| Pages: [1] 2 |
1. Combining Falcons and off-grid boosting: a solution - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
3/10
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2014.12.03 20:19:06
|
2. STOP PAYING INSURANCE FOR CONCORD KILLS - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Hirana Yoshida wrote: Remove insurance for all 0.5+ system deaths involving Concord. - It is a stop-gap measure until the following is implemented . .can be skipped entirely if next is done first. Remove all sec. gain from null rats. Increase...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.16 08:25:00
|
3. STOP PAYING INSURANCE FOR CONCORD KILLS - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Llanthas wrote: Here we go again.... 1 - the current situation annoys a huge number of players. 2 - paying insurance for CONCORD kills destroys the entire idea behind "high security systems" by facilitating suicide ganking with very little rep...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.16 06:47:00
|
4. STOP PAYING INSURANCE FOR CONCORD KILLS - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Llanthas wrote: Honestly, I don't need to be told that at all. I know it will have an effect because all the gankers are losing their minds on here trying to defend it. We're defending suicide-ganking, not insurance. From a mathematical stan...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.15 23:08:00
|
5. Suicide Ganking? problem or not? - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
reamau wrote: Rather than citing other games, I'll cite real life history- when an event occurs too often, things change to prevent or mitigate it. They build bigger guns, we build better armor, etc etc. In this case in Eve, the only changes we...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.15 22:54:00
|
6. STOP PAYING INSURANCE FOR CONCORD KILLS - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
I don't know how many times you need to be told that removing insurance will have limited to no impact on suicide-ganking. Are we going to shoot haulers carrying 300+ million of stuff if our sunk costs rise from 40 million to 90? Absolutely. Are...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.15 07:35:00
|
7. STOP PAYING INSURANCE FOR CONCORD KILLS - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Llanthas wrote: Destiny Corrupted wrote: Being killed as a pod pilot is an inconvenience; one not any more severe than a non-fatal car crash in real life. It's the NPC belt rat folk that don't come back to life after you pop them. ... u...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.15 07:14:00
|
8. STOP PAYING INSURANCE FOR CONCORD KILLS - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Llanthas wrote: Destiny Corrupted wrote: Hey, I just got an interesting idea. How about we get rid of insurance payouts for all ships lost to CONCORD actions, but at the same time make it so that CONCORD isn't summoned unless a victim actua...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.15 06:00:00
|
9. A New, Balanced Approach to the Empire War System - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Schnoo wrote: While I agree with the original premise that wars cost should be a function on the amount of members involved by the warring sides, a care should be made to distinguish the actual activity of members in those corporations. Often, ...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.15 05:51:00
|
10. PvE players/corps vs. PvP players/corps separation - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Aqriue wrote: Or at least let you tag a ship as PVE even though it wouldn't protect you. Basicly like a form of insurance, you pay for a 90 day duration where if someone ganks you it doesn't generate a killmail. Kind of like how the "trillions ...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.15 04:27:00
|
11. A New, Balanced Approach to the Empire War System - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
The system I proposed is simply groundwork to develop proportionality for empire wars. I'm in no way opposed to tapering off the costs at either extreme end of the spectrum. "Why should war costs be dependent on corp/alliance size?" It already i...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.15 04:20:00
|
12. STOP PAYING INSURANCE FOR CONCORD KILLS - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Hey, I just got an interesting idea. How about we get rid of insurance payouts for all ships lost to CONCORD actions, but at the same time make it so that CONCORD isn't summoned unless a victim actually gets blown up? You know, if we're making re...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.15 03:23:00
|
13. STOP PAYING INSURANCE FOR CONCORD KILLS - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Llanthas wrote: Quote: How do you propose to increase the inherent risks of highsec activities if the risk of ganking is reduced? You discussed miners earlier, a profession that takes long time to train into, atleast in the case you wish...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.15 01:55:00
|
14. PvE players/corps vs. PvP players/corps separation - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Hi OP. I don't want to quote your whole original post, so I'll just reply to your points in order. First of all, I want to say that it's irrational to buy a sports coupe, and then complain to the manufacturer that you're unable to use it to trans...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.15 00:20:00
|
15. STOP PAYING INSURANCE FOR CONCORD KILLS - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Llanthas wrote: Seriously. This would end 90% of the high-sec ganking. If you need an RP reason - what insurance company would pay on a car that got demolished by the cops in a bank robbery? Issue an in-game news release that Pend Insurance ...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.13 08:09:00
|
16. afk cloaking ?? - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Sloppyslug wrote: There is a counter, there is a counter to all of what your saying, please tell me the counter for finding someone afk, in a random safe spot cloaked. Tell me, why exactly would you need a counter "for finding someone afk," ...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.13 07:57:00
|
17. A New, Balanced Approach to the Empire War System - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Rosanne Chaisk wrote: The only thing this will do is give small corporations the chance to wardeck like for instance big mining corporations and gank all their miningbarges for small cost. Its nothing more then opportunistic. If you have such...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.12 23:53:00
|
18. Changing the Nature of Hisec Warfare - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Your idea would essentially shard the server, without also sharding the market. You would give botters an entirely free pass at botting. This can't possibly be a good thing. If we adopt this system, then aside from a few "warrior corp/alliance" ho...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.12 21:50:00
|
19. A New, Balanced Approach to the Empire War System - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Renegade wrote: A war dec goes in and the agressor sets a condition. It may be isk or assets related or it may be corp/player expulsion, relinquish a moon/system etc. The agressed should be able to respond in terms of a counter offer that can e...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.12 21:31:00
|
20. A New, Balanced Approach to the Empire War System - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Feligast wrote: Form 1 man corp. Dec 100 man corp. Have 200 friends join corp after war is declared. ****. Fail to pay second bill, war over, have 200 friends drop out of corp, dec another 100 man corp, repeat. Fairly easily exploitable. Thi...
- by Destiny Corrupted - at 2011.10.12 11:16:00
|
| Pages: [1] 2 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |