Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 [900] 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 |
17981. @CCP, Missile launcher turrets!? - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Iam Widdershins wrote: Why do people keep mention "physics" as a problem with missile launching? Because missiles are objects that have to be handled by the physics simulation. Altering how they are fired (which would be required to ensure the...
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 22:15:00
|
17982. Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Mr R4nd0m wrote: pot calling kettle black? Nope.
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 22:05:00
|
17983. Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Garwill wrote: He posted no links in the posts you claim he did. In those posts, he mentioned two particular sites that will help him get what he wants. He already knows of the sites and how to use them. He already has the links he needs GÇö ...
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 22:01:00
|
17984. Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Igualmentedos wrote: I provided the link? Yes. Posts 37 and 45.
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 21:44:00
|
17985. Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Garwill wrote: No I did not ask for Concord retribution to be removed Again, that is the result of asking for realism in this area. Whether you ask for it explicitly or not, it comes as a direct consequence of what you are asking for. Quot...
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 21:33:00
|
17986. Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Garwill wrote: No I never said anything about removing Concord - why would I? Because you wanted to use realism as an argument for how insurance is handled when you start to tangle with the law enforcement. The same realism would lead us to ma...
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 21:13:00
|
17987. Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Igualmentedos wrote: I could say it until I'm blue in the face. I doubt it. Mostly because you lack a clear referent, but also because whatever it is, you haven't even been able to say it once so far.
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 20:56:00
|
17988. Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Garwill wrote: However Eve, as ridiculous as it may sound when talking about an internet spaceship game, has always been great because of it's realistic game rules. [GǪ] I am sure my opinion isn't popular, but it's real. So you, too, want CON...
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 20:50:00
|
17989. Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Tarkoauc wrote: [Insurance is here to mitigate the risk of the accidental loss of your ship. No. It's there to mitigate the cost of ship loss. GÇ£AccidentalGÇ¥ is not a factor. GÇ£The real worldGÇ¥ is not a factor. You're confusing a real-wor...
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 20:48:00
|
17990. Notice of Resignation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Sombre Asesinos wrote: You are correct, griefing happens in any game with more than a few people playing. However, those griefers don't typically get support from the game's developers and most don't have quite so many ways to grief others. Yo...
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 20:42:00
|
17991. Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Igualmentedos wrote: Super. In other words: You have nothing to prove your imagined imbalance when it comes to risk or reward. You cannot explain why insurance should be removed. You cannot explain why ship destruction should be discouraged. ...
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 20:33:00
|
17992. Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Igualmentedos wrote: [Still waiting on that link. Honestly, I couldn't find one. You already have it. Well, unless you're still using IE6 or something equally ancient. Quote: How would you like me to prove it? I want you to make a breakdow...
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 20:24:00
|
17993. Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Barbelo Valentinian wrote: Empire is supposed to be a designated "safer" space, so gankers should be smacked in the face financially in Empire space, and ship destruction should be disincentivised in Empire space. WeeeellGǪ Highsec is su...
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 20:20:00
|
17994. Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Igualmentedos wrote: As someone who has suicide ganked before (this is an alt sorry) I can say I have proved it. You can say it. That doesn't mean you actually have proven it. SoGǪ where's the proof? Quote: Please spare me the condescensi...
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 20:08:00
|
17995. Notice of Resignation - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Sombre Asesinos wrote: In Eve you have a minority of players that essentially dictate how the majority players. This minority deprives the majority access to many of what should be fun content. This same minority apparently has as their goal to...
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 20:05:00
|
17996. Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Igualmentedos wrote: -I've answered why. SoGǪ because of high reward and no risk? OkGǪ prove it. Quote: - "Why should gankers be smacked in the face, financially?" There is no risk for the reward. Looking for a target is not a risk. Yes ...
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 19:50:00
|
17997. Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Adunh Slavy wrote: So your argument fails as the removal of all insurance is not the position proposed by the OP. And your counter-argument fails because you're not addressing the point. I never said that it had anything to do with all insuran...
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 19:15:00
|
17998. Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Adunh Slavy wrote: Why Not? Because no-one has given any reason why. So: why? Quote: I'll give you a reason why insurance should not pay for suicides, it distorts behaviors. Yes, that's its entire purpose: to incentivise ship loss. So why...
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 18:21:00
|
17999. Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Tarkoauc wrote: Insurance should not pay out if CONCORD kills your ship because of your criminal actions. Insurance should not pay if you self-destruct your ship. Why?
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 16:31:00
|
18000. So CSM guys, your too stuck in one part of the game. - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Mirima Thurander wrote: I mean clearly your not speaking for the hole of EvE any more, just for the null group, or his comment would be out of place. No. What is clear is that he has noticed that some people are whining because the CSM is not ...
- by Tippia - at 2011.10.22 09:02:00
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 [900] 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |