Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
66
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 16:54:00 -
[31] - Quote
Vastek Non wrote: Five words:
No insurance for concorded ships.
Its never made sense in the past, and it makes no sense now. You want to suicide a ship, sure do it, but you have to pay a cost.
The best solution is to have no insurance, period.
As a game mechanic it has completely outlived it's usefulness, as incomes have grown significantly. And it never made any sense in terms of RP justification with all the ganking going on.
|
Kengutsi Akira
74
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 16:58:00 -
[32] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:the mittani sends his regards~
ah that explains it lol
Pusing a ship into the game to make it easier to interdict ice... lol well, we know where CCP stand
What Mittani wants, Mittani gets, Mittani help us all
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
34
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 16:58:00 -
[33] - Quote
Razin wrote:The best solution is to have no insurance, period.
+1 |
Rellik B00n
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers The 0rphanage
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 17:05:00 -
[34] - Quote
my pigtail detector alerted me to this thread but sadly the content was not what i was hoping for.
|
Kengutsi Akira
74
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 17:06:00 -
[35] - Quote
Razin wrote: The best solution is to have no insurance, period.
+1 as well
I dont fly with it anyways, the numbers are buggy. It inevitably used to tell me that when I insured my Drake Id get back like 5x the price. But it never did >.< So I stopped using it What Mittani wants, Mittani gets, Mittani help us all
|
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial Shadow Directive
27
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 17:08:00 -
[36] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Razin wrote:The best solution is to have no insurance, period.
+1
I disagree I think its great where it's at except for one thing; remove or reduce the amount paid to those killed by concord. Maybe cut the ISK payment in half? |
Boris Ginnungagap
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 17:15:00 -
[37] - Quote
Suiciding in T3 ship... |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
66
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 17:18:00 -
[38] - Quote
Igualmentedos wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Razin wrote:The best solution is to have no insurance, period.
+1 I disagree I think its great where it's at except for one thing; remove or reduce the amount paid to those killed by concord. Maybe cut the ISK payment in half? Why?
|
Aidan Brooder
Dynasphere Ltd.
80
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 17:19:00 -
[39] - Quote
Boris Ginnungagap wrote:Suiciding in T3 ship...
Yes, my mind boggles at the money some people have... Also the idea to destroy such a beauty to kill an ugly Hulk. Makes me sad. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
795
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 17:21:00 -
[40] - Quote
Aidan Brooder wrote:Boris Ginnungagap wrote:Suiciding in T3 ship... Yes, my mind boggles at the money some people have... Also the idea to destroy such a beauty to kill an ugly Hulk. Makes me sad. No, what really boggles the mind is how some people can't seem to distinguish between T3 and Tier 3. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
396
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 17:23:00 -
[41] - Quote
Tippia wrote: No, what really boggles the mind is how some people can't seem to distinguish between T3 and Tier 3.
I made that error. I am shamed. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
mkint
164
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 17:25:00 -
[42] - Quote
What doesn't make sense (besides some fellatio between devs and goons) is why is there a new BC when there is already a broken BC class?
I challenge anyone to look at the market history graphs of any tier 1 BC for however far back you want to look. The price is completely flatlined. Compare that to the graphs for a tier 2 BC. Also take a look at the volume graphs. The complete lack of market activity tells me that the ship class across all races is entirely obsolete.
Now we get a tier 3 BC that does the same job as a tier 1? Why not just go ahead and remove the tier 1's from the game altogether? |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial Shadow Directive
30
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 17:39:00 -
[43] - Quote
Tippia wrote:mkint wrote:Now we get a tier 3 BC that does the same job as a tier 1? Why not just go ahead and remove the tier 1's from the game altogether? That's less of a problem GÇö the tier-1s need to be fixed regardless. The larger worry is that these tier-3s will obsolete the tier-2s just like the tier-2s did to the tier-1s. Hopefullly, that GÇ£less tank than a battleshipGÇ¥ is a typo, and they actually mean GÇ£less tank than a battlecruiserGÇ¥ (as in, tanks like a cruiser, at best).
Hopefully they tank like a weak cruiser (Caracal! ), otherwise even a strong (cruiser) tank with BS damage might be a little ridiculous. I guess we'll see when they release them on sisi. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
397
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 17:39:00 -
[44] - Quote
Tippia wrote:mkint wrote:Now we get a tier 3 BC that does the same job as a tier 1? Why not just go ahead and remove the tier 1's from the game altogether? That's less of a problem GÇö the tier-1s need to be fixed regardless. The larger worry is that these tier-3s will obsolete the tier-2s just like the tier-2s did to the tier-1s. Hopefullly, that GÇ£less tank than a battleshipGÇ¥ is a typo, and they actually mean GÇ£less tank than a battlecruiserGÇ¥ (as in, tanks like a cruiser, at best).
Can't replace, for example, the drake... at least as far as things like Sleeper sites and missions with frigs and cruisers running around in here. The ships they can't hit will be the ones that do them in. At least the T2s are more balanced as far as viable targets. A flock of Sleeper frigs will eat these tier 3s like candy.
It would be funny to watch though... Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 17:44:00 -
[45] - Quote
Uhoh, I'm going to buy a jump freighter for AFK hauling in high sec immediately. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
67
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 17:59:00 -
[46] - Quote
Igualmentedos wrote:
It's a matter of opinion so we can sit here and talk about this all day, but I feel it (insurance) encourages PvP, helps newer players adjust to Eve, and provides an even greater gap between Tech 1 and Tech 2, which there should be.
As to why I feel suicide ganking shouldn't get full payment on insurance:
Suicide ganking is too easy, if someone wants to gank you, they can do it, and it's pretty much impossible to stop. Let's be honest, a gank BC does not cost a lot of ISK. You throw on some pretty damage mods, guns and...thats it. Next, you insure it and off you go killing people with very little set back. There is very little risk, for a (IMO) huge reward. The reward is being able to kill your enemies (who aren't suspecting it) with ease. Then, when you get sick and tired of face ******* unsuspecting people and incur a negative sec standing, you just biomass and restart.
From what I can see, there is very little risk for the excessive reward.
Since I answered your question, I would like to know "Why?" Why do you feel insurance shouldn't exist?
Insurance exists to help players recoup their ship losses. It is assumed that any loss that is reimbursed is incurred within the game rules (otherwise the petitioning mechanism is used). It doesnGÇÖt matter if the loss happened as a result of huge disparity in the involved playersGÇÖ age, equipment used, or without any GÇÿfunGÇÖ for the player suffering the loss. Since both the ganker and the gankee are playing within the game rules, both are reimbursed as per the purchased GÇÿpolicyGÇÖ. ItGÇÖs just a game mechanic.
Whether this game mechanic is still required is debatable, but in my opinion the current levels of achievable player income make ship insurance an unnecessary ISK faucet. Completely removing insurance would also make these empire ganking discussions a little more substantive by focusing on issues of ship balance, etc.
|
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial Shadow Directive
30
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 18:06:00 -
[47] - Quote
Razin wrote:Igualmentedos wrote:
It's a matter of opinion so we can sit here and talk about this all day, but I feel it (insurance) encourages PvP, helps newer players adjust to Eve, and provides an even greater gap between Tech 1 and Tech 2, which there should be.
As to why I feel suicide ganking shouldn't get full payment on insurance:
Suicide ganking is too easy, if someone wants to gank you, they can do it, and it's pretty much impossible to stop. Let's be honest, a gank BC does not cost a lot of ISK. You throw on some pretty damage mods, guns and...thats it. Next, you insure it and off you go killing people with very little set back. There is very little risk, for a (IMO) huge reward. The reward is being able to kill your enemies (who aren't suspecting it) with ease. Then, when you get sick and tired of face ******* unsuspecting people and incur a negative sec standing, you just biomass and restart.
From what I can see, there is very little risk for the excessive reward.
Since I answered your question, I would like to know "Why?" Why do you feel insurance shouldn't exist?
Insurance exists to help players recoup their ship losses. It is assumed that any loss that is reimbursed is incurred within the game rules (otherwise the petitioning mechanism is used). It doesnGÇÖt matter if the loss happened as a result of huge disparity in the involved playersGÇÖ age, equipment used, or without any GÇÿfunGÇÖ for the player suffering the loss. Since both the ganker and the gankee are playing within the game rules, both are reimbursed as per the purchased GÇÿpolicyGÇÖ. ItGÇÖs just a game mechanic. Whether this game mechanic is still required is debatable, but in my opinion the current levels of achievable player income make ship insurance an unnecessary ISK faucet. Completely removing insurance would also make these empire ganking discussions a little more substantive by focusing on issues of ship balance, etc.
I would like to see other ISK faucets altered (Concord bounties? Please?) instead of one that is in the game to help people and encourage PvP.
I still stand by my argument that there is little risk for excessive reward when suicide ganking. Again, we could go on all day about this so to each his own.
|
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 18:22:00 -
[48] - Quote
It does show that either they intend to or need to start planning for more nerfs to the hisec ganks. I have no doubt that the goons will abuse the hell out of these and as such things like removing insurance for CONCORD involvement in your actions and yet even faster response times for them need to be on the table.
Another option perhaps is the need to change the paper bags that are the buffer tank on almost all mining craft. Tho that opens up a whole nother bag of worms right there and it's likely best to make CONCORD changes first. |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 18:26:00 -
[49] - Quote
Igualmentedos wrote:I still stand by my argument that there is little risk for excessive reward when suicide ganking.
There is zero risk. The cost of the ship and fittings is simply an expenditure as a cost of doing business. It is no different than stocking up on ammo for running missions.
When I ran missions I knew, +/- 50, about how many rounds I would need to complete a mission. It made the P/L statement much easier to figure. Same way with suicide ganking....
|
Josie Starshine
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 18:26:00 -
[50] - Quote
Igualmentedos wrote:White Tree wrote:Hey guys remember the time Band of Brothers waged a propaganda war against Goonswarm claiming they were all children who had school and they genuinely believed it so they didn't even bother attending OPs during school hours and subsequently got repeatedly smashed by them. Remember the way it happened again when the CFC took Fountain lmao. Hey guys remember that time when the members of the CSM were actually useful and wholly represented the player base of Eve Online? Remember when they didn't use the CSM as a tool to pursue their own in-game goals. Remember when being a CSM member actually meant more than a free vacation? Yeah, me either.
(See underlined above) Good point. Considering CCP seems to be a bit strapped for cash at the moment... Net Meeting, WebEX.
|
|
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial Shadow Directive
32
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 18:42:00 -
[51] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Igualmentedos wrote:I still stand by my argument that there is little risk for excessive reward when suicide ganking.
There is zero risk. The cost of the ship and fittings is simply an expenditure as a cost of doing business. It is no different than stocking up on ammo for running missions. When I ran missions I knew, +/- 50, about how many rounds I would need to complete a mission. It made the P/L statement much easier to figure. Same way with suicide ganking....
I would argue there is some risk, but either way it's a disproportionate amount of risk. |
Vricrolatious
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
20
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 19:05:00 -
[52] - Quote
Vastek Non wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Someone needs to reassess his cost/benefit analysis with regards to using these as disposable ships. Five words: No insurance for concorded ships. Its never made sense in the past, and it makes no sense now. You want to suicide a ship, sure do it, but you have to pay a cost. Oh yes, and i'm really looking forward to the Gallente/Amarr versions
Insurance means nothing when Dear Leader offers to pay you for the kill that you before Concord destroyed your ship! WIDot, Best Dot, Even Sans Dot! -Vric |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial Shadow Directive
32
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 19:06:00 -
[53] - Quote
Vricrolatious wrote:Vastek Non wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Someone needs to reassess his cost/benefit analysis with regards to using these as disposable ships. Five words: No insurance for concorded ships. Its never made sense in the past, and it makes no sense now. You want to suicide a ship, sure do it, but you have to pay a cost. Oh yes, and i'm really looking forward to the Gallente/Amarr versions Insurance means nothing when Dear Leader offers to pay you for the kill that you before Concord destroyed your ship!
what? |
Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
45
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 19:08:00 -
[54] - Quote
Igualmentedos wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Razin wrote:The best solution is to have no insurance, period.
+1 I disagree I think its great where it's at except for one thing; remove or reduce the amount paid to those killed by concord. Maybe cut the ISK payment in half?
Hell, I support disallowing insurance for players after a certain age.
The insurance is a good buffer for noobs to learn, and most of the time I forget to insure the ship I suicide gank with anyway. Removing insurance isn't going to stop my ganking at all. We have a blog, it is terrible. How to fix Bounty Hunting |
Igualmentedos
Shadow Veil Industrial Shadow Directive
32
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 19:12:00 -
[55] - Quote
Burseg Sardaukar wrote:Igualmentedos wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Razin wrote:The best solution is to have no insurance, period.
+1 I disagree I think its great where it's at except for one thing; remove or reduce the amount paid to those killed by concord. Maybe cut the ISK payment in half? Hell, I support disallowing insurance for players after a certain age. The insurance is a good buffer for noobs to learn, and most of the time I forget to insure the ship I suicide gank with anyway. Removing insurance isn't going to stop my ganking at all.
I don't want suicide ganking to stop. I want there to be more of a set-back to the ganker. |
RougeOperator
Autocannons Anonymous
94
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 19:13:00 -
[56] - Quote
Fun new tool for carebears.
They wont have to train up BS skills anymore to run level 4 missions.
Imagine how easy they will make level 3 missions.
|
mkint
164
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 19:24:00 -
[57] - Quote
RougeOperator wrote:Fun new tool for carebears.
They wont have to train up BS skills anymore to run level 4 missions.
Imagine how easy they will make level 3 missions.
reading comprehension fail |
Vricrolatious
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
20
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 19:28:00 -
[58] - Quote
Igualmentedos wrote:Vricrolatious wrote:Vastek Non wrote:Ingvar Angst wrote:Someone needs to reassess his cost/benefit analysis with regards to using these as disposable ships. Five words: No insurance for concorded ships. Its never made sense in the past, and it makes no sense now. You want to suicide a ship, sure do it, but you have to pay a cost. Oh yes, and i'm really looking forward to the Gallente/Amarr versions Insurance means nothing when Dear Leader offers to pay you for the kill that you before Concord destroyed your ship! what?
If I take a Thorax or a Brutix (or something else cheap and disposable) into Empire and pop a miner in an ice belt, sure I'll lose my ship, but I'll get paid a bounty from the alliance wallet. Insurance is great, but bounties are better.
Goons, putting the game back in the player's hands! WIDot, Best Dot, Even Sans Dot! -Vric |
Anachronic
Abacus Industries Group Knights Of Freedoms
41
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 19:30:00 -
[59] - Quote
RougeOperator wrote:Fun new tool for carebears.
They wont have to train up BS skills anymore to run level 4 missions.
Imagine how easy they will make level 3 missions.
I would LOVE to see you try and run a Lvl4 in one of these boats...
Without a BS sized tank you will just melt or it will take you forever to run the missions cause of warpouts
|
Vricrolatious
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 19:32:00 -
[60] - Quote
Anachronic wrote:RougeOperator wrote:Fun new tool for carebears.
They wont have to train up BS skills anymore to run level 4 missions.
Imagine how easy they will make level 3 missions.
I would LOVE to see you try and run a Lvl4 in one of these boats... Without a BS sized tank you will just melt or it will take you forever to run the missions cause of warpouts
Depends really, you can run a fair amount of L4s in a Drake when setup correctly. WIDot, Best Dot, Even Sans Dot! -Vric |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |