Here's a thought: index insurance to the player's security rating. It follows the concept of insurance, where you charge higher risk people higher premiums (or in this case, pay out less). Since repeated suiciding will decrease the sec rating, insurance would provide diminishing return over time if the person is a "serial suicider"...

You are just full of brilliant arguments today, arent you? Now why dont you do us all a service and stop filling the forums with your venom?

Edit: sorry, I realize your are probably genetically programed to spew ****. very well. carry on.

Sorry but you give the Goon too much credit here. Leading the CSM and taking the lead on all these different areas are not the same. Goons have primarily been advocating for:

- The supercap nerf, as a direct counter to the DRF and elite PVP enemies
- A resource rebalance within different areas of space to the benefit of the Goon
- Time dilation, which will ensure that even larger blobs are feasible

I regret to inform you that you have bought into the goon propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Despite what we've told you, we aren't the boogeyman, we want to play a good game, just like you.


1. CFC has one of the largest supercap fleets in the game, and plenty of secure space to build more. Supercaps are a bad mechanic, and they are bad for EVE. The problem is that CCP didn't plan for the day when there would be 10 or 20 or 30 titans in a single fleet. The idea of blobs of supercaps didn't occur to them until it was too late. The more powerful supercaps are, the more they entrench the intrests of large alliances already in nullsec. If the only counter to supercarriers is MORE supercarriers, and you can't build supercarriers until you own space, who benefits? Sov holding alliances like Goonswarm. In the future we want it to be possible for a subcap gang to win against a supercap, not easy, just possible.

2. This is dumb. We have been advocating hard for a tech nerf, because it is stupid at a regional R32 is more valuable than the R64s. We didn't like it when we lived in Delve (no tech) and we don't like it now that we live in Deklein (plenty of tech). It is a bad mechanic. We would like a resource spread that doesn't render large swathes of nullsec worthless, despite the fact that we live in one of the really valuable parts right now.

3. Time Dilation makes lag fair. Having hundreds of players get stuck looking at a black screen for 6 hours is a bad mechanic. It is bad when it has happened to us, and it isn't much more fun when it happens to our enemies. Would you want to play a game where you are blind, paralyzed, and unable to even log off for hours at a time? No, of course not. Most goons lament the loss of the good old days of small gang warfare, but until sov battles are fought using Alliance Tournament rules, you are going to bring everything you have because the other guy is bringing all he has. That has been a fact of Eve since before goons started playing in 2006.


Those are all objectively good things, things that nearly everyone wants. Our "playstyle" works just as well in a bad game as a good game, but like you we'd rather play a good game. We don't want to win eve, we just want to have fun.

2. Funny, didnt hear any complaints before the DRF and "elite PVP" alliances you so despise moved in. Again your tech income is high. Their tech income is higher.

3. My point stand. It will support larger numbers which you are in the best position to exploit.

So any means to fix lag are bad because they benefit the blob, seriously ?

You obviously didn't pay attention before that.

hey can I join the "crapping up the thread with a threadjack about off topic stupid stuff no one but 3 of us care about" club?

you guys are so cool i'm swooning

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

Pretty much.
How many suicide gankers willingly each spend over 150-200m+ on a single gank?
Tier3 BCs are obviously going to be expensive. I wouldn't be surprised if the required manufacturing materials clock these ships over 180m.

Let's see CCP slap on a silly tech book that has you lose a lvl every time you lose a Tier3 BC, similar to the current Tech3 Cruiser.
Now that'd be funny, conservative, and actually tactical... no need to outdate current Tier2 BCs.

I'd image it will cost more then a drake, less then a scorpion. How would it make sense any other way?

People suicide ganking as a reason to raise costs is ridiculous: if suicide ganking is really a problem there are plenty easier ways to address it that would have less collateral damage

You currently lose about 30mil on a suicide apoc.

I wager you'll end up losing about 15mil on a Tornado.

That's **** all difference, really.

People ganking for the fun won't care about cost.
People ganking for profit won't see a difference.

You currently lose about 30mil on a suicide apoc.

I wager you'll end up losing about 15mil on a Tornado.

That's **** all difference, really.

People ganking for the fun won't care about cost.
People ganking for profit won't see a difference.

15mil sounds about right assuming:

*base mineral cost splits the difference between Cane and Phoon costs
*insurance payout - insurance cost = the current % range of base mineral cost of tier 2 BC

[/crystal ball]

15 mil sounds wrong. You should use tier 1 and tier 2 mineral cost difference (cyclone and cane) within bc class as template to likely cost of tier 3, not ships one class up. All t1 ships has followed the same pattern. There is no reason to assume tier 3 bc will break from the pattern.

I think you misunderstood the point I was making even though I underlined and bolded the important part.


Fun Fact:

if Tornado cost : Cane cost as Cane cost : Cyclon cost...... the number is roughly the same as splitting cane and phoon costs.

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).

I have 18/26/61 mils for cyclone/cane/phon in Rens. The gap is bigger than splitting the difference. Not to mention that unlike phon, Apoc is tier 2 bs that cost significantly more.