| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Peter Powers
Serial Killers Inc.
   |
Posted - 2007.07.16 13:27:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Peter Powers on 16/07/2007 13:26:59
Why?
cause its a huge efford to kill a carrier for example,
and it suxx if the pilot just self destructs, and
gets insurance for that.
No RL Insurance does pay you if you kill your own car on purpose..
and im sure it would prevent
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=557575
from happening.
|
Peter Powers
Serial Killers Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.16 13:49:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
Many people just autodestructed their ships when they get near to the date for next payment. That way they get more money then they'll spend on buying next ship. I think its quite common among those strange people who can keep a ship alive for whole 3 months.
another good reason to remove it on self destruction - thats not what an insurance is for, and thats not the way how it should work.
|
Peter Powers
Serial Killers Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.16 16:00:00 -
[3]
you dont get loot from self destructed ships?
|
Peter Powers
Serial Killers Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.16 17:04:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Remove killmails, they destroy all the fun in this game.
I guess I have to agree on this one.
i dont - killmails are important to get statistics for PVP Players - and i dont see how they destroy anything.
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
2. No insurance for being killed by Concord
Of course this would have to go hand in hand with making Concord less dumb. They should stop people from continuing with shooting and charge them ISK. The victim should be able to /forgive. Only concordokken for destroyed ships.
While i sort of agree with the no insurance for concorded ships (makes sense) i dont agree with concord charging isk to make it stop - cause currently (as long as you have a usefull tank) you can survive a priate attack in high sec, cause concord shoots pirates fast (in most cases fast enough). If you change that, that would make highsec much more dangerous, and would make all that little carebears (who allready cry for beeing killed in low sec) cry a lot more
|
Peter Powers
Serial Killers Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.16 18:31:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Originally by: Peter Powers
i dont agree with concord charging isk to make it stop
Nonono, that's not what I meant.
It would be like this:
- Char shoots other char
- Concord arrives and offender receives a modal window, telling him to stop shooting immediately.
- Concord scrambles and jams the offender and shoots down any attacking drones
- Offender gets charged for ISK in proportion to repair costs of victims ship. 20% of that money goes to Concord, 80% goes to victim. Offender may decline to pay, resulting in his ship being blown up by Concord.
- If victim's ship gets destroyed, all ships that shot it get blown up by Concord.
Overall it should still be possible to take out a ship before Concord arrives or stops you from shooting.
It would, however, be a lot more costly, since you don't get insurance.
Accidential shooting wouldn't result in ship loss anymore, though.
/sign
|
Peter Powers
Serial Killers Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.16 21:42:00 -
[6]
Originally by: KapnKaboom
I like the system the way it is now. Watching people cry and whine about it here gives us just as much, if not more, satisfaction than they get from hatemails received from their gankees. I gives a ray of sunshine to the otherwise miserable experience of losing 2 months of effort to a gang-bang squad at a gate. It's just plain fun knowing you could do something to **** the gate campers off. 
since when do carriers come in through gates? The Example i used was not a gatecamp but a stupid carrier pilot who came to a system he doesnt know and attacked a local inhabitant. Locals reacted and started killing his carrier, he self destructed - locals lost two ships and didnt get the killmail/the loot in return - how is that related to your gatecamp story? besides no ship survives a proper gatecamp long enough to selfdestruct.
|
Peter Powers
Serial Killers Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.16 22:21:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Ever been prohibited by your alliance/corp leadership to engage in PvP because you loosing ships does not look good on the killboard? You call that fun? How the hell shall I learn PvP then? I mean common, if we put some work into industry, we can keep on loosing many ships a week, who the hell does care about some stupid killboard? Instead we prohibit PvP and let slide a valuable training opportunity for all the folks that care ...
You cant blame killmails for you beeing in a stupid alliance/corp. If your that frustrated about such rules do something about it and join a corp wich allows you to play the game the way you want it.
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Anyway there are lot of killmail "farmers" in the game that are interested in nothing but amount of killmails. They gank everything left and right.
yarr. if you got a problem with that - stop me. I gank everyone who doesnt pay a ransom, or who i just think is wrong in his ship - and getting no killmails wouldnt change anything about that. you can read posts pro/contra killboards here. And if i wouldnt get any killmails anymore, well i would just start to write down what i killed.
|
Peter Powers
Serial Killers Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.17 00:39:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Lord Shamino
Originally by: Peter Powers
cause its a huge efford to kill a carrier for example,
and it suxx if the pilot just self destructs, and
gets insurance for that.
look at it the roleplay way... surrendering means dishonour.. and you dont want the enemy to get your equipment... its just a logic step to selfdestruct...
Yes please look at the Roleplaying view - If you destruct your Ship cause of "Honor" no Insurance would pay you - so its PRO roleplaying to fix it.
|
| |
|