|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
980
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:from a gameplay perspective it makes sense - which insurance would pay if you go on an amok-drive and the police wrecks your car? From a gameplay perspective, it would also make sense to remove CONCORD and leave that stuff to the faction police forces. Which police force teleports to the scene of the crime, automatically knows who did it, and then instantly kills almost everyone involved?
LAPD (assuming everyone involved is Minmatar)
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
980
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
There are going to be some very disappointed miners when they find out that this will hardly affect those ganking them (On noes, no insurance on my gank Catalyst! ) but that the freighterloads of minerals from the drone regions that have been undercutting their livelihood are now even safer.
Welp.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
980
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ryllic Sin wrote:Cpt Fina wrote: Point is that CCP is willingly bending over and taking it in the rear when they constantly give in to the preassure from the playerbase and changes what is seen as truisms of the game.
The trusims / principles of the game, or more precisely their implementation are subjective. For example one principle is risk vs reward, in the case of ganking in hi-sec (miners especially), I think the risk vs reward is out of balance in favour of the ganker, removing insurance is a step in returning to the one of the alleged principles of the game.
But this change will do almost nothing to protect miners themselves, whilst it will radically increase the protection to freighters and orcas. If anything the poor schmoe in a mining marge is going to be slightly worse off, because he'll still be on that list of near-free-to-gank targets.
We better hope that Soundwave goes ahead and changes drones to bounty rats soon.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
980
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 11:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Andski wrote: I welcome this change, to be quite honest - it will make miners so much more complacent in their supposed "safety" that they will totally neglect taking any measures to protect themselves.
So, not only do you want to shoot at something that can't shoot back, you also want it to not flee either ... hmm ... I guess some people do find punching bags challenging and "fun".
Sorry, are you talking about the miners or the gankers here? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
983
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 22:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
Banechild wrote:
And people who cry that this is somehow making high sec more safe.
It certainly won't make hi-sec safer for miners.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
987
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 07:46:00 -
[6] - Quote
Michael Holmes Holmes wrote: besides, I doubt you would have much to shoot at if carebears could not build your ships and ammo for you.
You realise that "PvPers" can train industry skills as well as anyone else, right? And that's before we even consider alts.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
987
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 10:06:00 -
[7] - Quote
Generals4 wrote:Malcanis wrote:Michael Holmes Holmes wrote: besides, I doubt you would have much to shoot at if carebears could not build your ships and ammo for you.
You realise that "PvPers" can train industry skills as well as anyone else, right? And that's before we even consider alts. But wouldn't said alts be carebears?
The player is the carebear, not the character. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
987
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 10:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Malcanis wrote:Michael Holmes Holmes wrote: besides, I doubt you would have much to shoot at if carebears could not build your ships and ammo for you.
You realise that "PvPers" can train industry skills as well as anyone else, right? And that's before we even consider alts. Then they are no longer PvPers but EVE players... Get your fact straight. PvPers are arcade players... they play to destroy, and often get destroyed, they buy GTCs and sells them to have their "five seconds of glory" in game.
Yes all "PvP" players are exactly the same
No seriously though, most of the "PvPers" I know have at least one industry/market/$_ISKACTIVITY alt. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
990
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:The only people that have a problem with this are the suicide gankers. This change makes complete sense and should be implemented. I can't imagine why any insurance company would want to reward someone for breaking the law. Last time I checked...if your car is shot up because it was the getaway car in an armed robbery the insurance company does not pay for your repairs.
A little more common sense in EvE. This is a good thing.
No insurance company would pay out for just about any of the shiploss scenarios that currently get an insurance payment.
You're saying it's "common sense" that we get do insurance for a ship we lost to self-destructing, taking a ship into a known warzone, deliberately hunting pirates, bubbling yourself in the middle of an enemy fleet, etc, but not for shooting a hauler? No "real" insurance company would pay for any of those losses.
Just about the only common ship-loss scenario that a "real" insurance company would pay out for is, ironically, one for which EVE Insurance doesn't pay - when a ship is stolen from a hangar.
Indeed, one might almost think that "common sense" would bring us to the conclusion that EVE insurance is nothing in common with "real" insurance except the name. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
992
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:46:00 -
[10] - Quote
Tippia wrote:useless ******* forum software
PEND Insurance should insure forum posts c/d? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1019
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 03:28:00 -
[11] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote: So ice mining is not smart in the eyes of Goons? Flying a Hulk is not smart in the eyes of Goons?
Actually you are correct. The mining system in Eve is horrible and you can make more money doing just about any other activity. If we get people to quit mining we are helping them. You mean you help Goon Bots to make more money?
I think you mean DRF bots. Minerals come from dronespace.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1088
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 19:46:00 -
[12] - Quote
ZedMiner110224 wrote:Ultima Online started out with a "all PvP flagged all the time" except in town design.
They lasted less than 2 years before they saw some serious playerbase erosion start due to the excessive amount of ganking and harrassment.
And after it was stopped, some Icelandic UO players thought that was lame and decided to make a game where players were free to decide for themselves. So began a little game you may have heard of, called EVE. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
|
|