insurance on T2 hulls and fly them all the time, but I think some people need some ISK perspective.
The last BC I bought, I got for 17 mil. They work fine; T2 is not required.
I also think some people are focusing too much on solo PvP. In 2-3 days a noob can be helping out in a gang/fleet. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |