| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Junko Togawa
   |
Posted - 2009.03.10 21:33:00 -
[31]
Old troll is old. Find something new to troll about, plzkkthxbai. 
 Originally by: Dreximus
Originally by: Alowishus
These things make the game more exciting overall for people who enjoy risk and the ability to take responsibility for their own safety. At the risk of being cliche, th
|
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.03.10 21:44:00 -
[32]
CCP did indeed say they were going to do this shortly after they changed the way sec status acted for hostile acts between non warring corporationplan but since then I suspect it is a case of "boy, we shouldnt have said that last night, lets pretend it never happened."
As much as I would like to see insurance revamped so that random ganking wasnt as lucrative I think its fairly clear that it would do more harm than good. For one it would practically elimate a method of play for those who do this activity and for another it would all but eliminate a method that goods exit the game.
--------------------------------
To borrow a phrase:
Players who post are like stars, there are bright ones and those who are dim.
|
Callista Sincera
|
Posted - 2009.03.10 22:03:00 -
[33]
Originally by: CCP Fear
But what for the future?
We have a taskforce (Named TaskForce Doughnut!) which is dedicated to looking over these changes and proposing plans for the future. We have already started work on the above, but the future holds more changes.
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.
The CONCORD changes and Security penalty will be hitting TQ this fall, with Empyrean Age 1.1.
Be safe out there!
CCP Fear
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577 2008.08.06 02:58:31
Apparently everybody has a different understanding of "near future".
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.03.10 22:04:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Callista Sincera
Originally by: CCP Fear
But what for the future?
We have a taskforce (Named TaskForce Doughnut!) which is dedicated to looking over these changes and proposing plans for the future. We have already started work on the above, but the future holds more changes.
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.
The CONCORD changes and Security penalty will be hitting TQ this fall, with Empyrean Age 1.1.
Be safe out there!
CCP Fear
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577 2008.08.06 02:58:31
Apparently everybody has a different understanding of "near future".
Game design is always a matter of months, not days or weeks.
Before Wormholes
|
Panzram
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.10 22:04:00 -
[35]
Before the changes, you could use a fully t1 fit Armageddon to blow away a macro mining hulk in an icebelt before concord popped ya. After insurance and flying in a neutral industrial alt to loot both wrecks it was anywhere from a new loss of 20m to a net gain of 20m, mostly depending on what the hulk had fit/dropped. That was fun. You should probably play WoW Carebearius.
|
Amarr Citizen20090214
|
Posted - 2009.03.10 22:58:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Ms Delerium
another chinese farmer or more likely one of their BOSS
try gold-farming in WOW, there is a lot less "griefers" there.
Do you know that generalization is ever prefered by the dim witted, since it doesn't require much brain cell and convenient enough that any $hit spawn from you sound convincing.
BTW, I am Chinese and i am not a isk/gold farmer, and along with all the other Chinese players out there who just partly ended up in your pejorative remark "Chinese farmer" ops!
Are you feeling stupid now?
Are you even capable of thinking? who knows he could be a 'insert random country' farmer painting on an easy target.
|
Guillame Herschel
Gallente
Buffalo Soldiers
|
Posted - 2009.03.10 23:02:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Carbarius
No, I don't fly haulers, but it is ridiculous to pay insurance to someone who intentionally does something that will get their ship destroyed by Concord.
Yes it is, but it's not changing, so intentionally *****ing about it anyway is also ridiculous.
-- The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then --
|
Sissy Fuzz
Amarr
Sissy Fuzz Communications
|
Posted - 2009.03.10 23:08:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Carbarius
Did CCP remove the insurance payout for ships that are destroyed by Concord?
If not, why and when will it be done?
No, CCP have not yet further nerfed the sole remaining source of risk to empire.
As to why: to give angry schoolboys some small advantage over other players.
Fixed.
Look how primitive you are, angry little schoolboy. And in your anger you happen to get the premise wrong. There doesn't have to be risk. And you are not entitled to having an advantage everywhere. Or anywhere for that matter. Do you understand that?
You know, EVE is a science fiction simulation. And Empire happens to be much like a modern well-ordered society. Virtually no risk. I know you are provoked by this. Because you need to vent. The compensation for your sorry life in your mother's basement. But this is just how things are. And now we need to address the insurance fraud problem.
You know what? Get a girlfriend. If you are having trouble with girls, convo me. We can have a little chat.
Sissy Fuzz
The cutest n00b evarh
|
Sissy Fuzz
Amarr
Sissy Fuzz Communications
|
Posted - 2009.03.10 23:21:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Olga Chukarin
Edited by: Olga Chukarin on 10/03/2009 21:12:42
Most ganks are against a certain ship, a ship designed for low/null sec mineral mining, but by the nature of the mining system the same ship becomes unbelievably overpowered at mining veldspar in high sec. So its death in highsec is only justice.
Logic meltdown.
"Overpowered"? How?
"Justice"? Why? Who's the victim?
Sissy Fuzz
The cutest n00b evarh
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.03.10 23:29:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Sissy Fuzz
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Carbarius
Did CCP remove the insurance payout for ships that are destroyed by Concord?
If not, why and when will it be done?
No, CCP have not yet further nerfed the sole remaining source of risk to empire.
As to why: to give angry schoolboys some small advantage over other players.
Fixed.
Look how primitive you are, angry little schoolboy. And in your anger you happen to get the premise wrong. There doesn't have to be risk. And you are not entitled to having an advantage everywhere. Or anywhere for that matter. Do you understand that?
You know, EVE is a science fiction simulation. And Empire happens to be much like a modern well-ordered society. Virtually no risk. I know you are provoked by this. Because you need to vent. The compensation for your sorry life in your mother's basement. But this is just how things are. And now we need to address the insurance fraud problem.
You know what? Get a girlfriend. If you are having trouble with girls, convo me. We can have a little chat.
Have you read the backstory? At all?
Crime is RAMPANT. Every empire is striken with murders and killings.
That being said, what kind of fool has to believe that every motivation in this imaginary universe has to be centered on reality? That same type of thinking is just as dumb as the dorks who wear their stormtrooper costumes to wedding ceremonies.
If you can't accept that there is CRIME and the ability to MURDER innocents (or near innocents) in this science fiction simulation, without having to attach every action with some mental deficit or issue? Maybe you are the one having the problem, and not the other way around?
It doesn't take an insane person to act like a criminal in a video game that specifically allows you to roleplay being a criminal. Nor a child. All it takes is being mature enough to separate fantasy from reality.
I'm glad CCP has the gumption to include crime and viciousness in their sci fi simulation. Why? Because this exists in real life, and what good is a simulation if it doesn't simulate the good as well as the bad?
On another note ... the only advantage pirates and criminals have, is the ignorance and naivety of normal folks. Works in real life, works in game. If you take no measure to defend yourself, if you take no precautions to keep yourself safe, then you are barely any better than the person who attacks you. Maybe not evil, but definitely stupid.
Before Wormholes
|
Sissy Fuzz
Amarr
Sissy Fuzz Communications
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 01:20:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Ruze
Originally by: Sissy Fuzz
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Carbarius
Did CCP remove the insurance payout for ships that are destroyed by Concord?
If not, why and when will it be done?
No, CCP have not yet further nerfed the sole remaining source of risk to empire.
As to why: to give angry schoolboys some small advantage over other players.
Fixed.
Look how primitive you are, angry little schoolboy. And in your anger you happen to get the premise wrong. There doesn't have to be risk. And you are not entitled to having an advantage everywhere. Or anywhere for that matter. Do you understand that?
You know, EVE is a science fiction simulation. And Empire happens to be much like a modern well-ordered society. Virtually no risk. I know you are provoked by this. Because you need to vent. The compensation for your sorry life in your mother's basement. But this is just how things are. And now we need to address the insurance fraud problem.
You know what? Get a girlfriend. If you are having trouble with girls, convo me. We can have a little chat.
Have you read the backstory? At all?
Crime is RAMPANT. Every empire is striken with murders and killings.
That being said, what kind of fool has to believe that every motivation in this imaginary universe has to be centered on reality? That same type of thinking is just as dumb as the dorks who wear their stormtrooper costumes to wedding ceremonies.
If you can't accept that there is CRIME and the ability to MURDER innocents (or near innocents) in this science fiction simulation, without having to attach every action with some mental deficit or issue? Maybe you are the one having the problem, and not the other way around?
It doesn't take an insane person to act like a criminal in a video game that specifically allows you to roleplay being a criminal. Nor a child. All it takes is being mature enough to separate fantasy from reality.
I'm glad CCP has the gumption to include crime and viciousness in their sci fi simulation. Why? Because this exists in real life, and what good is a simulation if it doesn't simulate the good as well as the bad?
On another note ... the only advantage pirates and criminals have, is the ignorance and naivety of normal folks. Works in real life, works in game. If you take no measure to defend yourself, if you take no precautions to keep yourself safe, then you are barely any better than the person who attacks you. Maybe not evil, but definitely stupid.
I would NEVER EVER wear a stormtrooper outfit to a wedding. Princess Leia, maybe.
Yes, "Crime is RAMPANT. Every empire is striken with murders and killings." The killers just don't get insurance money afterwards. Game mechanics that automatically compensate the planned destruction of property is fundamentally out of line with the risk/gain balance in place for most player activities.
CCP has gone to great length to build a rich, coherent environment. And they have succeeded to a degree where you can begin to talk about a simulation. With the unrealistic sci-fi elements to make the synopsis work, of course. I think it is completely reasonable to expect at least an ingame insurance company to display some sort of realistically motivated behaviour. Instead of this Mickey Mouse mechanism.
I have no problem with EVE. I am not even an Empire dveller. But I do have a problem with pirate whiners. I want them to cry, the little pirates, because I don't buy the roleplaying crap. 90% of the pirates are playing to cause as much grief as possible for their buck. Hence the angry little schoolboy angle. I think it is bad game design and frankly bad business from CCP's point of view to facilitate griefing via ingame mechanics.
Pirating is ok. It should just be treated as such.
Sissy Fuzz
The cutest n00b evarh
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 01:33:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Sissy Fuzz
I would NEVER EVER wear a stormtrooper outfit to a wedding. Princess Leia, maybe.
Yes, "Crime is RAMPANT. Every empire is striken with murders and killings." The killers just don't get insurance money afterwards. Game mechanics that automatically compensate the planned destruction of property is fundamentally out of line with the risk/gain balance in place for most player activities.
CCP has gone to great length to build a rich, coherent environment. And they have succeeded to a degree where you can begin to talk about a simulation. With the unrealistic sci-fi elements to make the synopsis work, of course. I think it is completely reasonable to expect at least an ingame insurance company to display some sort of realistically motivated behaviour. Instead of this Mickey Mouse mechanism.
I have no problem with EVE. I am not even an Empire dveller. But I do have a problem with pirate whiners. I want them to cry, the little pirates, because I don't buy the roleplaying crap. 90% of the pirates are playing to cause as much grief as possible for their buck. Hence the angry little schoolboy angle. I think it is bad game design and frankly bad business from CCP's point of view to facilitate griefing via ingame mechanics.
Pirating is ok. It should just be treated as such.
With the part about Concord and insurance, I agree. In this same post, you see my position.
But the part about pirates being angry little schoolboys? I don't get. Even though I'm not a pirate, I have had friends who were pirates or took up pirating. By and large from my own experiences, they are pretty respectful. They just tend to take 'do what you want' to the extreme.
The forum pirates? Yeah, schoolkids. But the forum characters are usually far more ret*rded than the guys in-game. Probably the dumbest class of gamer, if we're generalizing, is the scammer type.
But idiots run in all circles. I'm simply cautioning against trying to throw real-life reasonings into in-character actions. It don't always fit.
Before Wormholes
|
Microsoft Sam
The Nexus Project
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 01:47:00 -
[43]
God this games turning into hello kitty online..
Gone are the funtimes.. to keep the wowesque nubhats happy..
|
Junko Togawa
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 06:57:00 -
[44]
Lulz, sensitive much, folks? Or is the threadcount of 'nerf insurance' reaching the OVER NINE THOUSAND?!?!? point it needs to be considered yet?  GG OP, you're trolling folks into maudlin displays. +1 Internets for you.
Originally by: Dreximus
Originally by: Alowishus
These things make the game more exciting overall for people who enjoy risk and the ability to take responsibility for their own safety. At the risk of being cliche, th |
Ralavina
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 07:45:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Carbarius
Originally by: brinelan
If it ist in the patch notes it didnt happen (mostly).
Let me guess, you put everything you had in a t1 hauler and afk autopiloted and came back to an empty wreck?
No, I don't fly haulers, but it is ridiculous to pay insurance to someone who intentionally does something that will get their ship destroyed by Concord.
Simple fix: remove Concord.
|
Irida Mershkov
Gallente
Noir.
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 08:36:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Carbarius
Did CCP remove the insurance payout for ships that are destroyed by Concord?
If not, why and when will it be done?
No, CCP have not yet further nerfed the sole remaining source of risk to empire.
As to why: to give players some small advantage over macros. You're smarter than a macro, right?
Probably not.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 08:39:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Callista Sincera
Originally by: CCP Fear
But what for the future?
We have a taskforce (Named TaskForce Doughnut!) which is dedicated to looking over these changes and proposing plans for the future. We have already started work on the above, but the future holds more changes.
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.
The CONCORD changes and Security penalty will be hitting TQ this fall, with Empyrean Age 1.1.
Be safe out there!
CCP Fear
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577 2008.08.06 02:58:31
Apparently everybody has a different understanding of "near future".
They meant "soon" with respect to the sun going in to it's red giant phase
|
Junko Togawa
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 08:44:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Ralavina
Simple fix: remove Concord.
Simple fix: remove PvP. 
Originally by: Dreximus
Originally by: Alowishus
These things make the game more exciting overall for people who enjoy risk and the ability to take responsibility for their own safety. At the risk of being cliche, th |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 08:47:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Sissy Fuzz
There doesn't have to be risk.
Yes there does. Otherwise, the gameplay quickly becomes unbalanced and breaks down. Risk of — or, actually, certainty of — ship destruction is what drives the entire game. If you remove that, the game dies because nothing in it has any purpose any more.
Quote:
And you are not entitled to having an advantage everywhere.
They don't. Carebears have very advantage they need in highsec and don't need any more.
Quote:
You know, EVE is a science fiction simulation. And Empire happens to be much like a modern well-ordered society. Virtually no risk.
There is virtually no risk right now. Nerfing high-sec piracy even more makes it actually no risk, which is a very very bad thing.
———
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in =v=…
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”
— Karath Piki |
Zebler
Space Chimps
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 09:02:00 -
[50]
Suicide ganking is currently very easy to do. I have done it myself in the past to exact revenge on certain people 
It does not make much sense to get your insurance paid out when you do this. The loss you experience from suiciding a bs is only around 10-20m. The loss you will inflict on your opponent is much much greater, even if they have no cargo (ship, pod, implants).
I can understand some concern about the removal of insurance payout due to concord intervention as a lot of people do make silly accidental mistakes. It should be simple to implement a check. If you destroyed someone's ship when you get concordokened then no payout. If your target lived then you are paid out.
This will make sure that ppl who fire on station and kill nothing will still get some isk back. While the gankers do not get a free ship to continue their plans.
|
wickedpheonix
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 09:12:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Carbarius
Did CCP remove the insurance payout for ships that are destroyed by Concord?
If not, why and when will it be done?
It may not make sense that pirates get a payout when concordokkened, but keep in mind that piracy is a profession in EVE, just like missioning and others - if players get insurance payouts after shooting up pirate NPC's in missions, and players get insurance payouts after shooting each other up in normal PvP (thinking of wardecs here), then players should get insurance payouts when engaged in pirate PvP.
|
Primnproper
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 13:37:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Sissy Fuzz
I have no problem with EVE. I am not even an Empire dveller. But I do have a problem with pirate whiners. I want them to cry, the little pirates, because I don't buy the roleplaying crap. 90% of the pirates are playing to cause as much grief as possible for their buck. Hence the angry little schoolboy angle. I think it is bad game design and frankly bad business from CCP's point of view to facilitate griefing via ingame mechanics.
Pirating is ok. It should just be treated as such.
Ahh resorting to calling people names the last bastion of those who know they're wrong and have already lost.
...
Originally by: Graveyard Tan
I call bull**** and troll. If you are deaf, how are you even able to read this or type replies?
|
Sissy Fuzz
Amarr
Sissy Fuzz Communications
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 13:41:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Tippia
Edited by: Tippia on 11/03/2009 08:49:22
Originally by: Sissy Fuzz
There doesn't have to be risk.
Yes there does. Otherwise, the gameplay quickly becomes unbalanced and breaks down. Risk of ù or, actually, certainty of ù ship destruction is what drives the entire game. If you remove that, the game dies because nothing in it has any purpose any more.
Quote:
And you are not entitled to having an advantage everywhere.
They don't. Carebears have very advantage they need in highsec and don't need any more.
Quote:
Or anywhere for that matter.
Quite true, but that works both ways: the advantages carebears have in highsec should probably be toned down to be on the same level as the pirates.
Quote:
You know, EVE is a science fiction simulation. And Empire happens to be much like a modern well-ordered society. Virtually no risk.
There is virtually no risk right now. Nerfing high-sec piracy even more makes it actually no risk, which is a very very bad thing.
Sure. I get all that - including the fact that the inherent risk throughout EVE is an important quality of the game. But I am not talking about removing risk. Of course the Empire gank should be possible. But no insurance for ships in that case. Simple as that.
Sissy Fuzz
The cutest n00b evarh
|
Primnproper
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 13:46:00 -
[54]
But there is plenty of risk in suiciding a ship...
First off they might be tanked, meaning you explode but they don't
Secondly there is no gaurentee that the cargo will survive, so you might pop them and not recover enough to play for your insurance premium.
Thirdly my alt might be there waiting to scoop the can of the hauler you just popped meaning i get all the loot and the ganker gets none.
Forthly you could take a mate along and he can pop the can before the gankers hauler gets it.
Fifthly, sec status loss.
Sixthly, getting suicide ganked by someone else.
Need I list anymore.
...
Originally by: Graveyard Tan
I call bull**** and troll. If you are deaf, how are you even able to read this or type replies?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |