Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gatedeath
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 19:48:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Gatedeath on 12/09/2008 19:49:11 Battleships are so dispposable today, as to not even be considerd a loss when they get blown up. Provided you had it insured. UYou just keep dying over and over, get anothe rBS, head back to the blob, loos another BS. so on and so forth.
These days, people are not limited by ISK how many battlehsips they own, but more like how long it takes them to transport thier 10 battleships to the battle area.
I suggest tripling the cost of all ships. With no insureance adjustment to compensate for the incresed cost. This will make daying HURT again. IT will remove the massive BS blobs. It will screw up OP remote rep gangs.
This of course includes all cap ships as well. Those should be devestating demoralizing losses that sap your will to live. Make carriers cost at least 2 billion. Dreads should cost 3-4 billion isk.
This would also help reduce cap blob warfare.
Dying should be so painfull, and disrupting, that you shouldnt just be wandering back to combat one after another in a fully fitted T2 BS that cost you all of 20 mil isk.
Put the bite back in loosing again pls CCP.
|
Kuar Z'thain
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 19:50:00 -
[2]
I agree with the NC alt.
|
Blastrodamus
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 19:50:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Gatedeath
....in a fully fitted T2 BS that cost you all of 20 mil isk.
for the love of god please tell me where i can get a T2 BS for 20 mil.
|
Will Barton
NorCorp Security Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 19:54:00 -
[4]
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?
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 19:58:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Gatedeath
Battleships are so dispposable today This will make daying HURT again.
Put the bite back in loosing again pls CCP.
simple question, what changed to make dying not hurt anymore.
|
Lady Valory
Caldari Caldari Strike Force
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 19:59:00 -
[6]
You could shut off the isk faucets like ratting and level four missions...
|
snaike
Legio Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 19:59:00 -
[7]
I dearly wish I was one of these players who could throw battleships away at an opponent like one would throw pennies at a homeless feller to make him go away. I dunno, maybe the fact that, after 2 years of play, I don't have a multi-billion isk wallet would suggest I suck at Eve, but then I don't enjoy grinding isk, nor do I have the time/money for an isk***** account.
I play for pvp, and pvp is damn expensive, even when you don't die all that much (touches wood). If my losses were to hurt me in the way you would like them to, I simply would not bother playing, and ccp would lose my ú's.
Don't get me wrong, despite that last sentance this isn't a 'omgzz ccp dnt change stuffz or I will quit' I'm simply relaying to you the reality of the situation for many players. When I lose a battleship, or indeed any ship, I feel a pang of regret for the hit my wallet must subsequently sustain; and I'm sure Im not the only one.
Cryin' Won't Help You, Prayin' Will Do You No Good
History is written by the winners, that's why all history books are written in English
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 20:01:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Gatedeath Dying should be so painfull, and disrupting, that you shouldnt just be wandering back to combat one after another in a fully fitted T2 BS that cost you all of 20 mil isk.
Put the bite back in loosing again pls CCP.
Honestly, dying does hurt to those of us who don't have an appetite to rat all day and night. 20M ISK is like running a mission or two. Ugh.
OTOH, Lemme see them pretty 'splosions, hubba hubba!
-Liang --
|
Lady Valory
Caldari Caldari Strike Force
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 20:08:00 -
[9]
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...
|
ElCoCo
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 20:15:00 -
[10]
Erm, not realy.
Whatever you might think, dying still hurts, unless you're a t1 stock monkey, thus 50% less effective than the rest of your group.
I realy don't see ppl not being affraid of dying or saying who cares, I'll get insurance back, I don't know what you're on about Boink! |
|
Dzajic
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 20:15:00 -
[11]
And if you nerf L4s rich will keep their billions of ISK and new players would need to spend ages to earn for a single well fit BC or BS. (several hours of missioning for a single ship you can loose in 5 minutes is already a huge time sing as it is now)
|
Dizeezer Velar
Caldari League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 20:18:00 -
[12]
i don't like that idea. that would discourage pvp.
as it is, alot of pilots are still scared of losing their ships even though BS's are cheap as borscht.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 20:21:00 -
[13]
here is the hard truth, it takes about 4 hours of level 4 missions to replace 20 million isk. Unless you already have billions of isk to spend on super mission running ships and tech 2 gear that own missions quickly. And players don't have that when they start out. Until after grinding those missions. Players should be allowed to not lose as much money after working for weeks, or months to become that stable.
|
Lady Valory
Caldari Caldari Strike Force
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 20:22:00 -
[14]
Well, I agree that the problem is deeper than the solutions here and does give out more problems such as people with billions of isk and now ships are hard to come by, so new people or current poor pvpers are way disadvantaged...
So that begs the real question... How close are we approaching system failure where the fake world of eve and its economy are totally out of whack?
Also what in game signs economically are we seeing that said game is out of whack?
On the other side, a t2 fitted tier3 t1 cruiser (like a rupture with t2 fit) is still a decent ship...
|
Gorki Andropov
FKL Combine
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 20:23:00 -
[15]
Time to raise the cost of poasting by 2 or 3 timre. Gatedeath. Make poasting HURT.
-----------------------------------------------
何だよ?こちらはFree Kings of Life!私たちは一番 |
Holy Lowlander
Aurora Acclivitous Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 20:24:00 -
[16]
yeah make it impossible for a noob to get a BS wooohoo !! or cruiser . or tier 3 frigate even !! =D
lets also reduce the amount of isk in people's wallets by 80 % !
Quote: woot I wants a toy arbitrator !!! :O
|
Plim
Gallente Oursulaert Technology Institute
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 20:34:00 -
[17]
How about we add 100% more grind? And maybe 100% less players.
Rudolf: "I was sworn to absolute secrecy by Santa Claus." |
Artemis Rose
Varion Galactic Accord Corporate Enterprise Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 20:36:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Artemis Rose on 12/09/2008 20:36:57
Originally by: MotherMoon make pvp hurt for my enemy, they're too rich
Personally, I think the OP was trying to say this.
The door swings both ways, you can hop in and replace battleships "like nothing" just as well as your enemy does.
*** Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine, Self Banstick +2 WTB: +666 E-peen killboard stats |
Joe
Umbra Legion Shadow Empire.
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 20:52:00 -
[19]
Originally by: MotherMoon
Originally by: Gatedeath
Battleships are so dispposable today This will make daying HURT again. Put the bite back in loosing again pls CCP.
simple question, what changed to make dying not hurt anymore.
The Massive Increase to Insurance periods from the original 2 week limit.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 21:03:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Joe
Originally by: MotherMoon
Originally by: Gatedeath
Battleships are so dispposable today This will make daying HURT again. Put the bite back in loosing again pls CCP.
simple question, what changed to make dying not hurt anymore.
The Massive Increase to Insurance periods from the original 2 week limit.
ah see I was not aware of this. Maybe the periods should just be lowered again.
don't see how this would change anything though. just make the isk sink bigger on people that can stay alive.
|
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 21:06:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Artemis Rose Edited by: Artemis Rose on 12/09/2008 20:36:57
Originally by: MotherMoon make pvp hurt for my enemy, they're too rich
Personally, I think the OP was trying to say this.
The door swings both ways, you can hop in and replace battleships "like nothing" just as well as your enemy does.
I see that puts a twist on it.
but I don't think this is the answer, however your right something should be done, but what shouldn't older players who have worked for more money be able to replace more ships?
|
Kritinana
Minmatar Jackie Treehorn Productions
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 21:10:00 -
[22]
Problem: dieing has become inconsequential for me and i'm bored because of it.
Solution: Fly nothing but full faction fit Mach's. Not only would this solve your problem but it'd also erect your epeen.
regarding 'turning off' the isk faucets, riiiggght. The game would eventually grind to a hault. With the only available activities being pvp or mining eve becomes an ultimate game of 'last man standing' untill he/she is the only person on the server sitting in station gawking at all their pretty stuffz.
|
Roy Batty68
Caldari Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 21:15:00 -
[23]
Or they could just fix insurance so it wasn't so rediculous...
Just a thought.
Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Furb Killer
Gallente The first genesis Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 21:17:00 -
[24]
So you want to encourage blobs? (more expensive ships -> people more afraid to lose them -> people run more unless they got really large blob -> even larger blob -> hamsters die -> you are responsible for death of hamsters.
|
Strak Yogorn
Amarr Farmer Killers
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 21:18:00 -
[25]
seems trolls arent even trying anymore.. sad
|
Kurlieu
Gallente The Ore House
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 21:20:00 -
[26]
Alrighty then, I'll simply triple the selling price on all the battleships I make and you can buy them from me, if that will please you.
This will be especially good since you've made no provision to raise any of my material/modules/production costs.
I see what you're driving at, but you've really offered no solution. I can't see as you've really specified the true nature of the problem either.
|
Atlas Oracle
Minmatar Colossus Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 21:22:00 -
[27]
i lost my beloved drake in an L3 mission (blockade) last night due to my computer crashing while i had aggro :(
it hurt. bad. real bad.
it will take me a very long time to make back 80 million ISK to buy and fit a new one.
ps - DO NOT ask me if it was insured.
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 21:34:00 -
[28]
Remove loot from high sec.
Remove bounty from no sec.
Keep both in low sec.
Remove insurance in no sec.
There you have plenty of regulating factors for both the economy and the personal hurt.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Seeing EyeDog
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 21:37:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Lady Valory You could shut off the isk faucets like ratting and level four missions...
dont you mean...isk fountains? _____________________
Originally by: Locus Bey Intelligence isn't a prequisite for being a Goon, in fact its a deficit.
|
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 21:39:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus Remove loot from high sec.
Remove bounty from no sec.
Keep both in low sec.
Remove insurance in no sec.
There you have plenty of regulating factors for both the economy and the personal hurt.
GTC FTW ...
How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
|
|
Mika Meroko
Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 21:44:00 -
[31]
I like to pvp....
I dont like to grind for isk...
GTC for the win... if one cant grind *painfully* for isk anymore...
Originally by: CCP Atropos I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 21:46:00 -
[32]
One word for you, Dysporium. For a few entities, handing out battleships has become like handing out frigs. Carriers are the new cruisers.
Calculate out how many battleships you can buy and fit from one Dyspo moon per month. It's impressive.
You can trace it all back to the opening up of the T2 market with invention.
To balance it all out, they need to introduce the counterpart to invention in moon mining. That would be the ability to inefficiently mine rares from common moons that only becomes viable above a certain price point. That will smooth it back out.
|
Hieronimus Rex
Minmatar Infinitus Sapientia
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 21:47:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Kritinana Problem: dieing has become inconsequential for me and i'm bored because of it.
Solution: Fly nothing but full faction fit Mach's. Not only would this solve your problem but it'd also erect your epeen.
regarding 'turning off' the isk faucets, riiiggght. The game would eventually grind to a hault. With the only available activities being pvp or mining eve becomes an ultimate game of 'last man standing' untill he/she is the only person on the server sitting in station gawking at all their pretty stuffz.
Do you seriously think the OP isn't aware of your "solution." He isn't asking for help with the personal problem that his death is insignificant...it's death in general. The "for me" you inserted and changed the meaning of the problem...so you're solving a problem that's not part of the OP's question. Basically it's like saying "don't dupe ISK" if someone pointed out an ISK duping problem in EVE.
Anyway, while the faucets shouldn't be turned off, they should certainly be squeezed. Market taxes should be increased, insurance should be reduced...maybe 100% for the first ship, 9% for the second, and so forth down to some minimum insurance that you can buy (base insurance should be 0).
Death in a frigate is already about as meaningful as death in WoW, possibly less so as you are instantly teleported back to a station where you can get a new ship...where as in wow you have to walk to your corpse to respawn. Soon death in a battleship will be the same way and part of eve's uniqueness will be gone. Whoops
|
Asuka SoryuLangley
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 21:50:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Asuka SoryuLangley on 12/09/2008 21:54:53
Stupid thread. Let it die by simpling not replying at it.
Just a note: if one is a farmer and got 100 bs, why it should hurt me too that can play just 1 hour a day? Playing 1 hour a day it mean that i can barely get 1 bs every week... assuming that i can make 20 millions in a hour and considering that i need the cost of the fittings and insurance too and that means that for 1 week i have to pve only, collettin money to buy a ship that could require 1 minute to loose.
So why should i sit in a frigate just 'couse YOU have too much isks? And btw if you T2 fit it, i cannot see how can you fall in a loop where you loose and buy the ship with the insurance's money....
So stupid thread... so stupid....
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 21:58:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Originally by: Danton Marcellus Remove loot from high sec.
Remove bounty from no sec.
Keep both in low sec.
Remove insurance in no sec.
There you have plenty of regulating factors for both the economy and the personal hurt.
GTC FTW ...
How does the GTC hold any relevance to my suggested changes for the betterment of the game?
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Jaabaa Prime
Minmatar Quam Singulari
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 22:22:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Gatedeath *drivel*
TBH, I think that this is a troll post, if it wasn't then you would have replied by now.
Not everyone can, as you put it, have 10 BS in transport (or even afford to replace their pride and joy).
If you can, then its you that needs to get a grip on the realities of ship loss in EVE, and not spam the forums with more useless junk about your frustration.
K, thx, bye bye. --
|
Gatedeath
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 22:31:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Jaabaa Prime
Originally by: Gatedeath *drivel*
TBH, I think that this is a troll post, if it wasn't then you would have replied by now.
Not everyone can, as you put it, have 10 BS in transport (or even afford to replace their pride and joy).
If you can, then its you that needs to get a grip on the realities of ship loss in EVE, and not spam the forums with more useless junk about your frustration.
K, thx, bye bye.
here is y our reply. :P I was busy at work so I havent had time to get back to the thread. since I do my trolling from work. :P
For real though. I can make the cash to fully outfit a T2 BS in about. an hour. Once you get the ball rolling, and have insurance on your ships, it takes next to nothing to keep that ball rolling.
The only solutions I see are to eithe make ships more expensive, or nerf the crap out of insurance.
I would like to see cap ships take REAL work to get, and keep. Those loses should be particulary hard on people. Id like to see battlecruisers become the new BS's.
Those who dont want to work for isk are just lazy imo.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 23:03:00 -
[38]
Remove insurance, or nerf it severely.
Many people posting to say they don't want to have to grind even more; well then fly smaller ships. The problem is that larger and larger ships are becoming disposable. Increase the cost of dying and PvP won't become more expensive, people (including you) can simply choose to fly smaller ships. Bringing a BS will mean something again.
Of course you run T2 fits, but if those fits cost, say, five times more, well, which is more effective, 1 T2 fit battleship or 5 T1 fit battleships? -
DesuSigs |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 23:14:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Many people posting to say they don't want to have to grind even more; well then fly smaller ships.
This.
I'm seriously sick of the 'I have to have 10 battleships' attitude. No, you don't.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Leviathan9
Gallente Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 23:18:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Leviathan9 on 12/09/2008 23:19:16
Originally by: Gatedeath Dying should be so painfull, and disrupting, that you shouldnt just be wandering back to combat one after another in a fully fitted T2 BS that cost you all of 20 mil isk.
Put the bite back in loosing again pls CCP.
I already lose 100mil or so when i lose a Mega. 80mil for ship, 100mil in fittings (t2) plus 31mil to insure fully. Lose it get 100mil from insurance. Gain back the price of the ship, lose... 140mil or so. ----------------------------
|
|
Steve Hawkings
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 23:21:00 -
[41]
I aggree with this well thought out idea. Time is not Money and minerals i mine are free!! |
Solomon XI
Hoist The Colors.
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 23:21:00 -
[42]
Losing a fully T2 fit and rigged battleship does hurt ... means I have to grind for ISK ... and I **hate** doing that. I don't throw ships away ... hell with that.
And the day my Astarte costs 300m or my Deimos costs 150m is the day I quit this game ... dying hurts enough. =/
OP is fail. ~Solo Hoist The Colors. (CEO) |
Aquidus Nefron
Caldari Department of Defence
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 23:23:00 -
[43]
Dumbest Idea ever....next Signature removed. Inappropriate content. Size of all signatures must conform to the maximum allowed size of 400 x 120 pixels and 2400kbs file size. Navigator |
Steve Hawkings
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 23:25:00 -
[44]
GTC ftw, if you want to waste RL cash on imaginary money, i can sell you some monopoly money i have somewhere, seriously i feel sry for people that buy and sell GTCs. Time is not Money and minerals i mine are free!! |
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 23:32:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Leviathan9 I already lose 100mil or so when i lose a Mega. 80mil for ship, 100mil in fittings (t2) plus 31mil to insure fully. Lose it get 100mil from insurance. Gain back the price of the ship, lose... 140mil or so.
OP's point only applies to T1 fits. That he mentioned T2 fits was either an accident or stupidity. Nonetheless it holds for T1 fits. -
DesuSigs |
Fay Valentyne
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 23:57:00 -
[46]
another lefty heard from. ships are player made so the market sets the price ccp has nothing to do with it. anyone who wants to pay more for ships can come to 0.0 and buy them there.
|
VicturusTeSaluto
Metafarmers
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 00:02:00 -
[47]
Remove insurance. Kills are meaningless now. Ships are dirt cheap, insurance pays more than you paid for the ship+insurance in some cases these days. T2 fittings dirt cheap, rigs dirt cheap. What do you take away from someone when you kill them now? Pretty much nothing.
|
Trathen
Minmatar Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 00:09:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Trathen on 13/09/2008 00:09:38
Originally by: Gatedeath
The only solutions I see are to eithe make ships more expensive, or nerf the crap out of insurance.
I would like to see cap ships take REAL work to get, and keep. Those loses should be particulary hard on people. Id like to see battlecruisers become the new BS's.
Those who dont want to work for isk are just lazy imo.
Fly something more expensive then. I could fit out 1,000 rifters and then come here and complain about how losing one means nothing. Dying only hurts as much as you make it hurt. That's kinda the point from the beginning. _ |
Huan Hunglong
Intensive CareBearz
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 00:10:00 -
[49]
If dying no longer hurts you...
Stop your whining, and hand me your ISK.
Problem solved without any game mechanic changes.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 00:11:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Trathen Fly something more expensive then. I could fit out 1,000 rifters and then come here and complain about how losing one means nothing.
At which point we would tell you to fly cruisers.
Now if you can fit out 10 battleships, and losing one of them also means nothing (hereafter referred to as 'the point'), what then? -
DesuSigs |
|
Trathen
Minmatar Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 00:15:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Now if you can fit out 10 battleships, and losing one of them also means nothing (hereafter referred to as 'the point'), what then?
Time to start PvPing with faction battleships. _ |
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 00:20:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Trathen
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Now if you can fit out 10 battleships, and losing one of them also means nothing (hereafter referred to as 'the point'), what then?
Time to start PvPing with faction battleships.
Why? To lose yourself more ISK while having no effect whatsoever on the actual problem? Great. -
DesuSigs |
Amitious Turkey
Gallente N.A.S.A. Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 00:30:00 -
[53]
try being me, OP...
ive played for 5 years.
ive only owned 1 BS in that entire time, a Dominix.
ive only owned 3 BC's since they came out.
Its only the ppl who work hard at this game who get teh isk. I'm fine with that. Or you wanna be called a communist, or Robin Hood, and distribute the wealth, make an ISK cap, and make us all equally poor? (\_/) (O.o) (> <)[]==^= (urtok's bunny-its a machinegun) (\_/) (O.o) (> <) Anything i say on the forums is my own opinion, not of my corporation or alliance.
The writer of the article did n |
Saint Lazarus
Spiorad ag fanaiocht
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 00:39:00 -
[54]
As a t2 ship Pilot I have just one question
WTF is insurance?!
That annoying mail I get with the insulting pittance inside that covers about 1% of the loss? -----------------
My EvE Comic
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 00:49:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Daelin Blackleaf on 13/09/2008 00:50:00
Unfortunately once the people have had riches they fail to see the value of poverty.
I'll give you a clue, when you can buy anything nothing has value.
Buying something, losing something, taking something, destroying something... between the rich these things really don't matter there's plenty more where that came from. Being rich doesn't matter half as much in itself when everyone else is wealthy too.
It's all becoming pointless.
But the people won't have it, they don't want to be made poor. They fail to realize that if every one is less wealthy then they are relatively no worse off than when they started. The only difference is that suddenly it all matters again.
EVE is becoming Counter Strike in space, but that seems to be what pays the bills. Those of us who don't like it, who remember the days when combat meant something, or can realize that high player income and easy access to the top-end equipment is a bad thing, aren't likely to win this one.
Wheres the fun, wheres the adventure? The best stories aren't those where the main character has everything by chapter three. They're about constant struggle of one form or another, a chain of meaningful conflicts where defeat will lead to harsh consequences.
Which is more interesting:
Two billionaires playing poker for stakes in the thousands or two homeless men dicing for their last packet of crisps? Climbing a mountain with nothing but the clothes on your back or hopping in a chopper and getting dropped off at the summit?
|
murder one
Gallente Invincible Reason
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 01:03:00 -
[56]
Originally by: snaike I dearly wish I was one of these players who could throw battleships away at an opponent like one would throw pennies at a homeless feller to make him go away. I dunno, maybe the fact that, after 2 years of play, I don't have a multi-billion isk wallet would suggest I suck at Eve, but then I don't enjoy grinding isk, nor do I have the time/money for an isk***** account.
I play for pvp, and pvp is damn expensive, even when you don't die all that much (touches wood). If my losses were to hurt me in the way you would like them to, I simply would not bother playing, and ccp would lose my ú's.
Don't get me wrong, despite that last sentance this isn't a 'omgzz ccp dnt change stuffz or I will quit' I'm simply relaying to you the reality of the situation for many players. When I lose a battleship, or indeed any ship, I feel a pang of regret for the hit my wallet must subsequently sustain; and I'm sure Im not the only one.
You must be doing it wrong. Piracy pays me billions in ransoms on a fairly regular basis.
The OP is totally correct in that losing a full T2 fit BS doesn't cost a player much in the way of ISK. I could lose ten fully rigged T2 fit BS in a day and only be down a few hundred million ISK when I should be in the hole one or two bil at least.
Just remove all insurance from losses due to PVP. PVE players still get to keep their insurance payouts (this is to keep the game noob friendly when the noobs are starting out and losing ships to NPCs in missions).
Ships these days cost almost nothing in comparison to what it was a year ago, and on top of that ISK/hour has never been higher with the new Marauders and level 4s. A Paladin or Golem can motor through a L4 mission extremely fast. It's silly.
Anyway, remove all insurance from any PVP loss. Problem solved.
[07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2 Fleet Combat Ships |
SharpMango
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 01:09:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Kurlieu Alrighty then, I'll simply triple the selling price on all the battleships I make and you can buy them from me, if that will please you.
This will be especially good since you've made no provision to raise any of my material/modules/production costs.
I see what you're driving at, but you've really offered no solution. I can't see as you've really specified the true nature of the problem either.
this one made me laugh the most! i was trying to figure out how exactly the OP would try to achieve this in a free market economy. We could of course just do a simple mineral double of battleship costs.... but then would that just mean a boom in mining and a resultant decrease in prices again to a new level of stability? or would we have communistic price controls??? I really dont get it, sure its possible to make ships more expensive. Its certainly possible to triple the mineral costs on ALL ships. But would we play eve then? i for one would be much more paranoid about purchasing ships in the first place until i had uber-leet skills. And honestly speaking i wont be playing this game in 5 years time.
|
Excommunicator
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 01:09:00 -
[58]
If we're talking just a Battleship loss, yeah no big deal...
But some of us ride around in a 4 Billion isk Clone
That in the addition to the odd Faction'd out BS loss is the sink to the proverbial faucet.
|
murder one
Gallente Invincible Reason
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 01:10:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Trathen
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Now if you can fit out 10 battleships, and losing one of them also means nothing (hereafter referred to as 'the point'), what then?
Time to start PvPing with faction battleships.
Why? To lose yourself more ISK while having no effect whatsoever on the actual problem? Great.
What Crumplecorn said. As it sits now, it's pretty much impossible to destroy an enemy with a war of attrition. It's impossible to choke someone out of their space in 0.0 by destroying their supply lines and killing off their ability to afford more ships by *destroying ships*.
This is a stupid situation that needs to be fixed.
[07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2 Fleet Combat Ships |
Faife
Minmatar Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 02:01:00 -
[60]
Originally by: murder one
What Crumplecorn said. As it sits now, it's pretty much impossible to destroy an enemy with a war of attrition. It's impossible to choke someone out of their space in 0.0 by destroying their supply lines and killing off their ability to afford more ships by *destroying ships*.
This is a stupid situation that needs to be fixed.
you can't choke people out if they have t2 bpos and a few good moons.
the game is screwed up because of those colossal money prints. if you remove insurance no starter alliance would have any chance to move to hold 0.0: the other guys print money, they dont. as a side effect it makes losing t1 ships easy. oh well. it's a small price to pay (no pun intended) for having possibility of power flow in the game Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Saint |
|
Gamesguy
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 02:30:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Faife
Originally by: murder one
What Crumplecorn said. As it sits now, it's pretty much impossible to destroy an enemy with a war of attrition. It's impossible to choke someone out of their space in 0.0 by destroying their supply lines and killing off their ability to afford more ships by *destroying ships*.
This is a stupid situation that needs to be fixed.
you can't choke people out if they have t2 bpos and a few good moons.
the game is screwed up because of those colossal money prints. if you remove insurance no starter alliance would have any chance to move to hold 0.0: the other guys print money, they dont. as a side effect it makes losing t1 ships easy. oh well. it's a small price to pay (no pun intended) for having possibility of power flow in the game
Yes you can. Most t2 bpos make barely any isk.
You can siege the moon mining pos and kill them.
You can't stop their highsec npc corp L4 mission running alts from supplying them from isk to fight however, which is completely broken.
|
Faife
Minmatar Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 02:44:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Yes you can. Most t2 bpos make barely any isk.
citation needed. there's a reason they sell for as much as they sell for. the good ones anyways.
Originally by: Gamesguy
You can siege the moon mining pos and kill them.
this one is my point. there's no way to take a moon station if they're constantly printing new ships WITHOUT having to fly missions, while you're constantly busy grinding lvls to replace your caps.
or do you intend to go after a small death star with t1 fit apocs?
Originally by: gamewhatever
You can't stop their highsec npc corp L4 mission running alts from supplying them from isk to fight however, which is completely broken.
law of unintended consequences: you nerf those, you make it nigh impossible to win new chunks of 0.0 space. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Saint |
Gamesguy
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 03:17:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Faife
citation needed. there's a reason they sell for as much as they sell for. the good ones anyways.
What citation do you need? The fact that the vast majority of t2 bpos are crap like ammo bpos? Only very few BPOs actually make significant amounts of isk.
Quote:
this one is my point. there's no way to take a moon station if they're constantly printing new ships WITHOUT having to fly missions, while you're constantly busy grinding lvls to replace your caps.
or do you intend to go after a small death star with t1 fit apocs?
What? Siege it with dreads?
Quote:
law of unintended consequences: you nerf those, you make it nigh impossible to win new chunks of 0.0 space.
Bullcrap, are you saying before L4 mission running became eve's favorite way of making isk no new entities ever claimed space in 0.0 and succeed?
You think goonswarm funded their 0.0 empire by running missions in highsec?
|
Mihailo Great
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 04:05:00 -
[64]
Remove all sources of isk, so we play with GTC credits only.
Lose a battleship, cost you 15$ in real life, lose a Titan, lose your HOUSE IRL!!!
IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU????
|
notaforumalt
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 04:33:00 -
[65]
Originally by: snaike I dearly wish I was one of these players who could throw battleships away at an opponent like one would throw pennies at a homeless feller to make him go away. I dunno, maybe the fact that, after 2 years of play, I don't have a multi-billion isk wallet would suggest I suck at Eve, but then I don't enjoy grinding isk, nor do I have the time/money for an isk***** account.
I play for pvp, and pvp is damn expensive, even when you don't die all that much (touches wood). If my losses were to hurt me in the way you would like them to, I simply would not bother playing, and ccp would lose my ú's.
Don't get me wrong, despite that last sentance this isn't a 'omgzz ccp dnt change stuffz or I will quit' I'm simply relaying to you the reality of the situation for many players. When I lose a battleship, or indeed any ship, I feel a pang of regret for the hit my wallet must subsequently sustain; and I'm sure Im not the only one.
this is it right here- im a pvper, i have 1.5m in my wallet, and a chimera/rook and various t1 cruisers. i HATE missions and would rather eat babies then mine. ratting, i can rat in a pvp ship and wait for some moron in a razu looking for a easy kill :D __________________________________________________ this is my sig, and i am not an alt *hides* |
Hard Water
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 04:43:00 -
[66]
Get rid of dysprosium moons and make Dysprosium Rats.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 04:44:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Hard Water Dysprosium Rats
XD -
DesuSigs |
Zeba
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 05:05:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Hard Water Get rid of dysprosium moons and make Dysprosium Rats.
Probably in the Midas expansion. Drone regions will have the top level drones drop some new alloy that refines to dys.
inappropriate signature. ~WeatherMan |
NSSQUAD
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 06:03:00 -
[69]
i just want to say that i can fly vary large ships but guess what iv never used them :-P i can get battle ships and what not if i mine my ass off but i dont feel like it. so i fly my commet around and around the battle ships scraming them and there is nothing they can do :-) but i find that no careing about how the market is price is doing just fine for me. i play the game and get my skills better and better by the month. what does this get me? a better pilot more skills i can have and has everyone forgot how to just save your money and assets?
|
Kage Psychodin
Caldari The Empire Nation Worlds End Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 07:36:00 -
[70]
Its a cute Idea, but it can't really work anymore, for the same reason that if you can only afford cruisers when your opponents can afford battleships, you lose. Period.
(Seriously, think about this for a second when which side is going to get more allies, the guys with 15 battleships each who can easily replace them, or the ones with 1 cruiser each who have to sc**** by in the nonsense never will exist nerfed highsec EVE?) Another one bites the dust. |
|
TimMc
Gallente SolaR KillerS
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 07:46:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Blastrodamus
Originally by: Gatedeath
....in a fully fitted T2 BS that cost you all of 20 mil isk.
for the love of god please tell me where i can get a T2 BS for 20 mil.
This. Costs 100mil for just the BS, 30mil for insurance that only give you 100mil back when you lose it. Plus that 50 odd mil for fittings and even more for rigs. You are looking at 100mil loss.
For those of us who hate ratting for hours on end, this hurts. CCP are trying to get people to risk, instead of carebear.
|
Joe
Umbra Legion Shadow Empire.
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 08:01:00 -
[72]
by 'T2' i think they dude ment 'teir II' such as Apocs, ravens, and megathrons etc
Ship cost has no impact on their 'dissposability' if the Insurance payout componsates for loss's.
Its a pity we cant have the best of both worlds, becuase new players legitamaly need the insurance system so theyre not discouraged to leave after a few ship los's (and lets face it, everyone makes mistakes and looses ships when theyre just learning the game system)
|
Mihailo Great
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 08:13:00 -
[73]
last poster game me an idea, might of been mentioned, but here it is
insurance is dependant on player age, it's easier to track than player's loss history or insurance claim history
|
Solomon XI
Hoist The Colors.
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 08:18:00 -
[74]
This is worse than the whole mwd/web nerf + mass increase fiasco ... you people are friggin' insane.
If we STOP THE MACROMINERS and ISK FARMERS, prices will fall into line again.
Whats so hard to comprehend? ~Solo Hoist The Colors. (CEO) |
Dr Sheepbringer
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 08:43:00 -
[75]
I wouldn't raise the price, but I would make it harder to buy them (for example you would have go get them from shipyards in specific locations). Players should have to "travel" more to get certain things. Nowdays you can just tavel to any hub and get EVERYTHING. In general if you want Amarr ships, you need to travel to amarr space. Just make something similar to customs (and smuggling ;))
|
Alarios
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 09:08:00 -
[76]
You re right Tim. It costs much more than 20 million when you loose a Battleship. 20 million pfff... Maybe wehen you re using something like a ugly dominix without rigs.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 09:32:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Faife
Originally by: murder one
What Crumplecorn said. As it sits now, it's pretty much impossible to destroy an enemy with a war of attrition. It's impossible to choke someone out of their space in 0.0 by destroying their supply lines and killing off their ability to afford more ships by *destroying ships*.
This is a stupid situation that needs to be fixed.
you can't choke people out if they have t2 bpos and a few good moons.
the game is screwed up because of those colossal money prints. if you remove insurance no starter alliance would have any chance to move to hold 0.0: the other guys print money, they dont. as a side effect it makes losing t1 ships easy. oh well. it's a small price to pay (no pun intended) for having possibility of power flow in the game
Thats insignificant. The larger issue is that you can keep your isk generating activities in perfect safety and completely removed from harms way through the use of high sec and npc corps. In essence EVE has separated the pvp areas from the isk generating areas to a large extent and that in turn removes a very large part of the economic aspect of pvp. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 10:08:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Solomon XI If we STOP THE MACROMINERS and ISK FARMERS, prices will fall into line again.
Whats so hard to comprehend?
A great many, if not most, of the people farming ISK are actual players. You think all those people in Motsu are sweatshop workers?
Of course, if you really mean that this kind of ISK farming needs to be reigned in then I'm right behind you.
|
Steve Hawkings
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 10:13:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Solomon XI This is worse than the whole mwd/web nerf + mass increase fiasco ... you people are friggin' insane.
If we STOP THE MACROMINERS and ISK FARMERS, prices will fall into line again.
Whats so hard to comprehend?
lol Time is not Money and minerals i mine are free!! |
Lil' Snake
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 10:19:00 -
[80]
Successful troll is successful
|
|
Hungo
Minmatar Warped Mining
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 10:20:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Gatedeath Hi, im from the NC, we are loosing so badly that we need a way to stem the tide of evil doers agaisnt us, please consider my redicoulsy silly idea so they cant effectly pvp agaisnt us
Okay, akll done
|
Feilamya
Minmatar 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 10:26:00 -
[82]
solution for the op:
give me your isk
|
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 10:28:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Yes you can. Most t2 bpos make barely any isk.
You can siege the moon mining pos and kill them.
You can't stop their highsec npc corp L4 mission running alts from supplying them from isk to fight however, which is completely broken.
T2 BPO owners can produce fine by sitting in high sec all day and buying components using buy offers...
How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
|
Siigari Kitawa
Gallente The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 10:33:00 -
[84]
DYING ITT
|
Chipan Asty
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 11:05:00 -
[85]
The price of ships is set by the players not CCP.
If you want to make the price of ships increase all you have to do is buy all the minerals in eve up and resell them for a higher price. And maybe wardec every mining corp in eve and blow them out of existence to stop them restocking the market with cheaper mins again.
The only thing CCP could do is introduce a roid drought and that isn't going to happen.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 11:10:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Faife
Originally by: Gamesguy
Yes you can. Most t2 bpos make barely any isk.
citation needed. there's a reason they sell for as much as they sell for. the good ones anyways.
With all the disagreement I have with Gamesguy, she is right. Most T2 BPO make a pittance in isk. And the sell price is out of proportion for the isk received from production. Generally T2 BPO are sold for the profits of 3-5 year of continual (24 hours day) production at current sell prices.
Originally by: Faife
Originally by: Gamesguy
You can siege the moon mining pos and kill them.
this one is my point. there's no way to take a moon station if they're constantly printing new ships WITHOUT having to fly missions, while you're constantly busy grinding lvls to replace your caps.
or do you intend to go after a small death star with t1 fit apocs?
The POS owner must still move his products to the market. You have problems with him having jumpbridges and jump freighters? Wardec them and hunt the corp freighter in high sec. NPC corp haulers can be a problem, but you can still suicide them in high sec and recover the moon minerals moved from the wreck.
Originally by: Faife
Originally by: gamewhatever
You can't stop their highsec npc corp L4 mission running alts from supplying them from isk to fight however, which is completely broken.
law of unintended consequences: you nerf those, you make it nigh impossible to win new chunks of 0.0 space.
Only point where I partially agree with you. Level 4 mission need to be rebalanced but not at the level Gamesguy think is indispensable.
|
Terail Zoqial
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 11:30:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Gatedeath Edited by: Gatedeath on 12/09/2008 19:49:11 Battleships are so dispposable today, as to not even be considerd a loss when they get blown up. Provided you had it insured. You just keep dying over and over, get another BS, head back to the blob, loos another BS. so on and so forth.
Stop selling GTC's for isk and just use in game resources, either that or buy BS's on the market for the highest price.
If I had 1 isk for every ******ed comment, I'd have a titan by now. |
Janu Hull
Caldari Terra Incognita Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 11:41:00 -
[88]
People who think wars of attrition are impossible fail epically at EVE. I've seen it done, even had it done to the alliance I'm in. Given the necessity of player immortality in this MMO, you don't win by blowing up their internet spaceships, you go after their ISK printing presses.
No, not their death stars, their cyno jammer POSes, their jump bridges (though offlining them can be amusing at times).
You go after their moon mining POSes. The little towers they thing nobody cares about. Nail one moon mining POS, and you've not only disabled that particular source of material, but you've disabled the entire reaction. In essence, you've knocked out two to four different towers by rendering them incapable of generating income. A few hundred million ISK per day of effortless income now becomes an ISK sink as hungry reactors burn POS fuel without profit.
Larger alliances obviously require larger efforts, but constantly reinforcing those towers costs the station owners not only the lost income from the miners, but the strontium they have to replenish, the time they waste putting it back online, and the effort to reinforce those small towers once they realize someone's nipping at their wallets.
Attrition is alive and well in 0.0, its just a very different game when tilting with the bigger windmills. In the event of an emergency, my ego may be used as a floatation device.
|
Lindsay Logan
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 11:44:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Lindsay Logan on 13/09/2008 11:44:19
Originally by: Gatedeath OP post.
Go back to WoW where the item prices are fixed. Players make the prices in this game.
|
Janu Hull
Caldari Terra Incognita Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 11:52:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: Janu Hull People who think wars of attrition are impossible fail epically at EVE. I've seen it done, even had it done to the alliance I'm in. Given the necessity of player immortality in this MMO, you don't win by blowing up their internet spaceships, you go after their ISK printing presses.
No, not their death stars, their cyno jammer POSes, their jump bridges (though offlining them can be amusing at times).
You go after their moon mining POSes. The little towers they thing nobody cares about. Nail one moon mining POS, and you've not only disabled that particular source of material, but you've disabled the entire reaction. In essence, you've knocked out two to four different towers by rendering them incapable of generating income. A few hundred million ISK per day of effortless income now becomes an ISK sink as hungry reactors burn POS fuel without profit.
Larger alliances obviously require larger efforts, but constantly reinforcing those towers costs the station owners not only the lost income from the miners, but the strontium they have to replenish, the time they waste putting it back online, and the effort to reinforce those small towers once they realize someone's nipping at their wallets.
Attrition is alive and well in 0.0, its just a very different game when tilting with the bigger windmills.
You're right for the wrong reasons.
Its not that the moon mining pos killing are hurting their wallets, it really doesnt. Us killing all of the NC's moon mining posses didnt hurt their wallets much.
It hurts morale. 0.0 warfare today is about grinding down your opponent's morale rather than their wallets. Losing posses while you're stuck gatecamping a single cyno jammed station pos hurts morale, and give it a couple of weeks people start not logging on for the gatecamps.
I stand corrected. o7 In the event of an emergency, my ego may be used as a floatation device.
|
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 12:31:00 -
[91]
Originally by: MotherMoon here is the hard truth, it takes about 4 hours of level 4 missions to replace 20 million isk.
ahahahaa riiiiiiight. 5M/hr?
No. the hard truth is that you can beat that rate doing level 3s in a t1 drake.
|
Joe
Umbra Legion Shadow Empire.
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 12:37:00 -
[92]
New players dont care about POS, Production chains, nor do they give a hoot whos in power of what region, or what a Blob is. Most dont give a care when a bitter veteran tells them some Tech II bpo propaganda
All they care about is replacing their ships while they're learning the game.
Originally by: Gatedeath I suggest tripling the cost of all ships. With no insureance adjustment to compensate for the incresed cost.
This makes sense and i can see heaps of new players sticking around
If your issue is just with blobs (that you refer to how many times in your post?), than offer solutions to 'Blob' warfare, dont try and penalise the whole community, especially those just starting, with a half thought out 'solution'
Umbra Recruitment
|
Poast Warrior
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 12:49:00 -
[93]
Not gunna happen.
More grind = less players = less money = not gunna happen
I play this game for the PVP. I only PVE to fuel my PVP since the former bores me to death, so replacing a non insured ship is already painful enough.
Originally by: Kiay Stryx
Your an idiot.
|
El Yatta
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 12:56:00 -
[94]
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. _______________________________________________ Mercenary Forces |
Dantes Revenge
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 13:04:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Gatedeath fully fitted T2 BS that cost you all of 20 mil isk.
A frigate is about the only T2 ship you can buy and fit for 20 mil.
I Don't know what insurance returns are on a T2 BS but if it's anything like a Command ship, it's only about 30% of it's actual market price. At a guess, I would say about 200m max. Guessing at figures here but 700m for the ship, 50m for the insurance, 50m to fit it reasonably without officer mods. Get the insurance back and you've lost 600m. I'd say that already hurts quite a bit.
Hardly what I'd call a disposable ship.
-- 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. |
Avon
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 13:10:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
Originally by: Gatedeath fully fitted T2 BS that cost you all of 20 mil isk.
A frigate is about the only T2 ship you can buy and fit for 20 mil.
I Don't know what insurance returns are on a T2 BS but if it's anything like a Command ship, it's only about 30% of it's actual market price. At a guess, I would say about 200m max. Guessing at figures here but 700m for the ship, 50m for the insurance, 50m to fit it reasonably without officer mods. Get the insurance back and you've lost 600m. I'd say that already hurts quite a bit.
Hardly what I'd call a disposable ship.
I think he is talking about T2 fitted T1 battleships - fleet stuff.
I can probably profit from losing mine.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Deja Thoris
Invicta.
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 13:35:00 -
[97]
It's hard enough to get people to fight in this game.
Make dieing hurt more and there would be even less of that happening.
Not a good idea imo.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 17:50:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Deja Thoris It's hard enough to get people to fight in this game.
Make dieing hurt more and there would be even less of that happening.
Not a good idea imo.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
Ruze
Amarr No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 17:53:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: Janu Hull People who think wars of attrition are impossible fail epically at EVE. I've seen it done, even had it done to the alliance I'm in. Given the necessity of player immortality in this MMO, you don't win by blowing up their internet spaceships, you go after their ISK printing presses.
No, not their death stars, their cyno jammer POSes, their jump bridges (though offlining them can be amusing at times).
You go after their moon mining POSes. The little towers they thing nobody cares about. Nail one moon mining POS, and you've not only disabled that particular source of material, but you've disabled the entire reaction. In essence, you've knocked out two to four different towers by rendering them incapable of generating income. A few hundred million ISK per day of effortless income now becomes an ISK sink as hungry reactors burn POS fuel without profit.
Larger alliances obviously require larger efforts, but constantly reinforcing those towers costs the station owners not only the lost income from the miners, but the strontium they have to replenish, the time they waste putting it back online, and the effort to reinforce those small towers once they realize someone's nipping at their wallets.
Attrition is alive and well in 0.0, its just a very different game when tilting with the bigger windmills.
You're right for the wrong reasons.
Its not that the moon mining pos killing are hurting their wallets, it really doesnt. Us killing all of the NC's moon mining posses didnt hurt their wallets much.
It hurts morale. 0.0 warfare today is about grinding down your opponent's morale rather than their wallets. Losing posses while you're stuck gatecamping a single cyno jammed station pos hurts morale, and give it a couple of weeks people start not logging on for the gatecamps.
Or just spending all their time on their alt in Empire. Lot's of nulsec groups have been pushed back into Empire through morale and attrition.
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 - 2008.09.13 17:56:00 -
[100]
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. -
DesuSigs |
|
Faife
Minmatar Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 19:31:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Crumplecorn Taking this to its logical conclusion, everything in EVE should be free to encourage harsh PvP.
could you make a "slippery slope fallacy" desu? i could use it right now. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Saint |
Labratory Rat
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 21:15:00 -
[102]
Here ya go . . .
Link all of an individuals accounts/characters Scale the insurance payout down with the value of their wallets and assets or just don't sell insurance to people meeting certain criteria
New/young players wont get impacted in a meaningful way.
The OP's issue seems to be with the super-rich. This addresses that somewhat without impacting the rest of us. Tax the rich, leave the rest of us alone.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 21:20:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Faife
Originally by: Crumplecorn Taking this to its logical conclusion, everything in EVE should be free to encourage harsh PvP.
could you make a "slippery slope fallacy" desu? i could use it right now.
Slippery slope is when you suggest that small changes will snowball into larger changes over time. I'm merely showing that the logic at the core of this suggestion is broken.
I might be able to offer you a 'Misapplication of Logical Fallacies' DesuSig? -
DesuSigs |
Void Parity
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 21:32:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Void Parity on 13/09/2008 21:33:27 Dying already hurts. We know this -- at least, those of us who are not multi-billionaires.
There are two general fix themes here; fix insurance or fix money making.
Starting with insurance: Why not make insurance more like it is in the real world? There are risk factors: how many times have you lost a ship? What's the total payout of all the ships you've lost in the last month? Are you at war and likely to lose a ship again soon? You're uninsurable pal. That makes dying hurt more if you do it a lot, but hurt just enough if you don't.
Next, fixing money making: Keep track of how much money a character makes in a month. Tax the character for that amount of money just like income taxes in the real world. Don't use a flat tax rate; ramp it up for richer characters. So a new player who makes 20 mil a month pays a 10% tax and a player who makes a bil a month pays a 40% tax. And tax everything: missions, profit from sales, bounties, all of it.
This doesn't directly address alts, but if you're making all of your money with one alt, and you're doing all the dying with your main, both are affected, just by different sides of the coin.
A casual player is not going to be hurt at all; a powergamer isn't going to be able to drop battleships like pocket change. Everybody's happy.
|
Void Parity
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 21:36:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Slippery slope is when you suggest that small changes will snowball into larger changes over time. I'm merely showing that the logic at the core of this suggestion is broken.
I might be able to offer you a 'Misapplication of Logical Fallacies' DesuSig?
You're right, lets go with false dichotomy on this one. You're saying either nothing should encourage PVP or everything should encourage PVP.
|
Grarr Dexx
Amarr The Cosa Nostra La Cosa Nostra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 21:37:00 -
[106]
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.
You forgot to add in how people think.
|
Trathen
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 21:50:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Malcanis
ahahahaa riiiiiiight. 5M/hr?
No. the hard truth is that you can beat that rate doing level 3s in a t1 drake.
Even with 20 million an hour, making someone engage in the worst RPG quest system ever for an hour is pretty damn harsh. _ |
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 21:53:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Void Parity You're right, lets go with false dichotomy on this one. You're saying either nothing should encourage PVP or everything should encourage PVP.
I'm not saying anything about encouraging PvP. How about we go with "WTF you talkin' bout?" -
DesuSigs |
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 22:00:00 -
[109]
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. And if you are reading this, you have arrived at the signature without noticing...
|
Void Parity
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 22:01:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Crumplecorn I'm not saying anything about encouraging PvP. How about we go with "WTF you talkin' bout?"
I'm talking about this:
Originally by: Crumplecorn Taking this to its logical conclusion, everything in EVE should be free to encourage harsh PvP.
I could almost swear that last word is PvP ...
|
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 22:04:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Void Parity
Originally by: Crumplecorn Taking this to its logical conclusion, everything in EVE should be free to encourage harsh PvP.
I could almost swear that last word is PvP ...
Your point being? -
DesuSigs |
Void Parity
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 22:11:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Void Parity
Originally by: Crumplecorn Taking this to its logical conclusion, everything in EVE should be free to encourage harsh PvP.
I could almost swear that last word is PvP ...
Your point being?
I think this is a game of "I forgot the post before your last post because my short-term memory is bad"; I'm not playing anymore.
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 22:11:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Trathen
Originally by: Malcanis
ahahahaa riiiiiiight. 5M/hr?
No. the hard truth is that you can beat that rate doing level 3s in a t1 drake.
Even with 20 million an hour, making someone engage in the worst RPG quest system ever for an hour is pretty damn harsh.
Apparently, quite a lot of people like it.
But then a lot of people are freaks, so what are you gonna do?
|
Trathen
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 22:23:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Malcanis
Apparently, quite a lot of people like it.
But then a lot of people are freaks, so what are you gonna do?
True, that seems to the variation in the death penalty anyway. Some people don't mind missioning so no price increase will discourage them. At the same time, I've also known of people who are more concerned about killboard ranks than ISK loss. Even if you can afford 10 battleships a day, it doesn't look good on your record. _ |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 22:32:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Trathen
Originally by: Malcanis
Apparently, quite a lot of people like it.
But then a lot of people are freaks, so what are you gonna do?
True, that seems to the variation in the death penalty anyway. Some people don't mind missioning so no price increase will discourage them. At the same time, I've also known of people who are more concerned about killboard ranks than ISK loss. Even if you can afford 10 battleships a day, it doesn't look good on your record.
Speaking for myself, after you've t2-fit, rigged and loaded up with faction ammo, the whole "insurance covers the cost of your ship" thing is kind of moot.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 09:10:00 -
[116]
Edited by: Kerfira on 14/09/2008 09:11:05
Originally by: MotherMoon here is the hard truth, it takes about 4 hours of level 4 missions to replace 20 million isk.
Your 'truth' is somewhat untruthful....
A T2 equipped CNR (they're fairly cheap these days) can easily make 10-20m ISK per hour if you loot & salvage. A Golem with faction BCS' can easily make 20-40m per hour (with loot & salvage).
I agree with the OP, but think the way is to limit/remove insurance. I can see three different ways of doing so:
Solution 1: Insurance is based on sec. level: In high-sec, you can insure ships 100%. In low-sec, you can insure ships 50%. In 0.0, insurance is gives nothing.
Solution 2: Insurance is based on ship size: Frigates can be insured 100% Destroyers can be insured 75% Cruisers can be insured 50% Battlecruisers can be insured 35% Battleships can be insured 20% Capitals can not be insured
Solution 3: Remove insurance completely.
Both are of.c. for T1. T2 insurance works fine as it is.
The main reason to remove insurance is not so much to make death painful (though that is also a part), but is more to encourage the use of smaller ships too. These days anything smaller than a T1 battleship is rarely seen in 0.0 combat, simply because bigger stuff is so cheap (after insurance).
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 09:22:00 -
[117]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 14/09/2008 09:24:08
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: MotherMoon here is the hard truth, it takes about 4 hours of level 4 missions to replace 20 million isk.
Your 'truth' is somewhat untruthful....
you failed to read the next line didn't you...
here is the hard truth, it takes about 4 hours of level 4 missions to replace 20 million isk... FOR NEW PLAYERS THAT DON"T HAVE THE SKILLS OR GEAR YET and are flying tech 1 fit tier one battleships (if they even have one left after losing one.
so it fact unless a player grinds up two battleships one for missioning back the isk for the lost one it will take longer than 4 hours.
not qutoed.
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 09:31:00 -
[118]
Originally by: MotherMoon Edited by: MotherMoon on 14/09/2008 09:24:08
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: MotherMoon here is the hard truth, it takes about 4 hours of level 4 missions to replace 20 million isk.
Your 'truth' is somewhat untruthful....
you failed to read the next line didn't you...
here is the hard truth, it takes about 4 hours of level 4 missions to replace 20 million isk... FOR NEW PLAYERS THAT DON"T HAVE THE SKILLS OR GEAR YET and are flying tech 1 fit tier one battleships (if they even have one left after losing one.
so it fact unless a player grinds up two battleships one for missioning back the isk for the lost one it will take longer than 4 hours.
not qutoed.
So wait, which part of the player base is it that you're talking about? Noobs who can barely fly a drake or people who are flying T2-fit PvP ships?
|
Gamesguy
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 09:43:00 -
[119]
Originally by: MotherMoon Edited by: MotherMoon on 14/09/2008 09:24:08
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: MotherMoon here is the hard truth, it takes about 4 hours of level 4 missions to replace 20 million isk.
Your 'truth' is somewhat untruthful....
you failed to read the next line didn't you...
here is the hard truth, it takes about 4 hours of level 4 missions to replace 20 million isk... FOR NEW PLAYERS THAT DON"T HAVE THE SKILLS OR GEAR YET and are flying tech 1 fit tier one battleships (if they even have one left after losing one.
so it fact unless a player grinds up two battleships one for missioning back the isk for the lost one it will take longer than 4 hours.
not qutoed.
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?
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 09:48:00 -
[120]
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 :)
|
|
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 [email protected] ~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 |
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 11:25:00 -
[151]
Originally by: Roy Batty68
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.
A floating system for insurance run the risk of constantly lowering mineral prices.
Today the informed builder will look the insurance payout for the ship and set up his sell price so that it is a bit above insurance premium-insurance cost.
This give a miner a base price for his minerals. If the sell price of the minerals was so low to allow the builder to produce, insure and self destruct for the insurance payout without ever selling the ship the miners would be simply giving free isk to the builder.
But if the insurance payout was replaced by a variable system where market price of the ship/minerals was taken in account, several builders would continue to sell at some point above insurance payout-insurance premium, setting a lower value to the minerals in the ship, and so lowering the buy price for minerals.
There are too many people that think that "the minerals I mine are free" and so willing to sell at really low prices, to hope that the minerals price will stay up.
Some people will look what is the isk/hour return of mining and stop doing it, but a good number will say "my alt is trained for mining, I run him in the background when using my main (or put him mining in a industrial in a high sec belt while I am afk) and any isk is better than no isk".
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 11:48:00 -
[152]
Originally by: El Yatta 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.
How is it one side suddenly becomes less competitive than the other when prices change across the board?
Originally by: El Yatta 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.
And again I say, there is nothing harsh about flying around in disposable ships.
Originally by: El Yatta 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.
Disposable is a function of cost and wallet size, nothing more. You might be willing to throw a carrier away in a fight, but if you can't afford to replace it, it's still not disposable. And of course truly disposable only applies to T1 fits. Why do you think I've been singling out the largest T1 ships, and suggesting nerfing insurance, which only makes a significant difference for T1 fit T1 ships?
Originally by: El Yatta 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.
Morale has nothing to do with the disposability of a ship. And what people can afford is indeed not standardised, but that is a moot point since ship costs have to be standardised at some point. All that can be achieved is something reasonable. Is 10-15M for a battleship reasonable?
Originally by: El Yatta No, I did not.
Originally by: El Yatta 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.
Yes you did, and I agree with you there - increasing costs won't affect morale. People will fight just as much, but they will have to fly smaller ships.
Originally by: El Yatta 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.
I value harsh and challenging, but I wouldn't call them fun. That's a semantics issue though. As for the enemy staying docked, as I pointed out both sides will be hurt equally by any changes to costs, so the enemy has no extra incentive to dock. This also assumes that making everything more expensive would give bigger morale hits to your enemy when they die: in fact, you're doing it wrong. If you are that worried about encouraging PvP, let's making everything free. Then you'll have all the PvP you want, though it'll be fairly meaningless. -
DesuSigs |
Ryoji Tanakama
Caldari Firestar Drive Yards
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 11:56:00 -
[153]
Why do people seem to think that this approach to battleships is new?
3 or so years ago you'd have a corpmate pop your unfit, plat insured BS outside the station because you'd make a profit and through which you could offset some of the reinsurance cost on your replacement ship.
That's right, popping an insured ship and buying a new one was at one time more cost effective than simply reinsuring it, as the payout was more than you spent on the ship in the first place.
T1 hulls are intended to be 'disposable'. Those who can will fly tech 2 ships.
The limiting factor here is the lack of a decent t2 PvP battleship. There is no t2 sniper bs so everyone flys disposable t1s. Add some real PvP battleships to the tech 2 catalogue and those who can afford them will fly them, and take the wallet hit when they lose them.
|
griff1972
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 12:20:00 -
[154]
GTC gives a out of game advantage over others.
CCp "The paying Customer seems to be enjoying that modual," "yeah lets nerf him"
|
Delichon
The First Foundation SOLAR FLEET
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 13:10:00 -
[155]
Well, I don't think just making anything more expensive solves the "expandable" attitude. Look at Titans: these were meant to be unique ships, known by their names and easily memorized by any EVE-player. "Titans were never meant to be cost-effective, they are huge d..." (CCP employee, last year's Funfest) Now - let's just say that they are too common.
Tier 2 BCs became noob-boats and are restricted in competitive fleets. Rat with it, roam with it, just don't take one to the CTA. To CTA you take capital, BS or T2 cruiser-sized support - and you should be flying the later with your alt, while your main flies the former.
Tier 1 BCs? T1 cruisers?? T1 Frigs??? C'mon, this is not funny. Full T2 fitting is worth about 5 times the cost of T1 cruiser. You may see an occasional BB in gang but that is just it.
The problem is not ONLY isk. I know people, who are barely capable of buying inties often enough to suistain their PVP-habits. It may be because of the PVP-PVE balance they have (95-5 i would say) or because they plain s...k at making ISK (which is stupidly easy once you get hold of it) But anyway: make ISK grind harder - and you push them out of Eve. And these are not some whiny carebears, they know how to blow stuff up. They just can't keep up with the rate their own stuff keeps blowing up :)
ISK--to-ships is a very complicated issue, you can't apply a whole sale method to it. ------------------------------------------ All nerfs are meant to hurt you personally. They will be nerfing you directly next.
EVE A new game every 6 months. (c) Atomos Darksun |
Squably
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 13:13:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Atlas Oracle i lost my beloved drake in an L3 mission (blockade) last night due to my computer crashing while i had aggro :(
it hurt. bad. real bad.
it will take me a very long time to make back 80 million ISK to buy and fit a new one.
ps - DO NOT ask me if it was insured.
Well was it insured?
And damn those things got cheap, i used to fly drakes n lost 120 mil everytime i died Signature removed. Please do not imply profanity in your signature. Navigator
|
El Yatta
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 18:27:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Crumplecorn How is it one side suddenly becomes less competitive than the other when prices change across the board?
Because its almost universally the case that two sides have different levels of resources. No war in EVE is fair and balanced from the start. Thats fine, its better than fine, its great. But where once people who were already financially out-gunned would come out in equal ships at first, if they cant afford to even match the richer side in the very first engagement (or for x engagements, where x was how many BS or CS or caps they could lose), then there will be no engagements.
Very simplified example, assuming equal numbers and morale: If ships cost Y, and party 1 has 6Y, and party 2 has 24Y. Party 2 is rich and has dyspro moons, bla bla. Now, if 2 attacks 1, he might get up to 6 fights out of the, depending on how much they want it. After that party 1 will give up. If ships suddenly cost 4-6Y, then party 1 will fight once or not at all. It does not matter that there is a cheaper ship out there that used to cost 0.5Y and now costs 1.5Y, which means Party 1 can fight 4 fights in the cheap ship. Because the cheap ship cannot compete, and they wont enjoy being humiliated easily.
In this simplified example, your argument is that by makign everything cost more, the war of attrition is won quicker, and that is better and more balanced. I am arguing that this is nonsense, as we have a situation right now where targets are risk-averse enough that we're on the edge of "not fighting at all" already. I dont see this as an argument to cheapen ships, merely that the status quo works, and a situation with far more expensive ships, might not.
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: El Yatta 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.
Morale has nothing to do with the disposability of a ship. And what people can afford is indeed not standardised, but that is a moot point since ship costs have to be standardised at some point. All that can be achieved is something reasonable. Is 10-15M for a battleship reasonable?
Reasonable is just another word which is yet again, subjective. I dont see how 15m is any less reasonable than 60m though, personally.
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: El Yatta 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.
I value harsh and challenging, but I wouldn't call them fun. That's a semantics issue though. As for the enemy staying docked, as I pointed out both sides will be hurt equally by any changes to costs, so the enemy has no extra incentive to dock. This also assumes that making everything more expensive would give bigger morale hits to your enemy when they die: in fact, you're doing it wrong. If you are that worried about encouraging PvP, let's making everything free. Then you'll have all the PvP you want, though it'll be fairly meaningless.
Stop editorialising my comments. Making ships free would encourage pure combat but not meaningful combat. I never suggested to do that. I am arguing that the status quo works. You've not provided any reason to think that it doesn't, other than "BS are broken!" kind of logic. Not all combat is between people who have equal will and ISK, indeed, almost none is. So there IS an extra incentive to dock in one (large) group: those who can stomach a loss now but not in a situation with 3x costs. _______________________________________________ Mercenary Forces |
Haradgrim
Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 19:18:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Delichon Well, I don't think just making anything more expensive solves the "expandable" attitude. Look at Titans: these were meant to be unique ships, known by their names and easily memorized by any EVE-player. "Titans were never meant to be cost-effective, they are huge d..." (CCP employee, last year's Funfest) Now - let's just say that they are too common.
Tier 2 BCs became noob-boats and are restricted in competitive fleets. Rat with it, roam with it, just don't take one to the CTA. To CTA you take capital, BS or T2 cruiser-sized support - and you should be flying the later with your alt, while your main flies the former.
Tier 1 BCs? T1 cruisers?? T1 Frigs??? C'mon, this is not funny. Full T2 fitting is worth about 5 times the cost of T1 cruiser. You may see an occasional BB in gang but that is just it.
The problem is not ONLY isk. I know people, who are barely capable of buying inties often enough to suistain their PVP-habits. It may be because of the PVP-PVE balance they have (95-5 i would say) or because they plain s...k at making ISK (which is stupidly easy once you get hold of it) But anyway: make ISK grind harder - and you push them out of Eve. And these are not some whiny carebears, they know how to blow stuff up. They just can't keep up with the rate their own stuff keeps blowing up :)
ISK--to-ships is a very complicated issue, you can't apply a whole sale method to it.
This hits it on the head. --
Originally by: CCP Oveur ...every forum whine feels like a baby pony is getting killed
|
Gamesguy
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 23:28:00 -
[159]
Quote: In this simplified example, your argument is that by makign everything cost more, the war of attrition is won quicker, and that is better and more balanced. I am arguing that this is nonsense, as we have a situation right now where targets are risk-averse enough that we're on the edge of "not fighting at all" already. I dont see this as an argument to cheapen ships, merely that the status quo works, and a situation with far more expensive ships, might not.
Nonsense. If anything making more isk makes people more risk averse.
The risk averse people will avoid pvp even when they have billions and billions of isk. They just hate dying. Its like the people in WoW who get really ****ed off at dying despite losing basically nothing.
The pvpers will continue to pvp, even if they can't afford the ships.
Look at eve 2 years ago. Most people didn't know about mission running making so much isk back then. People in general had a lot less isk and equipement and ships were far more expensive(especially t2). Now look at today, where 70% of eve is sitting in highsec, most of them running missions making far more isk than 2 years ago.
Can you honestly tell me there is a higher percentage of pvpers today?
No, there isn't. If anything the risk free isk faucets in eve(ie missions) have made players even more risk averse.
|
Cmdr Sy
Appetite 4 Destruction The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 23:38:00 -
[160]
Edited by: Cmdr Sy on 15/09/2008 23:40:19
The cost of a BS is only trivial compared to the setup. The rigs alone cost nearly as much as an Armageddon, before adding T2 guns, everything and seeing your "insured" loss soar to 100m. One here, one there, pretty soon you are talking real money.
A fully T2-fitted Thorax is also an expensive explosion.
EVE CCG Trinity Booster |
|
Zero Invention
|
Posted - 2008.09.16 01:50:00 -
[161]
GO TO 0.0 freakin Abaddons for 189 mil
|
Gamesguy
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.09.16 01:51:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Cmdr Sy Edited by: Cmdr Sy on 15/09/2008 23:40:19
The cost of a BS is only trivial compared to the setup. The rigs alone cost nearly as much as an Armageddon, before adding T2 guns, everything and seeing your "insured" loss soar to 100m. One here, one there, pretty soon you are talking real money.
A fully T2-fitted Thorax is also an expensive explosion.
I only lose like 10mil when I lose fully t2 fitted fleet snipers.
|
Rhatar Khurin
Minmatar Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.09.16 01:53:00 -
[163]
Originally by: MotherMoon here is the hard truth, it takes about 4 hours of level 4 missions to replace 20 million isk. Unless you already have billions of isk to spend on super mission running ships and tech 2 gear that own missions quickly. And players don't have that when they start out. Until after grinding those missions. Players should be allowed to not lose as much money after working for weeks, or months to become that stable.
What? i can fully T2 fit a domi or a megathron for a lot less than 20 mill. and i sure dont have to spend 4 hours grinding missions for it. Hell, even mining veldspar i can make 20 mill quicker than 4 hours by my self.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |