|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
74
   |
Posted - 2011.11.09 20:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Igualmentedos wrote:High sec isn't completely safe. It pretty much was before this, and this change GÇö if intentional GÇö inches it even closer, which is the wrong way to go. Highsec needs to be made more unsafe, not less.
I hope they don't do this. Suicide ganking needs a boost not a nerf.
Anybody know why they did this? It seems everytime someone suggested this on the forums they received an overwhelmingly negative response.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 20:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
Crias Taylor wrote:If we are going to argue about what "makes sense" in a cold universe why would an insurance company also insure your loses to the people you declared war against?
The fact is this was shoved in to "appease" high sec miners and mission runners. Mission runners who make more isk then those in nullsec while being under the protection of concord. CCP soundwave promised a buff to nulls anoms in value so maybe this will help offset yet another buff to empire. I doubt it though.
This is not a buff to empire its a nerf. It makes empire even more boring and uneventful.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 13:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Cearain wrote:
Anybody know why they did this? It seems everytime someone suggested this on the forums they received an overwhelmingly negative response.
The removal of insurance for ships lost to CONCORD? The simplest explanation lies at the feet of those new glass cannon, tier 3, battlecruisers that are being introduced. Which will be able to alpha like a battleship, while costing a good bit less. It probably would have resulted in freighters getting ganked for carrying as little as 500-700M ISK worth of goods (instead of the customary 1B ISK number). Remove of insurance paid out to CONCORD losses restores that balance (mostly... everyone will have to run math once the stats get finalized).
The new BCs are new ship hulls that should be fully insured just like the battleship hull. There may be some minor decrease in the cost of the platinum insurance but not much. You would still need to buy the large guns and any mods you put on the ship.
Now how much will one of those haulers have to be carrying before they risk getting blown up? 3 billion? How much more boring can high sec transport get??
BTW I have never suicide ganked anyone I do move stuff in high sec for trade though. It seems to me that all the thought I put into how I will tank my ships and move stuff through high sec was wasted time because suicide ganking just got effectively eliminated.
Edit all the markets will be completely homogenous now because there will no longer any risk in transporting through high sec. Now people who don't think when they transport will do just as well as those who do. I hope CCP reconsiders dumbing this game down even further.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Changes that make hi-sec safer without decreasing its rewards undermine the risk-vs-reward dichotomy of EvE. ...
It does undermine the rewards of traders/haulers in high sec. Now suicide ganking will be so rare that the complete idiots will be able to do just as well at it as people who used to consider the possibility of a suicide gank. Its not like it took allot of thought to tank a transport ship but now even that tiny bit of thought is no longer required.
Now all the markets will be even more homogenous and it will be even harder to find a decent way to make money hauling stuff.
So the only people who get a buff here are the dumb who don't know any better than always putting cargo expanders on and never think to put any tank on their ship or make a couple of trips. Every time you give a buff to the dumb you make the game less interesting for those who like to some complexity and challenge.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
[quote=Michael Holmes Holmes]... I have said it in this thread before and I will say it again, When you commit a INGAME CRIME and then get blown up by the INGAME POLICE you probably will not get rewarded by your INGAME insurance company. This is not about comparing real life insurance to EVE, this is about a obvious flaw in the mechanics of the game that was fixed after being exploited for far to long, so long in fact that everyone seems to think that it was the original intent, the dev team has spoken about this on this very thread and left nothing to the imagination.
[quote]
What are you talking about the insurance says you will get repaid if your ship is destroyed for any reason. There is no exploit. This is the mechanics working as intended. It is intended that stupidity in eve has a price. If you do nothing but put cargo expanders on your hauler and fill it with very valuable things expect to pay a price.
You are right to avoid the comparision to real life because no real life insurance company would ever exist in a form anything close to the one that exists in the eve universe. Its an isk faucet and it will continue to be an isk faucet after this change. No real business works that way.
Go ahead into state farm and tell them you are going to equip your car with rocket launchers and go driving around with other people who you are at war with and have their cars similarly equipped. See if they will give you insurance. Is that exploit too? Should people who are in war decs not get insurance? Should people who go gcc and lose their ship not get insurance?
Because there is no real life comparision to insurance, people who want these different things are just giving their own opinions. The only right answer is the answer that makes the game more fun. If you think the game is more fun when dumb people do just as well as those who think a bit then you will like this change.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Cearain wrote: The new BCs are new ship hulls that should be fully insured just like the battleship hull. There may be some minor decrease in the cost of the platinum insurance but not much. You would still need to buy the large guns and any mods you put on the ship.
/../ suicide ganking just got effectively eliminated.. If you are going to suicide your BC you don't insure it and it will prob only be marginally more expensive to replace an uninsured BC than a BS with insurance. No big change.
I think you may be assuming a tier 3 bc will cost the same as a tier 2 bc. I imagine the price difference will be similar to the price difference between tier 1 bcs and tier 2 bcs.
When you look at the total cost for the 10-15 or so it would take to blow up a freighter it is a substantial nerf to something that needed a buff not a nerf.
If suicide ganking was so profitable more people would be doing it. As it is its pretty much only those who want to grief - because the potential for profit is much less than other methods in game.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
77
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 19:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Cearain wrote:I think you may be assuming a tier 3 bc will cost the same as a tier 2 bc. I imagine the price difference will be similar to the price difference between tier 1 bcs and tier 2 bcs. A Tornado will cost a bit over 40 mil according to the Sisi bpos. A tempest/apoc costs around 35 mil after insurance. Not really a significant increase, and the volley/dps will be the same.
Your only comparing 2 ships you can suicide gank in. Whats the math on other ships like the brutix?
Jack Dant wrote:[quote=Cearain] Quote:If suicide ganking was so profitable more people would be doing it. As it is its pretty much only those who want to grief - because the potential for profit is much less than other methods in game. In my experience, suicide ganking haulers is boring. Profit potential is huge, but in practice, you end up scanning ships for two hours before you find a reasonable target. And then the loot fairies do their thing and only 10% of the isk value drops 
It takes a long time and then you have a good chance of having your payday blow up = not very profitable.
Your claim that it has potential to be hugely profitable is only looking at that one in 100,000 gank. Over time its not very profitable.
Ultimately the problem with this change is it goes in the wrong direction. High sec trade hubs need more diversity not less. In order to get this high sec travel needs to be more dangerous not less.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
|
| |
|