|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vasundhara
   |
Posted - 2009.06.26 20:07:00 -
[1]
Pretty refreshing to see this type of thread handled so politely on both sides of the table. I feel a little sorry for empire miners in that not only is their profession less profitable than L4 missions, they are a far easier target for gank. Not that you can't gank a mission runner, but mission runners certainly fit a broader profile of defense capability than the typical Hulk does. Be interesting to see how this all plays out. |
Vasundhara
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 20:23:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Mavolio
doesn't using some alt to shoot your self to get concord in the belt already work any more?
Now there is a service for an enterprising new player to get involved in ;)
|
Vasundhara
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 20:30:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Vasundhara on 26/06/2009 20:30:43
Originally by: Shiangti
Right now no, but actually there was talk of removing the insurance payout from those people who are killed by concord a couple of patches/expansions ago.
I wouldn't go as far as to remove the insurance but adding a penalty for death due by Concord would be a control CCP could do to alter the incentive. You want there to be an element of risk but in empire that risk should hover relatively low. The incentive should be set such that a really sweet target in empire is probably worth it but most of the time it's more questionable. For a pirate to make a consistent profit, or even break even, by just popping normally fitted Hulks in empire is probably something that should be looked at. Honestly, orchestrating a huge Jihad is probably the best way to get this addressed.
|
Vasundhara
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 22:48:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Miranda Ricsko
I think that would be a great system, and it's actually more realistic. If your ship gets trashed by the authorities while you're engaged in criminal activity, an insurance company should in no way pay out.
Personally I would prefer things be modeled in a way that parallels reality but creating a desirable game dynamic is going to trump having things be realistic. Ganking in empire is a dynamic that I think adds positively to the risk management nature of the game. Having secure space not be totally secure means that you can reduce your risk in empire but not eliminate it. In order to preserve that margin of risk in empire you need to create some incentive for the Ganker apart from just taking a loss in return for lulz / tears. Reducing insurance payouts for Concord kills is one way to re-tune the risk / reward balance for gankers, but if you totally remove the payout it should be replaced with something else.
Some may disagree with me, but I don't think that EvE would be better off on either extreme of having empire be totally risk free or being basically 0.0 space. Having some sense of realism would be nice but I could go on for hours arguing about how you would basically need to re-write EvE from the ground up to even start to approach a modest sense of realism (i.e. Eddison forgot how to make the light-bulb he just invented after he used his plans up). I've written it off as a lost cause ;) |
|
|
| |
|