EVE Search - New Dev Blog: The Circle of Life

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: The Circle of Life

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Nick Curso Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.30 14:46:00 - [1] Originally by: Chribba Edited by: Chribba on 30/03/2010 14:18:11 OMG and stuff And the supercap insurance plan is quite interesting to see what you make of it - are there perhaps any plans to actually allow us to put insruance on said undockable ships - or do we aim to build 40-50b ISK titans to die and get 500m insurance payout? pretty much this ^^ sounds slightly mental to me Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Nick Curso Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:09:00 - [2] Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:09:29 Originally by: CCP Chronotis The flip side of that would be the risk adversity argument, that some would risk them less because of this. People wouldn't use them at all because of this. I think like viper said where is the logic in nerfing the one ship class where a respectable amount of ISK is lost in its loss. Not to mention the massivly expensive fittings they need. Unless ofc u want to see t2 fitted super carriers and titans. Has it also been considered how much of a time sink it is to build super caps from a non ISK perspective such as compression time/hauling/build time etc. In some cases ppl have worked for years to get these ships and contrary to the myth don't have 100's of bils in the bank after the ship purchase. To be punished with next to no insurance payout meaning you have to start from scratch again. Seems like a bit of a crazy plan to me maybe its time to look away from the numbers and actually consider the other requirements of getting a ship like that and think to yourself "Is this really fair?" Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Nick Curso Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:24:00 - [3] Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:24:23 Originally by: Trauli Originally by: Nick Curso Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:09:29 Originally by: CCP Chronotis The flip side of that would be the risk adversity argument, that some would risk them less because of this. People wouldn't use them at all because of this. I think like viper said where is the logic in nerfing the one ship class where a respectable amount of ISK is lost in its loss. Not to mention the massivly expensive fittings they need. Unless ofc u want to see t2 fitted super carriers and titans. Has it also been considered how much of a time sink it is to build super caps from a non ISK perspective such as compression time/hauling/build time etc. In some cases ppl have worked for years to get these ships and contrary to the myth don't have 100's of bils in the bank after the ship purchase. To be punished with next to no insurance payout meaning you have to start from scratch again. Seems like a bit of a crazy plan to me maybe its time to look away from the numbers and actually consider the other requirements of getting a ship like that and think to yourself "Is this really fair?" The world needs less super capitals (so unless you are super rich and replace them at the drop of a hat) then of course there should be a massive risk for you to deploy one. My point is for most it already is a massive risk to deploy them. After this you would just have to be insane. Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Nick Curso Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:29:00 - [4] Originally by: Victor Valka Originally by: Nick Curso Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:09:29 Originally by: CCP Chronotis The flip side of that would be the risk adversity argument, that some would risk them less because of this. People wouldn't use them at all because of this. That's bull and you know it. Possibly but instead of quoting the first line why dont u reply constructively? Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Nick Curso Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:42:00 - [5] Originally by: Trauli 'Fly what you can afford to lose' Im not sure what we are debating here, supercarriers cost upwards of 40bill when properly officer fit so really a nerf to the 5 bill you get from insurance shouldnt really be a real hinderance. So then why nerf it at all if by your own admission is a paltry amount anyway therefor sufficient risk to field? Or is this just coming from supercap hate and not actual reason? Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.