| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Melissa Stormborn
   |
Posted - 2010.09.20 00:55:00 -
[31]
or you could fly a freighter and not worry about suicide ganks?
|
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 01:03:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Ran Khanon
It would also mean the end of Hulkageddon, or at least on the scale it takes place now. And I really dig that event 
That's where the cries of 'macro miner' became too ridiculous too ignore, for me anyway. Started to be used for any and all victims of the event.
Have to remind people that it's not hard to time your cycles and be AFK, only coming back when your cargo's full. They aren't doing some noble service to the EVE community taking those people out, but they sure like to act the part.
It is a good event, though, aside from that. They'd really just have to increase the awards if insurance for such activities took a hit.
My Warmest Regards.
Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Shwedagon Paya
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 01:24:00 -
[33]
Hulkageddon is in fact an initiative masterminded by the owners of Hulk BPOs, using macro miners as a convenient and believable scapegoat.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 01:34:00 -
[34]
The OP has a a great point.
Insurance for being killed by Concord is stupid - even game breaking.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
yourdoingitwrong
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 01:45:00 -
[35]
working as intended 
|
Culmen
Caldari
Blood Phage Syndicate
Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 01:46:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Ghoest
The OP has a a great point.
Insurance for being killed by Concord is stupid - even game breaking.
There are any number of instances where a newbie unfamiliar with CONCORD mechanics might end up tripping of a concordoken.
Heck there are a half dozen ways to do it accidentally even if you do fully understand the mechanics.
In my opinion insurance was always there for the newbies anyway, why penalize them more?
and further more why do i even need a sig? |
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 02:44:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Ghoest on 20/09/2010 02:48:05
Because its worse to subsidize a broken mechanic than it is to worry about a truly stupid noob.
On the other hand the rules of high sec agro are absurd and should be redone. It seems to me that are keeping the game breaking Insurance for being Concorded just compensate for our absurd and confusing loot rules.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Brian Ballsack
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 02:53:00 -
[38]
Does it even matter ?
it wont stop anything, people will still sacrifice 100 mil ships for 500 mil + in a cargo hold.
|
Zan Shiro
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 02:57:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Zan Shiro on 20/09/2010 02:58:01
Edited by: Zan Shiro on 20/09/2010 02:57:41
Originally by: Culmen
Originally by: Ghoest
The OP has a a great point.
Insurance for being killed by Concord is stupid - even game breaking.
There are any number of instances where a newbie unfamiliar with CONCORD mechanics might end up tripping of a concordoken.
Heck there are a half dozen ways to do it accidentally even if you do fully understand the mechanics.
In my opinion insurance was always there for the newbies anyway, why penalize them more?
this....can flip day one, dead. Eve a cold place, but still something shuold be there to be friendly. Or else customers may go away.
Or freighter webbing. Grsat trick to move em faster on a route...if you are in the same corp lol.
Empire/low sec Piracy is an established career in this game. Open warfare in null sec not needing war decs to avoid concord actions if in NBSI crews is a feature pushed by CCP as well. This is how you get your independents out there in NPC pockets/use WH's that keep it varied instead of just everyone being blue to the few major power blocks. Don't have the money to form an alliance and war dec IT/NC/etc...no worries. Roam their space, get some kills and avoid getting killed yourself. Win win for all since chances are good if gf's put up by both sides...even the alliance people will enjoy the pvp practice over ratting.
game mechanism supports this stuff , nothing broken. Fly smarter in empire. Non consual pvp a known part of this game....we all chose to sign up for it when we went past our trial time limit and paid for subs. Welcome to eve lol.
|
Brian Ballsack
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 02:59:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Razin
I suspect that for every "insanely profitable" gank there are a hundred with nothing more than a lol-killmail to show for it, if even that.
You suspect wrong, there will be a few rubbish gankers, that i do not doubt, but those that know what they are doing know exactly what is in your cargo and will only attack if there are enough things of value in the hold.
All you can do is hope it gets destroyed and they get nothing.
|
|
|
Barrett Night
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 03:25:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Barrett Night on 20/09/2010 03:25:54
I know a group of hi sec griefers who stalk mission systems. They wait for the juicy multi billion isk ships running lvl 4's then gank them with 8-10 throwaway fit battleships. For a few hours work they make up to a billion isk each for very little work. I find the fact that they do this with such consistency and ease very annoying.
However, what annoys me the most is that they get insurance payouts on top of their multi billion isk loot drops. |
Orange Lagomorph
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 03:25:00 -
[42]
I doubt anyone here is truly concerned about rookies and insurance. They're just using rookie mishaps to prop up their side of the argument. New players forget to insure their ships all the time, probably far more often than they find out about CONCORD the hard way. There's a pop-up warning message for aggressive actions.
You want to keep insurance the way it is to subsidize ganking, period. That's fine, but I'm not buying this altruist gibberish.
|
Zan Shiro
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 03:58:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Orange Lagomorph
You want to keep insurance the way it is to subsidize ganking, period.
It subsidizes pvp. Ganking is just proctected. Mainly because there are lots of triggers for concord as mentioned. One example, I'll call this reverse gank. If in low sec, see 3 peeps bearing down on me...probably not there to fleet up for standings from the mission turn in or help me finish off a bs if ratting. If I know I am not going to get away...I hate to die alone. So I'll target ship most likely to die quick in the attempt to at least have a km to go with the loss mail. If timing is bad...I am the ganker so to speak of that pirate. I am first targetter, first to draw blood, means concord has me down as the bad guy since I initiated combat with no kill rights on my target. Could wait to get targetted and shot to be legit, but more I wait, less likely I get shots on goal. Case of insurance covering a valid gank.
Granted its abused in empire....but lets be honest we all know there are a few faction mission running kill teams in places like motsu...WH or null sec if an alliance with good intel... pimp your rides. Mostu like places.. I take isk per hour hits and fly plain old t2 fit t1 ships if paranoid.
|
Irae Ragwan
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 04:46:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Barrett Night
Edited by: Barrett Night on 20/09/2010 03:25:54
I know a group of hi sec griefers who stalk mission systems. They wait for the juicy multi billion isk ships running lvl 4's then gank them with 8-10 throwaway fit battleships. For a few hours work they make up to a billion isk each for very little work. I find the fact that they do this with such consistency and ease very annoying.
However, what annoys me the most is that they get insurance payouts on top of their multi billion isk loot drops.
So 8-10 players coordinating anywhere from hours to weeks of scanning data, stalking players, and organizing a hit on said player with some level of precision is considered "very little work," these days?
Now, I have nothing against mission bears and I certainly love to see them pimp their ships out, but lets be brutally honest here: the business of ganking for big profits ain't that easy. If it was, every tom, ****, and hary would be parked at every L4 hub in New Eden until mission runners stopped trying.
I've run missions, i've ganked mission runners, and I can tell ya right now it takes a hell of a lot more work to bag a nice marauder than it does to earn that marauder's worth in mission rewards. I can also tell you that I use not one but four multi-billion isk faction battleships to mission when I do it, and i've yet to be ganked in any of them. Avoid hot systems, flag anyone who looks like an obvious scanner/scout, and make intelligent use of bookmarks when flying something that expensive. If you're cruising around in something that expensive and you are NOT paranoid... you are asking to get popped.
|
Ten Bulls
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 06:33:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Ghoest
The OP has a a great point.
Insurance for being killed by Concord is stupid - even game breaking.
Agreed, to articulate a little bit, its stupid because it breaks immersion.
If CCP wants to make ship loss less significant it would make more sense to reduce mineral requirements of ships and get rid of default 40% insurance.
Cost of insurance above the default level should be higher for people who make lots of claims, that would be easy on newbies and provide consequences for suicide gankers.
|
Serpents smile
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 06:57:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Melissa Stormborn
or you could fly a freighter and not worry about suicide ganks?
Lol. Wrong way to think.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 08:57:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Ghoest
Insurance for being killed by Concord is stupid - even game breaking.
How so?
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 10:42:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Ghoest
Because its worse to subsidize a broken mechanic than it is to worry about a truly stupid noob.
Suicide ganking is not a broken mechanic, it's a highly desirable mechanic.
If anything, it happens far too rarely nowadays.
A relative newbie should be TERRIFIED to sortie with 30 mil worth of goods in his completely untanked industrial ALMOST ANYWHERE in "lower" highsec, not cruise around in almost complete safety unless he autopilots through some well-known (ok, maybe not to him) chokepoints, where he might, just _MIGHT_ get suicide-ganked for it. Freighter pilots should be HORRIFIED at the thought of putting autopilot on when they have more than 2 bil ISK worth of goods in their holds, and they should want to sit there at the controls while also maybe requesting web-assisted aligns from some buddy... but no, you easily get up to 10 bil worth of goods, if not more, and carefree autopilot on, with seldom ever any suicide-ganks on freighters anymore.
Suicide-ganking was already nerfed so many ways from "the good old days" that highsec has become almost completely safe for all but the most clueless and careless individuals.
And that is NOT a good thing.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
Zagdul
Gallente
Shadowed Command
Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 11:00:00 -
[49]
I understand that suicide ganking is an accepted game mechanic. However, if the fault of the loss (determined by a concord kill) is at the fault of the pilot, than the insurance could be voided.
|
Anne Arqui
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 11:01:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Ghoest
Because its worse to subsidize a broken mechanic than it is to worry about a truly stupid noob.
Suicide ganking is not a broken mechanic, it's a highly desirable mechanic.
It's not about suicide ganking (which is a gameplay mechanic I agree with), it's about insurance sponsoring it (which is ridiculous imo).
I hope we'll get player driven banks and insurance in EVE one day, let's see how much you get payed out then!
|
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 11:06:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Anne Arqui
Originally by: Akita T
Suicide ganking is not a broken mechanic, it's a highly desirable mechanic.
It's not about suicide ganking (which is a gameplay mechanic I agree with), it's about insurance sponsoring it (which is ridiculous imo).
Considering how much good it brings to the game, it should be sponsored.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 11:14:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Anne Arqui
Originally by: Akita T
Suicide ganking is not a broken mechanic, it's a highly desirable mechanic.
It's not about suicide ganking (which is a gameplay mechanic I agree with), it's about insurance sponsoring it (which is ridiculous imo).
How else are you supposed to ENCOURAGE something desirable to happen ?
Quote:
I hope we'll get player driven banks and insurance in EVE one day, let's see how much you get payed out then!
EVE's insurance system is not a business. It's a game mechanic. It PAYS OUT MORE THAN IT CASHES IN.
Any attempts at player-issued insurance will either end in financial ruin or end up having no customers at all due to negligible payouts and high premiums.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 11:16:00 -
[53]
the only way to get this to get rolling is to encourage more suicide ganks no ?
|
crastar
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 11:33:00 -
[54]
You want to know why insurance is there? Ok, here's why.
The whole economy of eve is set up to do one thing, and one thing only: To allow the players to build everything you see and fly, with the exception of NPC stations.
The isk you pay for insurance is what is called a sink. It takes isk out of the economy.
Now, here's the concept. That ship you just lost to those gankers (who paid into the isk sink and therefore took isk out of the eve economy) is also part of the economic sink.
The modules that were destroyed are gone. (isk sink) the modules that are left are not an addition to the economy, they already exist. Forget the fact that someone else now has them. Think economics.
You now need a new ship, and new modules. So do the gankers.
If it took 5 battleships to bring your battleship down, that's 6 ships, plus modules. Thus you have stimulated the T1 production industry, and the T2 production industry (hulks, mining), and the exploration industry for deadspace modules, and the mission runners for faction modules.
Given that eve runs on player production of items, and that non-consentual pvp is part of that equation FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, what exactly is your problem here?
Have you really considered exactly what you are doing?
Do you have a real understanding of the eve experience?
I think not.
|
Ruhige Schmerz
Valhalla Naval Corp
IMPERIAL LEGI0N
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 11:45:00 -
[55]
Originally by: crastar
Do you have a real understanding of the eve experience?
I think not.
Are you suggesting that insurance pays out less than it collects? Insurance is not an ISK sink. Insurance is only an isk sink if it's taking in more than it pays out, which it doesn't in the individual case, and probably not on average (# of times a ship is reinsured before being lost) either.
Also, you seem to be suggesting that insurance payouts for concord losses are somehow an ISK sink, which they obviously are not. An ISK sink would be not paying out for losses to concord, which the OP is asking for.
|
crastar
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 11:49:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Ruhige Schmerz
Originally by: crastar
Do you have a real understanding of the eve experience?
I think not.
Are you suggesting that insurance pays out less than it collects? Insurance is not an ISK sink. Insurance is only an isk sink if it's taking in more than it pays out, which it doesn't in the individual case, and probably not on average (# of times a ship is reinsured before being lost) either.
Also, you seem to be suggesting that insurance payouts for concord losses are somehow an ISK sink, which they obviously are not. An ISK sink would be not paying out for losses to concord, which the OP is asking for.
I am not suggesting anything. I am telling you to stop thinking like an individual who is whining because he lost something he couldn't afford to lose, and to start thinking about the economics of a successful internet spaceship game as a whole.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 11:49:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Ruhige Schmerz
Also, you seem to be suggesting that insurance payouts for concord losses are somehow an ISK sink, which they obviously are not. An ISK sink would be not paying out for losses to concord, which the OP is asking for.
On the other hand, if CONCORD losses didn't generate insurance payouts, it wouldn't be an ISK sink either since the gankers would just stop insuring their shipsà
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
crastar
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 11:54:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Ruhige Schmerz
Also, you seem to be suggesting that insurance payouts for concord losses are somehow an ISK sink, which they obviously are not. An ISK sink would be not paying out for losses to concord, which the OP is asking for.
On the other hand, if CONCORD losses didn't generate insurance payouts, it wouldn't be an ISK sink either since the gankers would just stop insuring their shipsà
Good point.
|
Creepy CousinRoger
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 11:58:00 -
[59]
Funny, every time I've suicide ganked someone I've never even thought or cared about the insurance. Most of the time I forget anyway. Who cares about the platnum payout on a BC when you're making (possibly) 100's of millions?
|
Ruhige Schmerz
Valhalla Naval Corp
IMPERIAL LEGI0N
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 11:58:00 -
[60]
Originally by: crastar
I am not suggesting anything. I am telling you to stop thinking like an individual who is whining because he lost something he couldn't afford to lose, and to start thinking about the economics of a successful internet spaceship game as a whole.
I haven't whined about losing anything. I'm calling you out on your classification of insurance as an ISK sink. It's quite simple to prove that it's not. It pays out more than it costs, several times more for most ships.
Furthermore, I'm pointing out that your assessment was wrong to start with. By not paying out on insurance for losses to concord, as the OP suggested, the effect of insurance as an ISK sink (were it actually one) would be increased, not decreased.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |