| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Exile Devaltos
One Eyed Teddies
The InterBus Initiative
   |
Posted - 2008.04.06 13:39:00 -
[1]
Do it. This isn't a troll, but a logical observation.
Or, if you can't remove it, make it costlier, or the time interval for the insurance shorter.
You could even add contract terms that the insurance will not be paid out to a player who fires the first shot or who is Concordorkened.
 Originally by: Wrangler
Thats odd, I always drink after dealing with you people..  
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 13:46:00 -
[2]
Well, you could keep it as is for frigates, cruisers and even to some degree for capital ships... but battlecruisers and battleships geting a serious paygrade cut might be a very good idea.
1|2|3|4|5. |
Raging Knight
Virulence.
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 14:25:00 -
[3]
I don't see why insurance needs to be removed, new players would have a real tough time if there wasn't insurance, however remove insurance payout when the ship is lost to concord, ends suicide ganks, or atleast most of them.
|
Zephyr Rengate
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 14:28:00 -
[4]
No.
People would be less willing to pvp, it would be far too costly to take risks in pvp without insurance.
Though maybe remove insurance from illegal attacks in high sec only.
|
An Anarchyyt
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 14:33:00 -
[5]
Your logic astounds me! I bow to you, oh master of deductive reasoning.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 14:35:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Exile Devaltos
Do it. This isn't a troll, but a logical observation.
Or, if you can't remove it, make it costlier, or the time interval for the insurance shorter.
You could even add contract terms that the insurance will not be paid out to a player who fires the first shot or who is Concordorkened.
In my life theres been heartache and pain,
don't know if I can face it again.
___
Eve Players are not very smart.
Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Alski
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 14:45:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Alski on 06/04/2008 14:47:39
You seem to be under the impression that if insurance was removed the only effect would be an end to suicide ganking.
1. It wouldn’t, it would just raise the cost and therefore the minimum target value, faction fit pve ravens and such would still be poped, fools hauling BPOs and other valuables in frigates would still die, and industrials full of nice loot would still be economically valid targets for relatively cheep stealth bombers and gank fit cruisers, freighters hauling multiple billions would still be worth killing.
2. Removing insurance would absolutely kill small scale PvP in empire.
3. People who can afford to fly T2 ships would be at even more of an advantage over poorer players.
4. Loads of carebears would quit or at least be turned off the game.
5. Newbies would be penalised incredibly harshly
6. Worst of all it would force even more blobing, when the combined value of the ship hulls alone of a 60 man BS gang equals somewhere around 6 billion isk, who in there right mind would risk a near equally numbered engagement?
7. 0.0 would plunge even deeper into "capital ships online" because the risk of flying battleship fleets that can be poped like paper in a big fleet engagement being two to three times as hard to replace.
Needless to say your "argument" didn’t convince me.
Edit: forgot to add quotes around the word "argument".
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Exile Devaltos
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:02:00 -
[8]
Your points are valid, but EVE, for all it's comparisons to real world economies, has a buggered insurance system. It simply makes no sense that you can recieve money for blowing your own ship up.
*shrugs* Just hoping that CCP will do something about it.
 Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Originally by: Wrangler
Thats odd, I always drink after dealing with you people..
|
AeonPhoenix
Triwave
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:12:00 -
[9]
Edited by: AeonPhoenix on 06/04/2008 15:14:45
I think this idea has logic and sense to it.
However...
If the Tier 1 insurance was utter crap, everyone who can will just fly tier 2 all the time.
All it does is hurt the new/poor players.
Unless you build them yourself, at crappy market prices you stand to lose around 10 million on battle cruisers and around 20 million on battleships, not that bad is it?
|
Rawr Cristina
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:15:00 -
[10]
Originally by: AeonPhoenix
If the Tier 1 insurance was utter crap, everyone who can will just fly tier 2 all the time.
All it does is hurt the new/poor players.
This. Lots of PvPers fly Drakes/Harbingers/Hurricanes all the time instead of their respective T2 counterparts due to how effective they are for their cost. They cost next to nothing to lose unrigged - take that away and they'd just be flying T2 again 
...
|
|
|
Alski
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:29:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Alski on 06/04/2008 15:29:34
Originally by: Exile Devaltos
It simply makes no sense that you can recieve money for blowing your own ship up.
The thing is I don’t really see that there is anything wrong with that, its main advantage is that it protects new players from ruining themselves while learning the game, and there already are not inconsiderable penalties for suicide ganking, loss of sec status, isk invested in modules, and the risk of the loot your aiming to get being blown up.
Sure that’s probably small fry compared to the guy who loses a faction fit battleship, but when it comes to such losses people tend to forget the whole “don’t fly what you can’t afford etc…”
Personally I don’t see anything wrong with suicide ganking, I’ve never done it but then as I said in another thread all these constant whines are doing for me – is to convince me that since its such a popular subject it must be well worth doing, and perhaps I should give it a try, and its worth baring that in mind since I imagine many people are thinking exactly the same thing, and is probably likely the reason we’re seeing an increase in the amount of threads about it – the activity itself is almost as old as Eve, it is not a new “thing” that people have just discovered, its just the forum whine flavour of the month and is probably perpetuating itself because of it.
IMO, the only aspect of suicide ganking that is currently worthy of any attention is freighter ganking, I’ve done a lot of freighter ops, and know how damn slow and boring they are to escort, I’ve also done the maths on what exactly it would take for an escort to be able to save a freighter from a suicide gank using remote logistics (shield/armor rep) and while its possible the amount of manpower required is slightly excessive, and so if CCP were to boost the hitpoints of fighters I’d say that would be a good change, but as for the rest of the stuff that gets suicided, there are enough ways to avoid it or at least greatly reduce the risk
And that’s the way I see it, there is nothing wrong with suicide ganking or insurance, but in those areas where there is a problem or imbalance, nerfing insurance or the activity itself it not the answer, the answer lies in boosting other aspects of the game for the benefit of all, such as more plentifull (and therefore cheeper) faction loot, or increasing the hitpoints or other stats of vulnerable ships, such as Freighters, Blockade runners, and Transports.
-
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
General Coochie
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:32:00 -
[12]
Not everyone sells GTCs or wanna mission to PvP  (not saying you do) a lot of ppl fund their PvP by doing this. T2 ships not having a real insurance is enough.
I can agree to not let ppl killed by concord get their insurance though.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
The Vigil and The Caracal (duo PvP movie) |
Darwin Duck
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:33:00 -
[13]
In a perfect digital world I would agree to remove insurance. HOWEVER, losing you ship due to a server meltdown,lagout,de-sync and so on Insurance is needed. Losing you ship is ok if it's your fault, but loosing it to server issuses is not.
There is always petitions and I only have good experiences with the GM's when petitioning ship losses, I have gotten it bback everytime. But I have only done 4 petitions for ship losses since jan 2004, thats under 1 per year.
But I still don't think logs can "prove" every server issue ship loss.
Insurance has to stay, it could be tweeked though to make payouts a bit lower. Like only giving 75% of the ship value instead of 110% for premium.
(110% is not counting modules)
|
Stefx
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:34:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Exile Devaltos
It simply makes no sense that you can recieve money for blowing your own ship up. Quote:
So, you want anything that makes no sense to be removed? Like faster-than-light travel?
Like transfering 27 500 m3 of ore into another container in 0.1 seconds?
-----------
MOP recruiting Industrialists/miners/traders/missioners/etc |
Tim Dust
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:36:00 -
[15]
If the goal is a realistic economy, why not let players provide the insurance and determine the rates themselves?
You could have a seperate program for noob insurance, so that newer players aren't discouraged. (Maybe call it "noobfare?")
|
Euriti
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:44:00 -
[16]
And kill pvp ?
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Benco97
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:45:00 -
[17]
I'm all for the removal of insurance on anything bigger than Cruisers.
Then again, I'm all for the removal of stat-implants and learning skills and WTZ and jumpclones among other things.
Originally by: Kirjava
This man speaks the truth, when he farts we count the length in seconds and make squillions buying winning lottery tickets.
|
Ralara
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:47:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Exile Devaltos
Do it. This isn't a troll, but a logical observation.
Or, if you can't remove it, make it costlier, or the time interval for the insurance shorter.
You could even add contract terms that the insurance will not be paid out to a player who fires the first shot or who is Concordorkened.
do you not get it?
a brutix + fittings is like 30m tops
I'd still gank your 50m badger II.
here's a better idea: stop hauling around expensive stuff in paper bags!
--
Ralara / Ralarina |
Alski
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:48:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Alski on 06/04/2008 15:48:56
Originally by: Tim Dust
If the goal is a realistic economy, why not let players provide the insurance and determine the rates themselves?
Pretty simple economics is the reason, in real-life there are many drivers who go 5 years or more without making a single claim, and of those that do claim the majority of them are for minor damage, only a small proportion of the claims made are for theft or a complete write-off of the vehicle or other item that requires a full and complete payout anywhere near the original value of the item, and another minority proportion of the population never make a claim at all – this is how the insurance companies turn a profit.
Whereas… this is Eve… need I say more?
-
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Trix Rabbit
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:54:00 -
[20]
The goal of EVE is not and has never been to create a perfectly realistic analogue of the real world. It has been and will always continue to be to create a system that allows players to have fun. Getting rid of insurance is not fun, its a knee jerk reaction to suicide ganks that are taking place without economic justifications. Essentially you wish to change a major game mechanic because of the goonswarm.
It is especially silly when you consider that the goonswarms tactics can be solved through a multitude of less invasive techniques already suggested on these forums many times over.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
|
|
NightmareX
Quam Singulari
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:58:00 -
[21]
Edited by: NightmareX on 06/04/2008 15:58:17
Jesus, first they want some of the pvp tactics removed by nerfing nano ships to hell and back, and now you want to remove PVP completly. Uhm HELLOOOOO?
Jesus ******* christ, when is this madness gonna stop. THINK BEFORE YOU POST.
|
Tim Dust
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:01:00 -
[22]
I definitely would not want to remove pvp.
|
Benco97
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:13:00 -
[23]
I don't want to remove PVP either, I like it. I just feel that loss makes things more real, more exciting.
These rich people with their huge warships who only lose a fraction of their money when it's blown up.. how is that loss? They may as well just get all their stuff back in the nearest space station automatically.
Loss should hurt unless you budget yourself, not just "lol, i'md buy insurbance and noaw i no lose nufin'"
Eve IS PVP, I don't dispute that.
Eve also used to be hard, it's a shame it isn't any more.
I've never used insurance myself and I never will, don't care that it puts me at a disadvantage to those who do, it's that very disadvantage that makes the game fun. We're not in happy happy rainbow land where cows crap chocolate and rain is cola, we're in eve space and to me that means watch your back, stay vigilant and always remember to wear gloves.
Originally by: Kirjava
This man speaks the truth, when he farts we count the length in seconds and make squillions buying winning lottery tickets.
|
NightmareX
Quam Singulari
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:24:00 -
[24]
Edited by: NightmareX on 06/04/2008 16:25:18
More expensive to lose in PVP = Lesser PVP.
That's the fact. EVE is a pvp game, and it need to let newer players get into PVP without hurting them to much.
Remove insurance = Many pvpers will leave this game, including many new players.
I don't want to make this game into a boring sucking on roids all day long, or to do missions.
If i want to kill npcs, i have Command & Conquer 3 - Tiberium Wars Kane Edition. And i also don't pay to kill npcs in this game, i pay to play / PVP with other peoples and kill them .
|
Ralara
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:26:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Benco97
These rich people with their huge warships who only lose a fraction of their money when it's blown up.. how is that loss?
Um, the loss would be the Gist X type this, the Corpi A type that, the Officer's Modified so-and-so....
--
Ralara / Ralarina |
Exile Devaltos
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:27:00 -
[26]
Actually, this thread wasn't made with suicide ganks in mind. It was made with the idea that you could buy a ship and insure it, and fully fit it, and then lose it and get most if not all your money back.
I was thinking more on market terms and how insurance *could* affect the economy if players are able to do as mentioned above.
Perhaps I'm wrong  and there are no longterm effects on the markets?
And also, the fact that people automatically assumed this was a thread against suicide ganking when there was no mention of it, is humerous, I find.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Originally by: Wrangler
Thats odd, I always drink after dealing with you people..
|
Terraform
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:35:00 -
[27]
If you want to make suicide ganking less profitable, remove insurance for ships dying to sentries or concord, or even just concord. Problem solved, next!
|
northwesten
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:38:00 -
[28]
I think two thing just needs to change!
You do the crim you wont have youe money like ganking people in High sec.
Also
Depending on your Sec ratings if your below 0 then it should increase in price and your corp standing should take into account! Tho people like higher then 0 doesn't get a discount on insurance.
This to me will crub the behaver of pilots in high/low sec! so its only the bad boys get hurt! good people wins! right? Now why cant they do this?
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Trinity Corporate Services
|
Alski
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:42:00 -
[29]
Originally by: northwesten
I think two thing just needs to change!
You do the crim you wont have youe money like ganking people in High sec.
Also
Depending on your Sec ratings if your below 0 then it should increase in price and your corp standing should take into account! Tho people like higher then 0 doesn't get a discount on insurance.
This to me will crub the behaver of pilots in high/low sec! so its only the bad boys get hurt! good people wins! right? Now why cant they do this?
Nice troll
Because Eve isn’t about PVP and Pirates are just bad people eh?
-
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
northwesten
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:45:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Alski
Originally by: northwesten
I think two thing just needs to change!
You do the crim you wont have youe money like ganking people in High sec.
Also
Depending on your Sec ratings if your below 0 then it should increase in price and your corp standing should take into account! Tho people like higher then 0 doesn't get a discount on insurance.
This to me will crub the behaver of pilots in high/low sec! so its only the bad boys get hurt! good people wins! right? Now why cant they do this?
Nice troll
Because Eve isnĘt about PVP and Pirates are just bad people eh?
troll? learn what a troll is moron!
and no EVE isnt just about PVP and Pirates so again learn what eve is!! EVE is wider than that!
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Trinity Corporate Services
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |