Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Jack All'Trade
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:36:00 -
[301] - Quote
pmchem wrote:This insurance change is part of CCP's drive to protect their highsec bot userbase.
Because that's all it does.
because thats what makes sense to you.
and goon tears are best tears |
David Grogan
The Motley Crew Reborn
186
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:36:00 -
[302] - Quote
Evei Shard wrote:Removal of insurance payouts when a ship is destroyed by Concord is nothing but an appeasement scheme that a good number of miners are going to fall for.
It will change the amount of suicide ganks by exactly zero.
The only difference is the players who have been calling for this will now be lulled into a sense of "more security" in high-sec.
They have been under the perception that insurance payouts make some huge difference when it comes to someone taking out their Hulk, which is utter crap. Once you get into ships that are somewhere above newbie-ship, insurance payouts become unbalanced, and in the end you lose money on a gank, regardless of insurance.
Sure, it may pay a small amount back, but the people who do this aren't exactly newbs most of the time, and generally have an alt/corp/alliance with a bank full of isk to back them up.
It would be interesting to see just how many gank ships are even insured in the first place.
I disagree with Tippia here. This move makes high-sec less safe, just as she'd like to see.
Insurance payouts removed = false sense of security for carebears = easier targets.
unfortuneatly self destruction noobs still get insurance pay outs.
i tested it on the sisi server with a thanny. Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless your from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs. |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries Alliance not Found
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:39:00 -
[303] - Quote
With the Tier 3s reducing the cost of ganking it probably balances... |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:40:00 -
[304] - Quote
The tears I like are those from the big alliances who know CCP is going to respond to them trying to rig things directly in favor of them vs the smaller alliances and corps.
This is a symbolic first step. The next needs to be to change the structure HP of mining craft by several orders of magnitude in order to stop the "Alpha before concord" crap. Make it many times more expensive to take down mining craft in hisec involving concord and the direct market manipulation will slow. |
Jita Alt666
460
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:41:00 -
[305] - Quote
I'm predicting that it will take 2-3 weeks before players who seriously engage in ganking have adapted to to minimise their financial loses.
The first thing that comes to mind is that with concord payouts removed, it means a higher gank success to gank faliure ratio is needed, to either provide or financial return, or minimise loses to maintain enjoyment periods for longer. To ensure a higher successful ratio expect more concord baiting and more overkill ganking. |
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris Etherium Cartel
144
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:45:00 -
[306] - Quote
I hope they add a smarter concord AI, they should never chase an Ibis. Imagine playing Donkey Kong where every barrel looks like it hits you. Would you rather I fix the barrels or Kong's shadow?
Welcome to Eve Online where lasers are dumber than barrels! |
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris Etherium Cartel
144
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:45:00 -
[307] - Quote
David Grogan wrote:Evei Shard wrote:Removal of insurance payouts when a ship is destroyed by Concord is nothing but an appeasement scheme that a good number of miners are going to fall for.
It will change the amount of suicide ganks by exactly zero.
The only difference is the players who have been calling for this will now be lulled into a sense of "more security" in high-sec.
They have been under the perception that insurance payouts make some huge difference when it comes to someone taking out their Hulk, which is utter crap. Once you get into ships that are somewhere above newbie-ship, insurance payouts become unbalanced, and in the end you lose money on a gank, regardless of insurance.
Sure, it may pay a small amount back, but the people who do this aren't exactly newbs most of the time, and generally have an alt/corp/alliance with a bank full of isk to back them up.
It would be interesting to see just how many gank ships are even insured in the first place.
I disagree with Tippia here. This move makes high-sec less safe, just as she'd like to see.
Insurance payouts removed = false sense of security for carebears = easier targets. unfortuneatly self destruction noobs still get insurance pay outs. i tested it on the sisi server with a thanny.
Should be immediately ended!
Imagine playing Donkey Kong where every barrel looks like it hits you. Would you rather I fix the barrels or Kong's shadow?
Welcome to Eve Online where lasers are dumber than barrels! |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:49:00 -
[308] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:The tears I like are those from the big alliances who know CCP is going to respond to them trying to rig things directly in favor of them vs the smaller alliances and corps.
This is a symbolic first step. The next needs to be to change the structure HP of mining craft by several orders of magnitude in order to stop the "Alpha before concord" crap. Make it many times more expensive to take down mining craft in hisec involving concord and the direct market manipulation will slow.
Supposedly CCP are going to "look at the CONCORD AI" to "tweak" them because theyre "too easy" and this "needs fixing" according to Hilmar via Twitter They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
The F Word
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:56:00 -
[309] - Quote
This is a good change.
Empire does not NEED more PVP, it needs SMARTER PVP.
As it's been said ad nauseum, the majority of players stick to Empire space. These people enjoy the benefit of less risk, it's why they continue to play.
It may come as a surprise, but a lot of folks don't PVP. They don't want to PVP, and they avoid it - however this isn't to say they want it removed from the game - as without it there's no suspense.
This is a logical change - suicide ganks for the lulz will still occur, albeit with a little less frequency. |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:56:00 -
[310] - Quote
Institute in station ganks so market traders have to pvp too They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
|
Michael Holmes Holmes
Starvin' Pilots Association The Serpents Eye Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:03:00 -
[311] - Quote
Oh man! This is one of the best forum debates I have ever seen!
Okay, so first thing first.
Tippia, Nobody has the right to tell anybody how to play the game, I don't tell you to stop ganking so you don't get to tell me how to fit a ship. I don't get it, after all these years and we still punish new players for being new, way to keep a player base.
Second.
Expecting some sort of sanctioned payout for suicide ganking makes no sense in both reality and fiction, debating that it was some sort of incentive is grasping for straws, you don't get money from committing a crime in a game that has it's own system of law and order...wow, so unfair.
Keep the tears coming griefers, we don't have to blow up your ships to see you cry. |
Phantom Slave
Cryogenic Creations
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:07:00 -
[312] - Quote
Richard Hammond II wrote:Phantom Slave wrote:I'm in favor of this, but only for 1 thing. ISK Faucet is getting turned off. Now it might not be a huge amount, since its generally cheap ships being used, but it's just that much less ISK being created out of thin air.
I do feel bad for the suicide gankers who will have to work harder to find good targets of opportunity though. Best of luck to you all. You wanna turn off the isk faucet? Get rid of missions, incirsuions, Ice and minerals oh and PVP
Ice and minerals aren't ISK faucets, as they don't create isk out of thin air. Mmm, I love the smell of pod goo in the morning. |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:15:00 -
[313] - Quote
Phantom Slave wrote:Richard Hammond II wrote:Phantom Slave wrote:I'm in favor of this, but only for 1 thing. ISK Faucet is getting turned off. Now it might not be a huge amount, since its generally cheap ships being used, but it's just that much less ISK being created out of thin air.
I do feel bad for the suicide gankers who will have to work harder to find good targets of opportunity though. Best of luck to you all. You wanna turn off the isk faucet? Get rid of missions, incirsuions, Ice and minerals oh and PVP Ice and minerals aren't ISK faucets, as they don't create isk out of thin air.
they dont? How you figure? Then Incursions and missions arent either. They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Bad Messenger
draketrain
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:19:00 -
[314] - Quote
It is good that CCP gives message to all that Highsec will be secure again, after insurance nerf.
Now we can all run missions with officer fitted ships without fear. |
Scalar Angulargf
Rayn Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:22:00 -
[315] - Quote
The F Word wrote:This is a good change.Empire does not NEED more PVP, it needs SMARTER PVP.
What?
Empire does need more PVP. Carebears need to HTFU and deal with it.
If you want a game where you're always safe, go back to STO or PVE WOW |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:23:00 -
[316] - Quote
Scalar Angulargf wrote:The F Word wrote:This is a good change.Empire does not NEED more PVP, it needs SMARTER PVP. What? Empire does need more PVP. Carebears need to HTFU and deal with it. If you want a game where you're always safe, go back to STO or PVE WOW
And why do you care ?
|
Nypheas Azurai
Azimuth Enterprises
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:27:00 -
[317] - Quote
HEYY YOU GUYYYSSS!!!!! |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:43:00 -
[318] - Quote
ITT: Suicide gankers QQ trying to convince people that it will be harder to suicide gank when in fact it requires the EXACT same firepower as it does now, just with a price tag. |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:45:00 -
[319] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:ITT: Suicide gankers QQ trying to convince people that it will be harder to suicide gank when in fact it requires the EXACT same firepower as it does now, just with a price tag.
Actually it would become easier ...
destroyers buffed / screw brutixes
gank tornado. /screw maelstroms/tempests
|
REDNECKMINING
Black Prophecy Red Skull Society
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:47:00 -
[320] - Quote
People are just going to have to change the way they gank... thats all.
Right now I pop Hulks with an Artillery apoc fit with t1 damage mods, cheap t1 named guns, and 3x t1 gardes. This will insta-pop a untanked hulk (or tanked mack) in any security space, on my gank character with CX-2 damage implant does 8719 volley.
Each gank costs 40m isk after insurance payouts, not including what I get from scooping the loot and salvaging the wreck and harvesting the tears.
So while a battleship may become to expensive to use to make it worth my time, stealth bombers will become a great new alternative.
A Purifier bomber costs about 17.3m isk 3x T2 ballistic controls cost about 2m isk 3x T2 Siege Missile Launchers cost about 7m isk
Using the 5% ZMT2000 implant this does almost 5000 volley damage. Overheated rate of fire is 6.44 seconds so in the lower-tier of highsec systems you should be able to get 2 volleys out and kill hulks.
In the high-tier highsec systems just use 2 characters to insta-pop them.
Total cost is 26.3m isk for that... cheaper than gank bs, easier to haul around, can fit 4000000 of them into an Orca... Will I still do this? ABSOLUTELY. It will just be a *little* bit more expensive to gank them in the really high security systems because you will need to use 2 characters. BUT STILL WORTH IT. |
|
Aubepine Finfleur
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:51:00 -
[321] - Quote
Scalar Angulargf wrote: Empire does need more PVP. Carebears need to HTFU and deal with it.
If you want a game where you're always safe, go back to STO or PVE WOW
I can gatecamp in lowsec, run scams on a disposable character, and missions on a third one to have access to LPs stores and highsec markets. I can even gank from time to time with the 3rd one, since running missions keeps his sec status in the positive. And when some goody-two-shoes come to bust my camp, I just dock up waiting for them to go, refresh my scams and continue running missions. I just need three accounts, but between the gateganking, the scams and the missions, I have more than enough to buy plex with isk.
Why would I need to HTFU ? I risk nothing, and am always safe. What do you mean exactly ? The sad truth about morality in EvE : eve-search.com/search/author/EpicFailTroll |
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
91
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 20:58:00 -
[322] - Quote
I think its a good move.
Immersion: Your actions has consequenses. You shouldnt get insurance if killed by police for your crimes. Want to be a bad boy? Sure, go right ahead. But dont expect the insurance company to give u a refund.
EVE needs to grow: Yeah yeah, higsec carebears needs to HTFU yada yada yada. But EVE needs more new players. EVE is unlike any other MMO out there. So, new players need time to adjust to the realities of EVE. Personally i used 6 months before accepting piracy, scamming etc as legit playstyles. Dont throw them into deep water immediately ffs. Most will drown.
ISK proliferation: EVE players are richer than ever before. More isk is coming in than flowing out. What was probably a good policy when EVE was brand new and players had to really consider if they could afford that Thorax, is completely invalid today. Removing a faucet only makes sense. |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:00:00 -
[323] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:It is good that CCP gives message to all that Highsec will be secure again, after insurance nerf.
Now we can all run missions with officer fitted ships without fear.
Why not, its not like Goons have the sack to actually kill em :p Or Incursion runners either
They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Jita Alt666
460
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:09:00 -
[324] - Quote
Aubepine Finfleur wrote:Scalar Angulargf wrote: Empire does need more PVP. Carebears need to HTFU and deal with it.
If you want a game where you're always safe, go back to STO or PVE WOW
I can gatecamp in lowsec, run scams on a disposable character, and missions on a third one to have access to LPs stores and highsec markets. I can even gank from time to time with the 3rd one, since running missions keeps his sec status in the positive. And when some goody-two-shoes come to bust my camp, I just dock up waiting for them to go, refresh my scams and continue running missions. I just need three accounts, but between the gateganking, the scams and the missions, I have more than enough to buy plex with isk. Why would I need to HTFU ? I risk nothing, and am always safe. What do you mean exactly ?
Lets hope plex prices rise enough and then stabilise at a level that makes your solo gameplay strategy broken.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:10:00 -
[325] - Quote
Remove security status gain from killing NPCs in null space and we will have a winner. Concord does not give a **** about you being bad out there (no sec loss), why should they care about the good things you do? |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
281
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:15:00 -
[326] - Quote
Richard Hammond II wrote:Phantom Slave wrote:Richard Hammond II wrote:Phantom Slave wrote:I'm in favor of this, but only for 1 thing. ISK Faucet is getting turned off. Now it might not be a huge amount, since its generally cheap ships being used, but it's just that much less ISK being created out of thin air.
I do feel bad for the suicide gankers who will have to work harder to find good targets of opportunity though. Best of luck to you all. You wanna turn off the isk faucet? Get rid of missions, incirsuions, Ice and minerals oh and PVP Ice and minerals aren't ISK faucets, as they don't create isk out of thin air. they dont? How you figure? Then Incursions and missions arent either.
ISK faucet - any activity which results in a transfer of ISK from a NPC wallet to yours ISK sink - any activity which results in a transfer of ISK out of your wallet and into a NPC's
Ice / Minerals do neither of the above. Nor do mission drops. Bounties paid out when you kill a NPC rat do result in ISK being transfered from the NPC's wallet to yours (therefore they are a faucet).
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
574
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:32:00 -
[327] - Quote
high-sec will be safe now guys!!! feel free to undock your badgers full of BPOs, your officer fit tengus and don't bother upgrading your clone ever, it's not necessary at all and a massive waste of ISK |
Forest Hill
WDGAS Holding MPA
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:46:00 -
[328] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Highsec needs to be made more unsafe, not less.
Not sure that makes sense from a business point of view. Ganking noobs has cost CCP a lot of subs over the years, as not everyone enjoys it when they are getting ganked, in their new mining ship, when they're three weeks old and basically defenseless.When I was in a highsec starter corp we used to regularly lose new members due to can flippers/gankers/serial wardeccers etc.
New player retention is important to CCP, as new subscriptions bring in the money, and I think they're taking some steps to protect that source of income. Of course gankers are also subs, but I'm not sure what the bigger revenue stream is.
Personally I'd like to see a more granular approach, where noobs have more protection in - say - 0.8 to 1.0 space, but no changes for 0.7 and lower. Or something like that. New Eden shouldn't become too safe for everyone. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1268
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:55:00 -
[329] - Quote
Forest Hill wrote:Not sure that makes sense from a business point of view. Ganking noobs has cost CCP a lot of subs over the years, as not everyone enjoys it when they are getting ganked, in their new mining ship, when they're three weeks old and basically defenseless. If the problem is retaining newbs, then the correct route to take is to (to a small extent) protect and (to an immensely large extent) educate those newbs on how to survive GÇö not to break highsec and heaping even more advantages over older players.
Activities in highsec need to be easily disrupted, or you might as well dismantle large parts of the game including its economy. 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 |
David Grogan
The Motley Crew Reborn
187
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:59:00 -
[330] - Quote
Andski wrote:high-sec will be safe now guys!!! feel free to undock your badgers full of BPOs, your officer fit tengus and don't bother upgrading your clone ever, it's not necessary at all and a massive waste of ISK
after you sir after you Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless your from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |