| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gamesguy
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
    |
Posted - 2008.09.14 10:15:00 -
[121]
Originally by: MotherMoon
Edited by: MotherMoon on 14/09/2008 10:02:53
Originally by: Gamesguy
So this newbie that can only use t1 battleships somehow lost a t2 fitted battleship?
If this newbie is so new that he can only use t1 fitted battleships, then it will cost him barely anything to replace it. Would you like to check the cost of losing a t1 fitted bs after insurance?
sure let me check anywhere but jita, one moment.
ok tech 1 typhoon battleship
cost:80 mil
insurance cost for full: 20 million
gear for tech 1 fit: 6 mil
that's 26 million isk lost.
which he's right is not a lot... for ME maybe. I have about 500 million isk and lots of ships, but I remember when getting a battleship replaced took 6 hours in a cyclone.
HOwever it seems in jita you can buy typhoons for 60-65 million isk. SO I suppose it's more about actully knowing the rops and be willing to fly that battleship back. time sink.
A good idea is to well I won't say :)
Roflmao. So buying a ship in jita is somehow such a huge burden now?
Concession accepted.
 |
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 10:36:00 -
[122]
Originally by: MotherMoon
which he's right is not a lot... for ME maybe. I have about 500 million isk and lots of ships, but I remember when getting a battleship replaced took 6 hours in a cyclone.
If you are too new/too incompetent/too lazy/too opinionated to make at least 20 mil per hour in PvE, maybe you should not be flying battleships in PvP...
And if you are reading this, you have arrived at the signature without noticing...
|
Beltantis Torrence
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 10:43:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Lady Valory
snaike, pvp wouldnt be so expensive if you weren't constantly outclassed by multi-billionaires who can throw away ships like water...
let's face it the "economic war of attrition" has gotten out of hand as many good pvpers are like you... What I mean, is there is so much free isk and so much stockpiles of ships and insurance that people can just overwhelm your pvp skills by losing 10 ships to your one, and they still just laugh and get a new ship. I don't like that, and I hope you don't either...
In other words, you wouldn't be so outclassed if there weren't endless parades of expensive ships for the rich to play with...
Seeing as how you're proposition is regressive as opposed to progressive, its not making a point. It'll throttle PVP for people who have a lot of money and it will entirely shut it down for everyone else. I'm not flying fleet battleships if they cost me 400 mil every time I lose a rigged one.
|
Local Jobs
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 10:58:00 -
[124]
Edited by: Local Jobs on 14/09/2008 10:58:56
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: El Yatta
As much as I want to make eve harder, darker, more cruel and cold, the OP (and other "remove all insurance" types ITT) has got it completely wrong.
Its a ******ed idea: the aim of making it cruel, dark, a harsh universe, is to force people to compete. Its harsh because everything is PVP(or should be, I'm looking at you, worthless mission runners who should not be playing EVE). The markets are PVP, resource gathering is competitive, and of course, combat and empire building is PVP.
Just making things more expensive does the exact opposite: it nerfs PVP, makes people, ie. targets, far more risk averse, which leads to less combat. People do NOT deliberately open themselves to being ****d if they can help it, and if their ship will really hurt to replace, they just wont expose it to PVP.
That sounds rubbish to me, as a game experience.
Taking this to its logical conclusion, everything in EVE should be free to encourage harsh PvP.
Thats not taking it to its logical conclusion, its perverting it to try and make you sound right.
Nowhere does he suggest we make everything free. He suggested instead that we /don't/ cut the number of PVP targets by a factor of 10 overnight. Nowhere does the OP or you explain whats actually wrong with the status quo other than "dying doesnt hurt". Well, its the same as losing any other pixels: it only hurts if you let it. The smacktalk and emorage I see pretty often tells me dying hurts some people, right now, on TQ.
People dont seem to understand: more expensive DOESNT make the universe any crueller, it just makes it less fun to play in. Making every resource and ISK source competitive (e.g. no missions) and subject to it being taken from you by force (by varying degrees according to difficulty, reward and security) would make it a lot crueller and cooler.
|
Steve Hawkings
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 11:10:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Local Jobs
Nowhere does he suggest we make everything free. He suggested instead that we /don't/ cut the number of PVP targets by a factor of 10 overnight. Nowhere does the OP or you explain whats actually wrong with the status quo other than "dying doesnt hurt". Well, its the same as losing any other pixels: it only hurts if you let it.
Very true.
It hurts alot of people more as they buy GTCs and therefor they assume their pixels are worth RL cash.
Time is not Money and minerals i mine are free!! |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 13:10:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: MotherMoon
which he's right is not a lot... for ME maybe. I have about 500 million isk and lots of ships, but I remember when getting a battleship replaced took 6 hours in a cyclone.
If you are too new/too incompetent/too lazy/too opinionated to make at least 20 mil per hour in PvE, maybe you should not be flying battleships in PvP...
  
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 13:15:00 -
[127]
First, why would a 'noob' be doing level 4's? At his skill level and abilities, he'd make more money per hour doing level 3's, maybe even 2's, wouldn't he? Probably would be in a quieter location, too.
Hey, if you mission above your means, that's your own problem.
Wait, what was the original post about? Money being too easy?
I thought that this was CCP's way of catering to the pirate crowd, a group of individuals who seem to play EvE just for the combat PvP and nothing else. They moaned and complained, CCP provided more ways to make money, ships are cheap, and more people are *supposedly* willing to lose them.
Doesn't change the fact that those who were unwilling to lose what they had before still don't seem to be willing. They are just hoarding, collecting in hisec, and may venture out one day when they have capital skills ...
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 14:11:00 -
[128]
The funny thing is, making it easier for people to make ISK in hi-sec doesn't seem to make them less risk-averse. In fact it seems to make them MORE risk averse.
The more they have to lose, the less they're willing to risk it. The more they have, the more safety they demand.
Mirrors my own experience in various 0.0 corps and alliances - it's the ones with plenty of ISK you can almost never get to x up. The poor buggers that can barely sc**** together the price of a T1 battlecruiser will join in.
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 14:42:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Malcanis
The funny thing is, making it easier for people to make ISK in hi-sec doesn't seem to make them less risk-averse. In fact it seems to make them MORE risk averse.
The more they have to lose, the less they're willing to risk it. The more they have, the more safety they demand.
Mirrors my own experience in various 0.0 corps and alliances - it's the ones with plenty of ISK you can almost never get to x up. The poor buggers that can barely sc**** together the price of a T1 battlecruiser will join in.
Inverse relationships. Doesn't make sense, logically, but experience proves it's true.
Also, there's the bit of transport. If your a new character joining a losec corp or nulsec group, you can sell off that old frigate, and just take your BC down. Or liquidate all your assets, and just buy them again.
You put six months or a year in hisec, you've probably got enough to fill up a freighter or two. Do you leave it behind? What if you need some of it? Who'll transport it for you?
Yeah, those players are going to be far LESS likely to comfortable with moving. Hisec NEEDS that middle ground where no money is made, so that low skilled players get out and experience the game for what it is, and maybe now and again a hisec trader with umpteen billion SP or a major industrialist comes back to make big bucks.
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 14:55:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Local Jobs
Nowhere does he suggest we make everything free.
And I didn't say that he did.
Originally by: Local Jobs
He suggested instead that we /don't/ cut the number of PVP targets by a factor of 10 overnight.
Actually he stated that harsh PvP has nothing to do with how much it costs, and I showed how that is incorrect.
Originally by: Local Jobs
Nowhere does the OP or you explain whats actually wrong with the status quo other than "dying doesnt hurt".
If you don't understand why the biggest non-captial T1 ships being considered disposable ships is a bad thing, stop posting.
Originally by: Local Jobs
Well, its the same as losing any other pixels: it only hurts if you let it. The smacktalk and emorage I see pretty often tells me dying hurts some people, right now, on TQ.
Oh really? So if I don't let it, it doesn't cost me anything to lose a ship? STFU. The disposability of a ship is a function of it's effective cost and your income. How much you care about losing it affects only your willingness to fight at all.
It is entirely possible to have some too scared to fight who wouldn't lose much anyway, and someone else who fights constantly but financially cripples themselves in the process.
Originally by: Local Jobs
People dont seem to understand: more expensive DOESNT make the universe any crueller, it just makes it less fun to play in.
People don't seem to understand that a cruel universe and having any ship up to and including a BS be no significant loss are contradictory.
Originally by: Local Jobs
Making every resource and ISK source competitive (e.g. no missions) and subject to it being taken from you by force (by varying degrees according to difficulty, reward and security) would make it a lot crueller and cooler.
That is a nice idea in isolation. But, as before, taking the overall suggestion to it's logical conclusion, all ISK sources should be competitive and everything that costs ISK should be free in order to create harsh PvP.
-
DesuSigs |
|
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 16:27:00 -
[131]
Edited by: Dantes Revenge on 14/09/2008 16:28:51
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
The fact that people keep saying this doesn't make it true. When someone destroys your ship you lose a certain amount of effort/time. This is what makes EVE's PvP meaningful.
If meaningful means grinding for isk to buy a new ship, it's going to fail. Many PVPers don't want to grind missions or go mining for the isk and that's why they PVP so often. Most have very low or non existant industry skills anyway, they spent all their time training to be a good combat pilot. Even thier mission skills with respect to the social group for better rewards are scarce. Someone who has trained for PVP and plays Eve for the PVP isn't going to want to do PVE most of the time.
Quote:
Those who enjoy meaningful PvP will continue to do so, and the game may in fact draw in and retain more players of this type.
But on the flipside, it will scare off a lot of casual players. Those with families, jobs and lives outside of Eve don't have the time to grind for isk.
Quote:
Those who can't stand losing their hard work when they die will continue to avoid PvP and the impact to them will be minimal.
Or they will quit because the game does not offer them what they want.
Quote:
Those who don't like taking large risks will continue flying what they can afford to lose regularly, only after such a change this might not be a carrier.
Have a look at the market for capital ships sometime, the biggest problem isn't haveing the cash to buy one, it's finding one for sale.
You have to remember that many alliances/corps have a fleet set up for particular purposes and each ship has a role. If that fleet includes a carrier, having one popped is bad enough, not being able to replace it for days could be a disaster.
If you check the insurance returns for any cap ship, you'll see that it's already far less than the price anyway and you always have to figure in the cost of insurance as well. Only with T1 ships, BS and below, can you hope to get your investment back but if you factor in the cost of the insurance, you're still running at a loss.
Edited to add:
Originally by: Gamesguy
Roflmao. So buying a ship in jita is somehow such a huge burden now?
Buying anything in Jita is a huge burden that most people want to avoid at all costs.
--
There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken. |
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 16:40:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
If meaningful means grinding for isk to buy a new ship, it's going to fail. Many PVPers don't want to grind missions or go mining for the isk and that's why they PVP so often. Most have very low or non existant industry skills anyway, they spent all their time training to be a good combat pilot. Even thier mission skills with respect to the social group for better rewards are scarce. Someone who has trained for PVP and plays Eve for the PVP isn't going to want to do PVE most of the time.
Meaningful means that you should fight for what is worth fighting for (land, property rights, someone wearing white after labor day), not just 'to fight'. Games like CS are geared towards the type of player who is fighting for stats and nothing else. Some (including myself) feel that EvE should be getting away from the killboards and zergs, away from the respawns. I don't think it will ever really be supported in EvE, as we have actual space and an economy.
But as I've always argued, people want their ships to be cheap and their losses minimized so that they can get into combat, but then can't figure out why they can't push other corps out of 0.0 without metagaming, or why there are blobs, or why players are willing to suicide so much. The problems of the one are DIRECTLY related with how easy it is to get a ship, destroy it, and get another.
Quote:
But on the flipside, it will scare off a lot of casual players. Those with families, jobs and lives outside of Eve don't have the time to grind for isk.
Doesn't EvE scare off most casual players from the start? Course, casual players have been playing since day one, too. EvE is a bit too task and time intensive (three hours for an op, anyone?), and other games will soon be released that appeal directly too this market of gamer. Why would you stick with a game as cruel as EvE, unless you like it in the first place?
On the flip side, should CCP alienate much of their current playerbase to appeal to an audience whom they aren't geared to serve, anyhow? Do they REALLY feel they can compete with casual game's designed specifically for it? Countless games have failed trying to do what WoW does. Do you think EvE will be different?
Quote:
Or they will quit because the game does not offer them what they want.
They already do. We still gain subs, though. Despite how many people have quit or decided that they don't like EvE. Don't get me wrong, I actually am in support of things that help new players get 'into the game', but I think they should be trying to attract players who will enjoy the game for what it is, not those who will find it overbearing.
Quote:
Have a look at the market for capital ships sometime, the biggest problem isn't having the cash to buy one, it's finding one for sale.
You have to remember that many alliances/corps have a fleet set up for particular purposes and each ship has a role. If that fleet includes a carrier, having one popped is bad enough, not being able to replace it for days could be a disaster.
If you check the insurance returns for any cap ship, you'll see that it's already far less than the price anyway and you always have to figure in the cost of insurance as well. Only with T1 ships, BS and below, can you hope to get your investment back but if you factor in the cost of the insurance, you're still running at a loss.
Carriers, motherships, titans, dreadnaughts ... they are powerhouses, but also a flaw in and of themselves. They are imbalanced in their power (according to how you view balance, of course), and those who have them, usually also have the means to produce more. If anything, they are less a symptom to the problem than a cause, in my opinion.
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
|
Tippia
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 16:46:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Ruze
Meaningful means that you should fight for what is worth fighting for (land, property rights, someone wearing white after labor day), not just 'to fight'.
Is that you, Serial Mom?
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 16:50:00 -
[134]
Man, I wish I was watching that movie right now.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 16:53:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Ruze
Meaningful means that you should fight for what is worth fighting for (land, property rights, someone wearing white after labor day), not just 'to fight'.
Is that you, Serial Mom?
Is that as far as you got? Couldn't read no further?
I shoulda hid it somewhere deep in the text, like an ester egg. Now nobody will read all the fine points I made, except maybe the person I replied to, who will be p*ssed just because I disagreed
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
|
Tippia
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 16:59:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Ruze
Is that as far as you got? Couldn't read no further?
I shoulda hid it somewhere deep in the text, like an ester egg. Now nobody will read all the fine points I made, except maybe the person I replied to, who will be p*ssed just because I disagreed
Sorry. I just got this image of a liver on a fire poker and had to reply… 
|
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 17:43:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Ruze
I shoulda hid it somewhere deep in the text, like an ester egg. Now nobody will read all the fine points I made, except maybe the person I replied to, who will be p*ssed just because I disagreed
No, not really. This is what the discussion boards are for, I don't expect everyone to agree on things or it would become boring very fast.
I spend a lot of time in highsec and see a lot of people not getting into PVP because they can't afford the losses. A change of this sort would probably discourage a lot more who have figured out how to PVP without taking too much loss.
It's fun to pit your wits against someone else rather than take on mindless NPC's all the time and that's why people like PVP. Sadly, a lot of 1v1 has disappeared since many more players joined Eve and even lowsec has become a lot more populated than it was 3 years ago. It was fun to take on another player and battle it out to see who was better, not so much fun when you run into a gang which is more likely now. If you take a gang with you, the other side often pops in a carrier or two to ensure their victory. IMO, doing that is admitting that you're already defeated before the battle even starts, it's a cowardly way to win and Eve is full of cowards like that now, gone are the days of honour and respect. We now have a dread or two as backup and if the other side decides to play capitals online, we can happily oblige but only if they bring in their capitals first because we fight with honour win or lose otherwise.
If it is made too expensive to lose a ship, most of our corp would abandon the game because we play for fun and grinding for isk isn't fun, we know because we've all been there. Every noob starts their career grinding for isk to buy their next ship, it's bad enough to be forced to do it at the start of the game but knowing you'll be doing it a lot more as you play makes for a boring game. That's why I would suggest caution in trying to review the insurance system, it was introduced for a reason since it wasn't available at all in the early days of Eve.
--
There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken. |
Lord Zoran
House of Tempers
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 17:54:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Plim
How about we add 100% more grind? And maybe 100% less players.
are you saying that eve should play with itself?....
 |
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 18:04:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
No, not really. This is what the discussion boards are for, I don't expect everyone to agree on things or it would become boring very fast.
I spend a lot of time in highsec and see a lot of people not getting into PVP because they can't afford the losses. A change of this sort would probably discourage a lot more who have figured out how to PVP without taking too much loss.
It's fun to pit your wits against someone else rather than take on mindless NPC's all the time and that's why people like PVP. Sadly, a lot of 1v1 has disappeared since many more players joined Eve and even lowsec has become a lot more populated than it was 3 years ago. It was fun to take on another player and battle it out to see who was better, not so much fun when you run into a gang which is more likely now. If you take a gang with you, the other side often pops in a carrier or two to ensure their victory. IMO, doing that is admitting that you're already defeated before the battle even starts, it's a cowardly way to win and Eve is full of cowards like that now, gone are the days of honour and respect. We now have a dread or two as backup and if the other side decides to play capitals online, we can happily oblige but only if they bring in their capitals first because we fight with honour win or lose otherwise.
If it is made too expensive to lose a ship, most of our corp would abandon the game because we play for fun and grinding for isk isn't fun, we know because we've all been there. Every noob starts their career grinding for isk to buy their next ship, it's bad enough to be forced to do it at the start of the game but knowing you'll be doing it a lot more as you play makes for a boring game. That's why I would suggest caution in trying to review the insurance system, it was introduced for a reason since it wasn't available at all in the early days of Eve.
Seems very rarely do you meet someone who isn't actually insulted if everyone doesn't agree with them, both in the forums and in real life. It's human nature to disagree and compete, and without it our societies would have stagnated and died years ago. It also adds flavor to the world, and many interesting conversations. So, I tip my hat.
To the point, what can you do to allow room for players to more easily get into PvP, while still make it so that the dynamics of death aren't cheapened? If you've been in game long enough, you know that ships have never been cheaper, insurance covers more than it ever did, isk is easier to earn than it ever was, and yet more players are refusing to leave hisec claiming that they aren't 'ready.'
Doesn't make sense, if you look at it logically. Then there's the fact that cheap ships are the REASON for so many suicide ganks and complaints, are also directly responsible for the stagnant nature of nulsec and why it's so difficult for new corporations to move out and push their way into 0.0. AND, they are in an odd way responsible for blobbing by encouraging more players to participate in large fleets where they will die by alpha (though the arguments that expensive ships encourage blobbing are also valid, the coincidence of 'cheaper ships' and 'more blobbing' can't be ignored).
Oh, and while I respect someone who gets into one-on-one PvP and can win, I think of it as some archaic stigma, like a knight fighting a war and complaining because it's not a tournament. 'Honorable' fights are for duels and tournies. The realistic side of EvE will always support group warfare, especially since most every ship is designed to be gang support or supported.
I just think those players complaining about no 'one on one' fights, claiming that this is 'real PvP', and saying that anyone who uses what is essentially tactics and numerical superiority is a coward, have unreasonable and false expectations for a game that prides itself on being closer to 'reality' and realistic scenarios than most.
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
|
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 21:44:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Ruze
isk is easier to earn than it ever was, and yet more players are refusing to leave hisec claiming that they aren't 'ready.'
I think that has more to do with implants and clones than ship costs. I really believe that if +5 implants were cheap and common, people wouldn't care about losing them so much.
Alternatively, if it wasn't so damn hard to get a JC, it might encourage more to leave highsec. Getting a +8 standing takes a lot of mission running and if your corp doesn't have high standings with the NPC corp, forget it. This is something that really needs looking at along with the 24 hour jump timer. Since the average player only plays for 3 or 4 hours a day, having a 3 hour jump timer so they can jump back into their learning enhanced clone overnight would be far better. Losing so much training time because you are in a clone with no implants makes people less inclined to jump even if they have a JC to jump into.
On the whole, most players that say they are not ready are either: 1) Unsure of their combat skills and want to train everything to lvl5 to make sure they have the optimal skills for winning. 2) Are scared for whatever reason of being podded rather than losing the ship since implants are very expensive and not insured.
Depending on your SP, medical clones can be very expensive to replace and the cost of losing a ship is very often a pod as well so it gets quite expensive already. Whittle down the insurance returns on top of that and it may well discourage a lot of those willing to bear the cost now.
Blobbing is more getting bigger numbers to ensure victory than the abiity to field disposable ships. Even back when the ships cost far more than the insurance returns, blobbing was still a big problem. I have seen vids from Evefiles of way back before I even started to play where almost every alliance battle was a blob and I'm sure that many of them were before insurance was even introduced. Ask most 0.0 players and I think you'll find they don't even bother to insure their ships.
--
There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken. |
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 21:53:00 -
[141]
Implants are a horrible function that further pushes new players into believing they are not ready, I agree. However, jump clones have seen unique abuses and in my personal opinion are more of a problem than implants.
It's mindset, really. It used to be that when you were three months old, you couldn't make enough money to do squat, and you HAD to risk yourself to get anywhere. You moved out of hisec, either to losec or one of the few nulsec points, because the good missions were there, the rats were better (slightly), and the roids were way better.
It's a circular problem. New players want more ways to make money, without feeling 'pushed' into dangar. But as they collect things and SP and implants, they are far more hesitant to go into danger on their own! Then, older players use the methods that new players asked for, those nice missions with the nice rewards that are easier and more available than they once were, and they use those jump clones you want so much to protect your implants, and they simply can't be removed from their nulsec spot, and now you have nowhere TO go.
They don't WANT to be pushed, but unless a new player IS pushed, due to economic restrictions, he won't go until it's already too late and too costly for him to.
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
consciously deciding not to join a corp is pretty much deciding that you don't want to have fun
|
El Yatta
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 22:19:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Local Jobs
Nowhere does the OP or you explain whats actually wrong with the status quo other than "dying doesnt hurt".
If you don't understand why the biggest non-captial T1 ships being considered disposable ships is a bad thing, stop posting.
Wow, you're a rude person. How about no! I actually see nothing wrong with battleships being "disposable", for a given value of disposable. For a bs to be disposable it requires either T1 fitting and no rigs, or an actual competant fitting and a moderate income. If you choose the first, you lose more of them, if you chose the second, you lose ISK.
If yo're losing ISK when you die, it has a cost. Now we're just haggling over price, as to whether that's "enough". Considering there are wildly different example of a "typical" wallet, how exactly do you say what is a lot and what is not?
Personally, I usually have 1-2bn in ISK liquid, but thats small fry to some guys in my corp. However, I've heard estimates of around 50-100m as an "average" wallet, which I can believe considering actually, the typical EVE player only plays for 9 months.
In any case, its a T1 ship, T1 is now the "underclass". Since invention, frankly T2 kit has become the baseline for combat. Battleships are unique, they're a warhorse and are superbly versatile, powerful and effective, but still have that "t1 factor" of being cheap. I can see how you might have a problem with that, actually, as their T2 varients are not "all out better" like in other classes. But I dont see how make it more expensive solves that one bit.
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Local Jobs
Well, its the same as losing any other pixels: it only hurts if you let it. The smacktalk and emorage I see pretty often tells me dying hurts some people, right now, on TQ.
Oh really? So if I don't let it, it doesn't cost me anything to lose a ship? STFU. The disposability of a ship is a function of it's effective cost and your income. How much you care about losing it affects only your willingness to fight at all.
It is entirely possible to have some too scared to fight who wouldn't lose much anyway, and someone else who fights constantly but financially cripples themselves in the process.
Thats exactly what the guy said. Cost doesnt really matter, as long as it exists at all, its about your enemy letting the loss hurt them. You seem to think that making everything more expensive would give bigger morale hits to your enemy when they die: in fact, you're doing it wrong. The way he dies in a cheap ship can be just as effective as if he lost an expensive ship.
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Local Jobs
People dont seem to understand: more expensive DOESNT make the universe any crueller, it just makes it less fun to play in.
People don't seem to understand that a cruel universe and having any ship up to and including a BS be no significant loss are contradictory.
No, they are not. It might make the universe "less cruel" (for a given value of cruel) to have those ships dispoable (which they might or might not be because of different wallets and morales) but there is absolutely no reason (and you certainly havent offered one) why they are mutually exclusive.
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Local Jobs
stuff
That is a nice idea in isolation. But, as before, taking the overall suggestion to it's logical conclusion, all ISK sources should be competitive and everything that costs ISK should be free in order to create harsh PvP.
No, if everything is free, then nobody needs an ISK source, so your last sentence didnt even make sense.
I dont want to argue with you about this, because clearly we both dont want the game to be risk-free. But I ask: how does this idea promote PVP? How does it make the game more fun? If an idea isn't fun, it should be rejected out of hand unless its going to significantly improve the game in the long run. I dont think you can demonstrate this will do that.
_______________________________________________
Mercenary Forces |
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 23:19:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Ruze
They don't WANT to be pushed, but unless a new player IS pushed, due to economic restrictions, he won't go until it's already too late and too costly for him to.
But now we've returned full circle to the insurance idea that began this discussion that would make them unwilling to go. If the economic loss of a ship were so high, PVP becomes a no-go area.
I have played both in highsec and lowsec and, although lowsec has good rewards, it is also far more dangerous and ship losses are common. The main problem with lowsec is that there is a considerable imbalance between risk and reward that makes highsec far more attractive economically. No matter how much you gimp highsec, you will not alter the fact that in lowsec, you can very easily lose far more than you can possibly earn. It will also not alter the fact that lowsec is far more dangerous than nullsec but the rewards in lowsec are pitiful compared to nullsec. It will also not alter the fact that nullsec is pretty much taken and the alliances there don't even trust each other, let alone a corp/alliance looking to share their space in return for their allegiance.
If you want to make highsec less attractive economically than lowsec, you would have to make mission runners pay the agent and miners pay NPC's to take their ore/minerals away.
After just one week in lowsec with a group of 5 of us, I went from 500m to 10m in my wallet from ship losses alone. We had little chance to go ratting/mining/mission running because we were constantly being attacked by roving gangs when we tried. Mining has no reward at all when you have to share with defence ships and even then you lose a mining barge easily. They are primaried every time because they are so easy to pop and nobody sane flies a Hulk in lowsec due to pitiful insurance returns and they are just as easy to pop. Mission running leaves you at the mercy of anyone who scans you down because you're not fitted for PVP and ratting is not lucrative at all in lowsec.
Rather than make losing a ship more expensive than it already is, boosting lowsec rewards would do a lot more towards getting more people into lowsec and consequently into PVP. Better Zydrine yields for Jaspet and Hemorphite, better rat bounties and much less easy to scan down mission runners or some on-screen warning that someone is scanning you so you have an opportunity to get out before they arrive. Mission runners have far more risk since they already have their hands full without trying to watch local added to it. You could have someone not in the mission watching local for you and warning of incoming trouble but that's another mouth to feed and gimps the rewards yet again.
--
There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken. |
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer
Elitist Cowards
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 23:43:00 -
[144]
Dying in EVE is one of the most hardcore events in MMOG's.
You lose EVERYTHING on that loss. There's normally no corpse to recover, and often times the 'items' you ahd are destroyed.
That's pretty intense, and a HUGE factor that drove friends of mine away.
That said, sure its easy to make the ISK, and yea, min prices are at historic lows...but who cares? Easier to replace = more PVP and MOAR SHIP SALES.
Win Win.
-----------------
 Friends Forever |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 01:32:00 -
[145]
Originally by: El Yatta
In any case, its a T1 ship, T1 is now the "underclass". Since invention, frankly T2 kit has become the baseline for combat. Battleships are unique, they're a warhorse and are superbly versatile, powerful and effective, but still have that "t1 factor" of being cheap. I can see how you might have a problem with that, actually, as their T2 varients are not "all out better" like in other classes. But I dont see how make it more expensive solves that one bit.
You just higlighted exactly why BSes in particular should be looked at. They are not only the largest and most powerful of the T1 lineup, they are also the only ones which have not been superceded by a T2 variant. Ships like this should hurt to lose, regardless of fit.
Originally by: El Yatta
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Local Jobs
Well, its the same as losing any other pixels: it only hurts if you let it. The smacktalk and emorage I see pretty often tells me dying hurts some people, right now, on TQ.
Oh really? So if I don't let it, it doesn't cost me anything to lose a ship? STFU. The disposability of a ship is a function of it's effective cost and your income. How much you care about losing it affects only your willingness to fight at all.
It is entirely possible to have some too scared to fight who wouldn't lose much anyway, and someone else who fights constantly but financially cripples themselves in the process.
Thats exactly what the guy said. Cost doesnt really matter, as long as it exists at all, its about your enemy letting the loss hurt them. You seem to think that making everything more expensive would give bigger morale hits to your enemy when they die: in fact, you're doing it wrong. The way he dies in a cheap ship can be just as effective as if he lost an expensive ship.
I'm not targeting morale. But since I said the exact opposite of what he said, and you seem to think I said the same thing, it's not hard to see why you misunderstood.
Cost determines disposability. Increasing the cost will not, as the original guy stated, affect people's willingness to fight, it will merely affect what ships they choose, so choosing a BS will have some significance again.
Originally by: El Yatta
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Local Jobs
People dont seem to understand: more expensive DOESNT make the universe any crueller, it just makes it less fun to play in.
People don't seem to understand that a cruel universe and having any ship up to and including a BS be no significant loss are contradictory.
No, they are not. It might make the universe "less cruel" (for a given value of cruel) to have those ships dispoable (which they might or might not be because of different wallets and morales) but there is absolutely no reason (and you certainly havent offered one) why they are mutually exclusive.
If your idea of a harsh universe is people flying around in ships they don't care about losing, I suggest you think it over a bit more.
Originally by: El Yatta
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Local Jobs
stuff
That is a nice idea in isolation. But, as before, taking the overall suggestion to it's logical conclusion, all ISK sources should be competitive and everything that costs ISK should be free in order to create harsh PvP.
No, if everything is free, then nobody needs an ISK source, so your last sentence didnt even make sense.
That was the point.
Originally by: El Yatta
But I ask: how does this idea promote PVP? How does it make the game more fun? If an idea isn't fun, it should be rejected out of hand unless its going to significantly improve the game in the long run. I dont think you can demonstrate this will do that.
Because the acid test of any new mechanic is whether it will be more fun. If you want that, head back to Hello Kitty online. The principle here is (supposedly) a harsh challenging game.
As for promoting PvP, both you and Jobs have stated that cost doesn't affect people's willingness to fight.
-
DesuSigs |
BiggestT
Caldari
Space Oddysey
Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 04:16:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Will Barton
Edited by: Will Barton on 12/09/2008 19:54:39
yeeeeeright
Now tell me... didnt we want to encurage pvp in this game? You apparently dont grasp the fact that for those players that isnt "powergamers", or "alarmclock players" as NC like to call us using hours with ratting to replace a bs is BS when all we want to do the few hours we are on are to PvP?
Lol, this.
Silly OP, has no idea..
Awesome EVE history
 |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 06:07:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: MotherMoon
simple question, what changed to make dying not hurt anymore.
Mineral prices. Insurance payouts were created based on mineral value of the ship, with prices much higher than the current drone region fail induced high end mineral cheapness.
The simplest solution would be to lower insurance payouts to better reflect current mineral values, which could lead us back to around 2 years ago, where insurance was a tool to somewhat ease your loss when your ship was blown up (just what insurance should be imho), rather than making the loss totally inconsequential as it is right now (something insurance should NOT be).
And if you cannot make the extra money for a new BS fit after cashing insurance in about one hour of moneymaking activities, you either should not be flying battleships in the first place or utterly fail at EVE.
The only reason why I still don't like losing battleships is that I am too lazy to assemble a new one. But from a purely financial point of view, losing an unrigged BS these days is at most a nuisance. And at least imho that is wrong.
I have done a little research there. Some mineral price was descending even before the drone regions (mexallon in particular was going down fast) while some other minerals was rising. The first thing that changed the minerals prices was the removal of the mineral buy orders by NPC.
Today several of the middle level minerals, specifically Isogen, Nocxium, Pyerite hoover at the old NPC buy price or even lower. As the insurance cost of the ships was based on a value for those minerals equal to x2 NPC buy prices, it is easy to see how insurance give larger payouts against what was intended by CCP.
|
Roy Batty68
Caldari
Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 06:35:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
As the insurance cost of the ships was based on a value for those minerals equal to x2 NPC buy prices, it is easy to see how insurance give larger payouts against what was intended by CCP.
What's weird about it is if the mineral prices were spot on what is in the database, no one would use insurance because all you would get back is your premium. So some mineral values off what is programmed is necessary for insurance to have any value to us.
On the flip side, it should be expected that minerals could get so out of wack as to make end ship cost trivial.
So it's a bit odd that there isn't a dynamic factor involved to keep the premium and payout floating with the mineral index.
Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint |
HankMurphy
Minmatar
Pelennor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 06:47:00 -
[149]
Edited by: HankMurphy on 15/09/2008 06:49:24
fail thread is fail
nothing like chopping off the nose to spite the face
i'll entertain the OP. you want to raise the cost of everything to fix ppl that have no problem replacing ships?
so, those that have the MOST access to isk (moons, useful t2 bpos, large 0.0 alliances) still wont have a problem (these are probably the ppl that are pwning your face in)
and
the average pilot that lives ship-to-ship so to speak would have even more to grind?
yeah, i take it all back. OP is definitely a troll. No one could be THAT shit for brains
----------
on the flip side of the coin, making pvp cost nuthing would just take the fun out of it entirely.
when your ass is on the line financially and literally as your tank is breaking and your opponent enters structure and 2 more baddies guys warp in, and your buddies hop through the gate to try and help just in time.... the rush is so sweet i wouldn't want anything to diminish it.
------------------------------
"whining and crying for nerfs and boosts aint' no way to go through life son!" |
El Yatta
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 11:11:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
I'm not targeting morale. But since I said the exact opposite of what he said, and you seem to think I said the same thing, it's not hard to see why you misunderstood.
Cost determines disposability. Increasing the cost will not, as the original guy stated, affect people's willingness to fight, it will merely affect what ships they choose, so choosing a BS will have some significance again..
This is wrong, because it shows a flat-out lack of knowledge of how a campaign in EVE works. People who cannot field competitive ships will not fight, full stop. They wont undock in T1 cruisers if you have a sniper BS gang they cannot match, because people are risk-averse. They wont enjoy the fight if they get slaughtered time and time again. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, until you realise that if they had competitive ships, they would at least get 1-2 fights of being spanked before they stopped. You're cutting off the combat at its knees: they wont undock the very first time.
You wont make people play the game in cheaper ships, you will make them not play it at all. Nevertheless
Originally by: Crumplecorn
If your idea of a harsh universe is people flying around in ships they don't care about losing, I suggest you think it over a bit more.
Please actually read what I wrote. I didnt say it was a good thing that certain ships were "disposable". I specifically said that it was NOT mutually exclusive to have BS "disposable" and have a harsh universe.
I also explained that disposable means a lot of things to a lot of people. You ignored all that, and I know why: because you're wrong. You know that truly disposable only applies to T1 fit ships, and any other fit is based entirely on people's wallets, which vary a lot.
You dont seem to be able to grasp that: disposable is subjective. It depends on a lot of things, chiefly, your morale, and your liquid ISK wallet. Neither of those are standard across the playerbase. Both of them are smaller in the typical player (i.e. not me) than you think.
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: El Yatta
But I ask: how does this idea promote PVP? How does it make the game more fun? If an idea isn't fun, it should be rejected out of hand unless its going to significantly improve the game in the long run. I dont think you can demonstrate this will do that.
Because the acid test of any new mechanic is whether it will be more fun. If you want that, head back to Hello Kitty online. The principle here is (supposedly) a harsh challenging game.
As for promoting PvP, both you and Jobs have stated that cost doesn't affect people's willingness to fight.
No, I did not. You misunderstood that, sadly. Cost is a number, but actual value put on that cost is entirely subjective and based again on how much a % of the pilot's wallet, their morale, and that of their wingmen.
You are also just so wrong about the fun. Its nothing to do with Hello Kitty. Fun is the ultimate benchmark. Any change that isnt fun should be thrown out. What you dont get is that that is NOT exclusive of harsh and challenging. Challenging IS fun: otherwise people would never play Chess instead of Draughts. But your suggestions do the opposite: its less fun AND less challenging: because there's no challenge to fighting an enemy who is docked.
_______________________________________________
Mercenary Forces |
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |