| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Harkan Ramientes
   |
Posted - 2004.11.07 13:55:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Harkan Ramientes on 07/11/2004 14:09:22
Edited by: Harkan Ramientes on 07/11/2004 14:06:51
well Shirei, this is not true: I am a casual player and I live in 0.0 space as many other from my corp
add that long ago insurance was a joke, but I can't avoid the idea that times were much more interesting: roaming in 0.0 space was effectively an adventure and living there was the greatest adventure of all, and yes: a battleships was really a flagship
with no insurance at all living in 0.0, claiming space for your corp/alliance would be really intersting: today you can kill my battleship only to see me again on another one in 12 hours
 Quote:
No, because there are players in this game that enjoy continual fighting, PIE vs Oracle for example. As far as I can tell they don't want an end to the fighting to even be possible.
c'mon Bob, we were both in Curse (looooong ago) where we had to do 27+ jumps from nearest refine station to get a bit of bistot and losing a ship was a real problem: but we did because things were equal for all, with your idea everyone would choose the easiest solution, and that's not fair
|
Harkan Ramientes
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 13:55:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Harkan Ramientes on 07/11/2004 14:09:22
Edited by: Harkan Ramientes on 07/11/2004 14:06:51
well Shirei, this is not true: I am a casual player and I live in 0.0 space as many other from my corp
add that long ago insurance was a joke, but I can't avoid the idea that times were much more interesting: roaming in 0.0 space was effectively an adventure and living there was the greatest adventure of all, and yes: a battleships was really a flagship
with no insurance at all living in 0.0, claiming space for your corp/alliance would be really intersting: today you can kill my battleship only to see me again on another one in 12 hours
Quote:
No, because there are players in this game that enjoy continual fighting, PIE vs Oracle for example. As far as I can tell they don't want an end to the fighting to even be possible.
c'mon Bob, we were both in Curse (looooong ago) where we had to do 27+ jumps from nearest refine station to get a bit of bistot and losing a ship was a real problem: but we did because things were equal for all, with your idea everyone would choose the easiest solution, and that's not fair
|
Tyrrax Thorrk
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 13:58:00 -
[33]
I like this proposal alot.
|
Tyrrax Thorrk
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 13:58:00 -
[34]
I like this proposal alot.
|
Lallante
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:04:00 -
[35]
Personally I strongly dislike Bobs proposal for a number of reasons:
1) His motive: This proposal would be IDEAL for corps like m0o/evol that get huge numbers of kills through ganks. Since as soon as superior numbers arrive they can log off, (this isnt a flame about when you fight and when you run). They are also enormously rich (or a lot of them are), so any loss of isk will effect them less. This would mean that they could continue to play their PvP with minimal risk.
2)Alliances on the otherhand, would stuggle EVEN more to convince their newer members to PVP. Eventually it would be solely the oldschool PvPers wstill fighting, and even then in frigates. End result: MUCH less PvP.
3) An alternative proposal is simply to remove 100% insurance, and make the max 80%. In this way, you acheive all the same objectives in a much more controlled and less "hit with hammer" way.
Lall - THE Vocal Minority -
ShinRa
|
Lallante
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:04:00 -
[36]
Personally I strongly dislike Bobs proposal for a number of reasons:
1) His motive: This proposal would be IDEAL for corps like m0o/evol that get huge numbers of kills through ganks. Since as soon as superior numbers arrive they can log off, (this isnt a flame about when you fight and when you run). They are also enormously rich (or a lot of them are), so any loss of isk will effect them less. This would mean that they could continue to play their PvP with minimal risk.
2)Alliances on the otherhand, would stuggle EVEN more to convince their newer members to PVP. Eventually it would be solely the oldschool PvPers wstill fighting, and even then in frigates. End result: MUCH less PvP.
3) An alternative proposal is simply to remove 100% insurance, and make the max 80%. In this way, you acheive all the same objectives in a much more controlled and less "hit with hammer" way.
Lall - THE Vocal Minority -
ShinRa
|
BobGhengisKhan
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:08:00 -
[37]
Edited by: BobGhengisKhan on 07/11/2004 14:12:30
Being able to hurt a corp by killing their fleet is the only way to hurt a corp like m0o, Lallante. Also, we dont have the capacity to sustain heavy losses since we're averse to real work in the game (ie: mining, npcing, agent running)
|
BobGhengisKhan
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:08:00 -
[38]
Edited by: BobGhengisKhan on 07/11/2004 14:12:30
Being able to hurt a corp by killing their fleet is the only way to hurt a corp like m0o, Lallante. Also, we dont have the capacity to sustain heavy losses since we're averse to real work in the game (ie: mining, npcing, agent running)
|
iLLumino
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:09:00 -
[39]
Weel it is simply supid to put this into play. Why? Beacause 0.0 will become utterly boring. Fleetbattles arnt exectly happening every day as it is, and would become even more rare in 0.0 with this system.
People complain about people sitting in safespots, what do you think will happen with no insurance in 0.0?
It is good as it is.
|
iLLumino
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:09:00 -
[40]
Weel it is simply supid to put this into play. Why? Beacause 0.0 will become utterly boring. Fleetbattles arnt exectly happening every day as it is, and would become even more rare in 0.0 with this system.
People complain about people sitting in safespots, what do you think will happen with no insurance in 0.0?
It is good as it is.
|
|
|
BobGhengisKhan
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:11:00 -
[41]
Edited by: BobGhengisKhan on 07/11/2004 14:17:07
If you won't fight because you're afraid of losing your ship, then you don't deserve to have your alliance listed as the official holder of that territory.
This system forces people that love to talk smack to back up what they say in game.
|
BobGhengisKhan
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:11:00 -
[42]
Edited by: BobGhengisKhan on 07/11/2004 14:17:07
If you won't fight because you're afraid of losing your ship, then you don't deserve to have your alliance listed as the official holder of that territory.
This system forces people that love to talk smack to back up what they say in game.
|
Negotiator
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:14:00 -
[43]
Yeah, i agree - if you sit in a safespot, you will be found with new scanner improvements. If you log off, you are not in control of the territory, so there is no problem, is there? Alot of alliances just sit there and blob without any real skill. That's one of the reasons to accept like 1234192749127984 corporations in an alliance too. Unlimitted resources create a blobbingly secure feeling for alliances. Add lag to that, and alliances almost got it made. Except for "ganks" ofcourse, as Lallente put it.
|
Negotiator
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:14:00 -
[44]
Yeah, i agree - if you sit in a safespot, you will be found with new scanner improvements. If you log off, you are not in control of the territory, so there is no problem, is there? Alot of alliances just sit there and blob without any real skill. That's one of the reasons to accept like 1234192749127984 corporations in an alliance too. Unlimitted resources create a blobbingly secure feeling for alliances. Add lag to that, and alliances almost got it made. Except for "ganks" ofcourse, as Lallente put it.
|
Raven Fury
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:19:00 -
[45]
I like the proposal of a max of 80% to the insurance when you get killed in 0.0
Removin the whole insurance might be too much, but it is overpowered as it is right now |
Raven Fury
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:19:00 -
[46]
I like the proposal of a max of 80% to the insurance when you get killed in 0.0
Removin the whole insurance might be too much, but it is overpowered as it is right now |
iLLumino
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:22:00 -
[47]
I agree too, but im just saying it will become boring. The whole idea with claiming regions is that people will actually come and fight you for it, but with no insurance only the rich can play become richer. If you think about it, you know im right.
|
iLLumino
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:22:00 -
[48]
I agree too, but im just saying it will become boring. The whole idea with claiming regions is that people will actually come and fight you for it, but with no insurance only the rich can play become richer. If you think about it, you know im right.
|
Yggdrassil
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:22:00 -
[49]
Haven't really woken up yet, BobGengisKhan, so forgive me if I missed one point...
You stated that one of the points was that ppl could attack alliances mining ops/whatever, get killed and return shortly with a new ship due to the insuranse.
The solution was to remove alliances insuranse (those that stays in 0.0).
Unless I missed a point - those "harassers"/guerilla warriors would gain another advantage: They get refund for their ships, alliance ships lost won't...
In my opinion, any changes to the insuranse system has to be SECURITY LEVEL assigned.
Would love to see it semi-based on numbers of ships lost say... last 1-3 months. Say you lost zero - you get 100% of the base insurance payout. Lost more := 25% + (75 - (ShipsLost*5)). Lowest payout, 25% will then be after 15 ships lost in 1-3 months.
This, more than anything, will make ppl consider more carefully what ships to use in combat. Sure, you could take a frigate/cruiser out to get owned in combat. But - when you lost enough frigates - your BS that you use for gaining money wether mining or PvE'ing will be a GREAT loss...
Just my thoughts early in the morning :)
Yggie
Yggdrassil |
Yggdrassil
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:22:00 -
[50]
Haven't really woken up yet, BobGengisKhan, so forgive me if I missed one point...
You stated that one of the points was that ppl could attack alliances mining ops/whatever, get killed and return shortly with a new ship due to the insuranse.
The solution was to remove alliances insuranse (those that stays in 0.0).
Unless I missed a point - those "harassers"/guerilla warriors would gain another advantage: They get refund for their ships, alliance ships lost won't...
In my opinion, any changes to the insuranse system has to be SECURITY LEVEL assigned.
Would love to see it semi-based on numbers of ships lost say... last 1-3 months. Say you lost zero - you get 100% of the base insurance payout. Lost more := 25% + (75 - (ShipsLost*5)). Lowest payout, 25% will then be after 15 ships lost in 1-3 months.
This, more than anything, will make ppl consider more carefully what ships to use in combat. Sure, you could take a frigate/cruiser out to get owned in combat. But - when you lost enough frigates - your BS that you use for gaining money wether mining or PvE'ing will be a GREAT loss...
Just my thoughts early in the morning :)
Yggie
Yggdrassil |
|
|
Teutobod
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:23:00 -
[51]
I think the suggestion has merits. It will allow empire dwelling corporations to engage in eternal conflicts based on roleplay or just a generel wish to fight. Onesided wars will most likely still occur.
On the other hand it also allows those that truely wish to vie for supremacy and greatness to do so. If you have what it takes you can carve out your own empire. If not, you can't.
I find it amusing that some mention that if the risk increases a lot of people will be less likely to risk anything. Well, that is just too bad for you then. You'll become victims of the ones that do wish to risk it. As Negotiator says, with the new system scanners you can't even safespot and if you dock or log off consistentaly you are not in control of anything.
|
Teutobod
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:23:00 -
[52]
I think the suggestion has merits. It will allow empire dwelling corporations to engage in eternal conflicts based on roleplay or just a generel wish to fight. Onesided wars will most likely still occur.
On the other hand it also allows those that truely wish to vie for supremacy and greatness to do so. If you have what it takes you can carve out your own empire. If not, you can't.
I find it amusing that some mention that if the risk increases a lot of people will be less likely to risk anything. Well, that is just too bad for you then. You'll become victims of the ones that do wish to risk it. As Negotiator says, with the new system scanners you can't even safespot and if you dock or log off consistentaly you are not in control of anything.
|
wamingo
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:23:00 -
[53]
If you can't push people out of a region which you wish to claim then you're not fit to claim it.
-- I won't not promise to avoid refraining from harming you! .... What? |
wamingo
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:23:00 -
[54]
If you can't push people out of a region which you wish to claim then you're not fit to claim it.
-- I won't not promise to avoid refraining from harming you! .... What? |
Harkan Ramientes
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:25:00 -
[55]
Originally by: BobGhengisKhan
Edited by: BobGhengisKhan on 07/11/2004 14:12:30
Being able to hurt a corp by killing their fleet is the only way to hurt a corp like m0o, Lallante. Also, we dont have the capacity to sustain heavy losses since we're averse to real work in the game (ie: mining, npcing, agent running)
in this case, Bob, why not simply removing the insurance (or lower it)?
I would reabate that ,even today, the game allow a good corp to become a dread force simply not defending, all you have to do is to sum up a force of 7-10 ships (no, not battleships, interceptors and like are more than enough) to have a dangerous gank squad that can easily kill a battleship, add that *not defending* a territory is an enormous advantage: you can log off whenever you want (you don't have to hold the ground to defend) you can leave, recover and come back later etc.
a territorial group/alliance would have to hold the ground to defend their assets, no matter what's thrown at them and every loss would cost much more..at this point just tell me why the hell I should stick with an alliance? arkonor? bleah...everyone knows that you can ninja mine and get enough ark with a bit of planning and minimal risk (and eventually more fun) to afford whatever you want...pvp action? thanks; the pleasure would be all your because you could attack and disappear to recover, while an alliance would never be able to strike back (you have no assets to defend)so, while an alliance bound corpmember would have to sustain attacks, stay there to defend and, when the battle is over, stay there again to recover, you could easily strike when you choose, as you choose and then disappear leaving no unguarded targets?
c'mon...
|
Harkan Ramientes
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:25:00 -
[56]
Originally by: BobGhengisKhan
Edited by: BobGhengisKhan on 07/11/2004 14:12:30
Being able to hurt a corp by killing their fleet is the only way to hurt a corp like m0o, Lallante. Also, we dont have the capacity to sustain heavy losses since we're averse to real work in the game (ie: mining, npcing, agent running)
in this case, Bob, why not simply removing the insurance (or lower it)?
I would reabate that ,even today, the game allow a good corp to become a dread force simply not defending, all you have to do is to sum up a force of 7-10 ships (no, not battleships, interceptors and like are more than enough) to have a dangerous gank squad that can easily kill a battleship, add that *not defending* a territory is an enormous advantage: you can log off whenever you want (you don't have to hold the ground to defend) you can leave, recover and come back later etc.
a territorial group/alliance would have to hold the ground to defend their assets, no matter what's thrown at them and every loss would cost much more..at this point just tell me why the hell I should stick with an alliance? arkonor? bleah...everyone knows that you can ninja mine and get enough ark with a bit of planning and minimal risk (and eventually more fun) to afford whatever you want...pvp action? thanks; the pleasure would be all your because you could attack and disappear to recover, while an alliance would never be able to strike back (you have no assets to defend)so, while an alliance bound corpmember would have to sustain attacks, stay there to defend and, when the battle is over, stay there again to recover, you could easily strike when you choose, as you choose and then disappear leaving no unguarded targets?
c'mon...
|
Shamrock
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:27:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Lallante
Personally I strongly dislike Bobs proposal for a number of reasons:
1) His motive: This proposal would be IDEAL for corps like m0o/evol that get huge numbers of kills through ganks. Since as soon as superior numbers arrive they can log off, (this isnt a flame about when you fight and when you run).
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Shamrock
|
Shamrock
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:27:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Lallante
Personally I strongly dislike Bobs proposal for a number of reasons:
1) His motive: This proposal would be IDEAL for corps like m0o/evol that get huge numbers of kills through ganks. Since as soon as superior numbers arrive they can log off, (this isnt a flame about when you fight and when you run).
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Shamrock
|
iLLumino
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:29:00 -
[59]
Griefing....
|
iLLumino
|
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:29:00 -
[60]
Griefing....
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |