Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 14:37:00 -
[91]
Originally by: MIND SCR4MBLER
stuff
Forgot something Scrambler.
If the T2 insurance double or treble in payout CCP has just introduced another big isk faucet.
And those isk should leave the game some way.
I suspect that we will not like the isk sinks they will chose.
|
Ruby Khann
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 14:48:00 -
[92]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 You do not get it. Cheaper t2 ships dont bother me.
Free t2 ships do !
Did you even read what Chronitis posted, or are you just dense?
The absolute amounts are changing, the Insurance/Cost percentages will stay the same.
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 15:25:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Ruby Khann
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 You do not get it. Cheaper t2 ships dont bother me.
Free t2 ships do !
Did you even read what Chronitis posted, or are you just dense?
The absolute amounts are changing, the Insurance/Cost percentages will stay the same.
I am not familiar with insurance calculation As long as t2 ships will not become t1, it should be good.
|
Ruby Khann
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 15:28:00 -
[94]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
I am not familiar with insurance calculation
So get the fuck out of a discussion about insurance.
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 15:30:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Ruby Khann
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
I am not familiar with insurance calculation
So get out of a discussion about insurance.
Don't evade the swear filter. _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Originally by: CCP Fallout :facepalm:
|
Faife
Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 16:03:00 -
[96]
apparently a dev post explaining you're all wrong is no match for your idiotic speculation.
well done chaps, carry on and fight that good fightå. -- Check out my EVE cartoons - most recent: #17 Goomba needs a new job |
Shidhe
Minmatar The Babylon5 Consortuim
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 16:16:00 -
[97]
I agree with the OP.
T2 prices can be made more sensible by ending the Dyspro/Prom production cap.
There is then no reason to extend insurance.
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 16:33:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Ruby Khann
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
I am not familiar with insurance calculation
So get the fuck out of a discussion about insurance.
According to your logic you cant run a car unsless you know how it works (inside) . Congrats your a moron.
|
Terra Mikael
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 16:37:00 -
[99]
Meh
|
Hoodat Bee
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 16:42:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Megan Maynard
Law of demands states that an increase of demand will result in a increase in price.
Supply slopes up, demand slopes down, now shift the demand slope to the right, the price goes up..... (X axis is quantity, y is price.)
You've completely butchered things.
The law of demand is that the demand for an object is inversely related to its price, holding all else constant. This is key.
See, in your hasty analysis you've buggered the "holding all else constant" part. CCP has said numerous times that they will be holding nothing else constant, and that we know little of the upcoming changes. Let me lay out a few alternative possibilities for you.
The supply curve could be massively increased relative to the demand curve due to increased availability of moon goo and ship building facilities post-sov changes -- prices would likely fall.
Or both supply and demand curves could shrink as alternative goods of higher quality, t3 ships, become more available, and production is shifted to them, with unexpected results for t2 ship prices -- after all, alternatives are a key determinant of demand.
Or there could indeed be an initial increase in price due to increased payouts from insurance -- in which case more suppliers would find a way to enter the market until economic profits were reduced to the break even point.
The takeaway message here is that economic laws never have only one result for any given cause, and declaring that A will inevitably result in B is a good way to look like an ignorant jackanapes. |
|
Gneeznow
Minmatar Goo Spew
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 16:44:00 -
[101]
the sky is falling!
|
BiggestT
Caldari Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 19:08:00 -
[102]
oh ffs can ppl read?
HINT:
PG2 BOTTOM, CCP REPLY, READ IT.
The sisi stats are in no way representative of a tq change, the real change will only be a few % EVE Trivia EVE History
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 20:10:00 -
[103]
Originally by: BiggestT oh ffs can ppl read?
HINT:
PG2 BOTTOM, CCP REPLY, READ IT.
The sisi stats are in no way representative of a tq change, the real change will only be a few %
Warp to zero was also 'purely an experiment' and 'something to ease travel time on SISI only', and look what happened. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Kachiko Sama
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 20:18:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Warp to zero was also 'purely an experiment' and 'something to ease travel time on SISI only', and look what happened.
They introduced a giant improvement in the game that should have been in since the beginning?
Bad example to choose if you're trying to make a point.
|
Nicoli Voldkif
Caelli-Merced INC. Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 20:19:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: BiggestT oh ffs can ppl read?
HINT:
PG2 BOTTOM, CCP REPLY, READ IT.
The sisi stats are in no way representative of a tq change, the real change will only be a few %
Warp to zero was also 'purely an experiment' and 'something to ease travel time on SISI only', and look what happened.
Warp to 0km was only a look at reducing the ridiculous 10k bookmarks per player just to make travel semi sane. Everyone with any intelligence/experience was already warping to 0km only new players weren't. Nothing to do with this.
|
Tesal
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 02:07:00 -
[106]
Here is the real reason people are mad, it is because dyspro is getting a huge nerf. No more easy isk for the huge alliances and power blocs.
It is also interesting where the isk goes in this. The shift from high ends to low ends will result in more low sec and 0.0 low end moon mining where a person can actually go out and make a profit putting up a tower. People will fight for even crappy systems, because they can make a home and start turning a profit off of low end moons. Being successful will not be about having the most moons, it will be about having the best team and using your space well. Ironically, the best space in EvE may end up being in Providence, but only because they use it extensively.
This upends the entire order in 0.0, which is exactly what CCP wanted to do. It rewards people who are willing to work for their space with pvp and industry, and punishes AFK empires. That is what CCP said they were going to do. This should have been expected. The status quo was leading us towards a Chinese server situation. Malaise has set in over 0.0 already with a super nap covering most everything. Something had to be done.
never stop posting...with alts. Now you know what it is to be owned. Mittani alt says hi. I win. You lose.
|
Lawnchair Commando
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 02:08:00 -
[107]
Ok, here's my two cents:
If you hate the proposed change, quit. And can I have your stuff?
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 02:41:00 -
[108]
/me Gets his insured Vagabond out for a high sec sucide gank
SKUNK (o)
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 06:46:00 -
[109]
Originally by: BiggestT oh ffs can ppl read?
HINT:
PG2 BOTTOM, CCP REPLY, READ IT.
The sisi stats are in no way representative of a tq change, the real change will only be a few %
Of the new price CCP think T2 ships will have.
So a change in absolute value is possible while the % value will be the same.
|
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 10:49:00 -
[110]
The more I consider it, I'm beggining to see the awesomeness of Bellum's "remove insurance". There is essentially zero bad effects* to it, and it fixes the large imbalances regarding loss costs of ships, so on and on.
*No, people are not made to 'do more grinding to PVP'. They could PVP in smaller ships if they cannot fund flying larger. It's not such a outrageous proposition, you know. I learned my trade (piracy) and made my first billion flying Rifters. Sure, I couldn't compete with old and rich players flying nanoHACs, but with training and money I got there, too, after some time. The whole 'people would have to NPC more to make ISK for PVP then' is completely invalid, since you do not NEED to fly something outrageously expensive to PVP.
The whole 'what about the noobs' is solved by just retainint insurance for the first 90 days.
And suddenly Tiers on BCs & up, T1 v T2 prices, and a lot of other stuff make sense when insurance is removed.
Also removes suicide whines, since only ships which are really carrying stupid amounts of ISK with zero tanks get suicided. Those deserve to die.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
Dreyloc
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 15:25:00 -
[111]
Anything that gets more ships un-docked and fighting is a good thing.
If you don't like insurance how about, instead of just ranting negatively, you propose a solution that does not hurt player participation while also removing insurance. Until you do that, all these angry and insulting posts just hurt your cause. "Batman has contingencies, why don't you?" - Prism X |
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 16:24:00 -
[112]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/10/2009 16:24:42
Originally by: Dreyloc Anything that gets more ships un-docked and fighting is a good thing.
If you don't like insurance how about, instead of just ranting negatively, you propose a solution that does not hurt player participation while also removing insurance. Until you do that, all these angry and insulting posts just hurt your cause.
People will either risk ISK or they won't and you can't get them to, short of removing death penalties. Some won't PVP even then. People avoid PVP in freaking WOW, and it's death penalities are composed of losing five minutes.
"gets more ships un-docked and fighting" != "gets more HACs undocked and fighting"
Here's some news: you don't need a HAC to PVP. People don't avoid PVP because PVP is too expensive in general; you can PVP in cheap ships very easily as it is. They avoid it because they either don't like losing (which is why the "I need uberest ship to PVP" is so common), or don't want any risk to their game.
The whole "I would have to grind more / avoid PVP" argument is essentially "I HAVE to fly a HAC/BS/CS/T3 cruiser/whatever to PVP", which is total bull. You don't.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Dregek
Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 17:16:00 -
[113]
look at all the emo tears
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 17:20:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Cpt Branko The more I consider it, I'm beggining to see the awesomeness of Bellum's "remove insurance". There is essentially zero bad effects* to it, and it fixes the large imbalances regarding loss costs of ships, so on and on.
*No, people are not made to 'do more grinding to PVP'. They could PVP in smaller ships if they cannot fund flying larger. It's not such a outrageous proposition, you know. I learned my trade (piracy) and made my first billion flying Rifters. Sure, I couldn't compete with old and rich players flying nanoHACs, but with training and money I got there, too, after some time. The whole 'people would have to NPC more to make ISK for PVP then' is completely invalid, since you do not NEED to fly something outrageously expensive to PVP.
The whole 'what about the noobs' is solved by just retainint insurance for the first 90 days.
And suddenly Tiers on BCs & up, T1 v T2 prices, and a lot of other stuff make sense when insurance is removed.
Also removes suicide whines, since only ships which are really carrying stupid amounts of ISK with zero tanks get suicided. Those deserve to die.
+1 to the fold. Keep 'em coming.
But seriously, every time someone sees a game change that affects them personally in a negative way, they get all butt hurt about it. Why can't people see that a change like removing insurance doesn't affect *just them*. It will affect everyone equally. It's not like EANMs got a CPU increase and now their favorite ship can't use the fit anymore and it only affects that one particular ship. Insurance affects everyone, and in equal fashion.
In six months, people won't even notice it. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Undertow Latheus
Minmatar Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 20:39:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Don't do this CCP!
This is a HORRIBLE idea that means that people can field ships with excellent performance at virtually no cost.
Unless you lower the mineral cost on the ships there is absolutely no reason for these ships to suddenly become cheaper.
Think of the ISK -- tech 2 ships are an ISK sink. You lose one, you eat the whole loss. This causes you to fit them aggressively so you get the most performance out of them. If you soften the blow, people are going to field more of them and more of them are going to likely be more poorly fitted, because 'they can afford to lose them.'
Tech 2 / Tech 3 / Faction ships should not be insurable. The price for performance is perfect as it is.
It's fine as it is right now for a rich bastard like you who had the money to lose both the first and second t3 ships ever made in ways of epic stupidity. Why would it be a bad thing for people to field more t2? You only want to have t1 targets while flying t2?
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 21:46:00 -
[116]
Oh boo-hoo, big deal, the insurances on MARAUDERS with how things are right now would go up by 100 mil or so (and they might end up going up even less in the final version), so T2 ships aren't exactly going to be cheap to lose, just slightly less painfull to lose.
For instance, this is what you'd need for a ME:0 Golem (yeah, I know, best you can get is a ME:-1, but still, the ratios are similar)... the "before//TQ" -> "still changing // now on SiSi" values :
Fermionic Condensates : 2,201 -> 165 Hypersynaptic Fibers : 1,542 -> 1,326 Ferrogel : 6,140 -> 3,223 Phenolic Composites : 4,505 -> 5,225 Nanotransistors : 8,313 -> 24,863 Fullerides : 35,355 -> 33,000 Sylramic Fibers : 180,334 -> 847,264 Titanium Carbide : 382,332 -> 1,279,140
or if you prefer it in moon minerals...
atm.gas : 277.1 -> 828.8 cadmium : 2,073.2 -> 692.5 caesium : 652.6 -> 160.0 chromium : 4,284.7 -> 13,947.5 dysprosium : 1,420.6 -> 532.5 evap.dep : 3,793.9 -> 14,403.8 hafnium : 972.7 -> 610.0 hydrocarbons : 589.3 -> 550.0 mercury : 930.2 -> 958.4 neodymium : 827.4 -> 870.0 platinum : 3,136.6 -> 8,842.2 promethium : 2,085.3 -> 847.0 silicates : 4,106.1 -> 14,125.0 technetium : 866.4 -> 1,378.8 thulium : 550.3 -> 41.3 titanium : 1,911.7 -> 6,395.7 vanadium : 972.7 -> 610.0
In other words "boo-hoo, big deal".
_
Info about our corp | Beginer's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper |
FOl2TY8
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 22:40:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
+1 to the fold. Keep 'em coming.
But seriously, every time someone sees a game change that affects them personally in a negative way, they get all butt hurt about it. Why can't people see that a change like removing insurance doesn't affect *just them*. It will affect everyone equally. It's not like EANMs got a CPU increase and now their favorite ship can't use the fit anymore and it only affects that one particular ship. Insurance affects everyone, and in equal fashion.
Of course removing insurance for everyone will affect everyone. No one will get insurance payouts. What you fail to see is that the casual gamer will not be able to field all the ships that the dedicated player will for every engagement. Sure you can only fly rifters every time but dammit I want to fly a friggin Ishtar every once in a while and as it is NOW I don't have time to grind up the ISK for it. If you remove insurance completely I will never be able to afford flying T2 cruisers.
I'm all for upping the insurance on T2 ships. Makes it more affordable for me so I can fly them more often and have more fun in the video game. ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 22:45:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Undertow Latheus
It's fine as it is right now for a rich bastard like you who had the money to lose both the first and second t3 ships ever made in ways of epic stupidity. Why would it be a bad thing for people to field more t2? You only want to have t1 targets while flying t2?
I think it's bad if people waste moon minerals like that, if they can't figure out how to compete using T1.
I think the whole attitude "why shouldn't CCP make it easier to fly the elite ships" is completely borked. Why should they? Because you're afraid of competing in a T1 ship?
I sure wish I'd get more T2 targets to attack my T1 ships, but unfortunately this has nothing at all to do with insurance or money; it has to do with the relative perceived power of each ships (for instance, in the nano age, HACs thought BCs were loltastic and safe to engage since they could always bugger off).
People don't refuse to attack because it's gotten more expensive (since with medium rigs, it's actually cheaper somewhat; polys were horrendously expensive), people refuse to attack because they're afraid of losing. And that's not going to change even if you drop the loss cost to 10M.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
NightmareX
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 22:48:00 -
[119]
Edited by: NightmareX on 02/10/2009 22:50:27 It's simple. If you don't want to pay any insurance on your ships, then don't pay anything on the insurance then. How hard it that to understand?.
But let CCP get those who want to pay an insurance on their t2 / t3 / faction ships do it IF they want.
And stop whining like cry babys here. You just make you look like an idiot here with that.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
FOl2TY8
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 23:36:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
That casual gamer and the dedicated player are on the same footing; the dedicated player, if he's equally proficient, will lose more ships.
Please elaborate with this statement because I'm not following you.
Originally by: Cpt Branko
That said, if you cannot afford to fly a Ishtar with the currently loltastic amount of insurance removed, then you cannot afford to fly a Ishtar anyway.
I can afford to fly an Ishtar, but just barely. Remove all insurance and now I won't be able to afford it at all because the income I received from T1 losses won't transfer to T2 purchases.
Originally by: Cpt Branko
That said, the Ishtar isn't anything special at all. It's far from a I-win button. It's not such a problem to combat it with the cheaper T1.
I'm not looking for an I-win button (check my sig), I'm looking to experience as much of the game as I can. You remove insurance and I cannot play the Eve that "rich" players get to play.
---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |