| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kefra
   |
Posted - 2006.02.03 20:27:00 -
[1]
An act that brings Concord down on you in high sec space should void the insurance contract.
I would think that once Concord destroys the offenders in high sec space all surviving goods are placed in the nearest station for the original owner to pick up.
The only way to deter someone in this case would be to have the risks outway the rewards in high sec space.
I say this because the incentive to use suicide 'tactics' in high sec space is just too high.
|
Kefra
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 14:13:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Suiciding on people in Empire is perfectly within the rules of the game. The only way its an exploit is if you don't suffer the consequences of it (dont get sec hits, dont lose your ship).
I think it is more of a question of game mechanics. It would most likely be hard to reprogram these mechanics to keep the basic premise in place (which is good ie. that you can be shot anywhere) and make it less lucrative to use suicide tactics (I always end up smiling benignly at this 'I-WIN button' method).
I can totally understand taking 30 million in losses to gain 2 billion. So much so, that I actually see it as being a problem. I mean why not do it? Why not have an alt? why not team up with somebody?
Although I must say that I would not be loading irreplacables in a paper ship, no wait, a slow paper ship.
|
Kefra
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 14:21:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Kefra on 04/02/2006 14:22:07
"1. Drop the real-life analogies already. EvE is a GAME functioning with its own set of rules and mechanics."
Yes, that is very true.
"3. Nerfing the insurance is a moot point. Do you really think Theo would have cared if he'd lost 120 mil instead of 30 for a 3-4 bil loot?"
OMG!!!! You have change me opinion on this. I now agree with you.
"4. Risk vs Reward? The attacker chose the ultimate risk, as he couldn't escape death. And for all he knew, the rewards could have popped."
Not really. He had used a cargo scan and you can be sure that some stuff will survive. So he took a small risk that he might be really unlucky, but I would hardly say ultimte risk. In fact I would say the risk was quite small that he would not at least recup the insurance and come out even. No, I will even go one further on this. The risk was very very small that he would not turn a profit.
|
Kefra
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 15:38:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Veridion
EVE is a PVP game period. Everything about the game is directed to towards that.
EVE is a crafting game period. Everything about the game is directed to towards that.
|
Kefra
|
Posted - 2006.02.05 00:52:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Telemicus Thrace
Originally by: Kefra
Originally by: Veridion
EVE is a PVP game period. Everything about the game is directed to towards that.
EVE is a crafting game period. Everything about the game is directed to towards that.
To craft what? weapons and ammo and ships to fight in?
Mining equipment maybe? to get minerals... to build weapons and ammo and ships to fight in?
In the first sense that it is a PvP Combat game everyone selling stuff on market, building ships, mining for minerals is at some point supporting a PvP encounter somewhere.
If we broaden the term PvP into its sub groups where there is any competition between players we have:
Mining PvP:
- Competition for can placement
- Competition for roid spawns
- Competition on ore price
- Competition on mineral price
Manufacturing PvP:
- Competition for minerals
- Competition for BPCs
- Competition for factory slots
- Competition for sale prices
Trade PvP:
- Competition for supply
- Competition for sale prices
Research PvP:
- Competition to win the RP race
Combat PvP:
- Competition to blow up the other guys ship
In fact the only element of Eve I can think of that does not pit player against player is agent missions (not couting gate camps in low sec).
But it is still true, in the narrow sense of just Combat PvP all roads point to it. Just because you don't PvP your crafting is probably being used to PvP by somebody else.
I generally agree with all but the last sentence of your post.
Although I find that it is often ossible to resolve many issues through dialog in Eve, thus soffening the relentless competition of Eve as you discribe it
From your point of view all roads lead to pvp. This may not be true for everyone in Eve. Pvp might be something that is a element that helps them achive their goals. You replacing your pvp losses might be a small part of their overall pursuit in the industrial element of this game.
I do believe that CCP state that the ultimate goal in EVE is market share (ie wealth), thus any form of earning isk is equally central and valid in EVE - Online. Even mission running
|
Kefra
|
Posted - 2006.02.05 02:15:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Telemicus Thrace
Try reading the last sentance again. You may never fire a shot from that ship you built but the guy you sold it to might. You craft ship > you sell ship > buyer PvPs in ship. 
...and for the guy who built the ship (I am combat oriented, working toward 0.0 space atm) may view combat as just another aspect of a crafting oriented game.
Just as easily as you say all roads lead to combat in EVE, it can be said that everything serves crafting in the game. I certainly have felt like it when replacing ships -> Here I go again spending a good portion of my isk replacing, insuring and fitting a ship I lost either to pvp or missions.
Of course if you are saying that the crafting of the ship is as important to the pvper as the steady stream of buyers in to the crafter, then we agree...
|
Kefra
|
Posted - 2006.02.05 12:02:00 -
[7]
Originally by: HippoKing
Originally by: Kefra
I think it is more of a question of game mechanics. It would most likely be hard to reprogram these mechanics to keep the basic premise in place (which is good ie. that you can be shot anywhere) and make it less lucrative to use suicide tactics (I always end up smiling benignly at this 'I-WIN button' method).
the I-WIN button has nothing to do with this tactic, and will not as long as killrights are ******
we would like distance ourselves from it at the moment
I did not mean the corp, but then I think you know that. 
|
| |
|