| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shoukei
   |
Posted - 2007.07.24 10:34:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Neena Valdi
The op seem to not understand removing the insurance payout in 0.0 will badly increase blobing and cloak / wcs whoring.
I'd say, make it worth insuring all t2 ships instead. Less trash fitting, less blobing - more pew pew.
in reality, it wont change a thing, aside from people flying cruisers now and then instead of battleships all the time.
|
Neena Valdi
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 10:37:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Shoukei
in reality, it wont change a thing, aside from people flying cruisers now and then instead of battleships all the time.
This have not much sense. Would you be so kind to explain your thoughts?
|
Shoukei
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 10:55:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Neena Valdi
Originally by: Shoukei
in reality, it wont change a thing, aside from people flying cruisers now and then instead of battleships all the time.
This have not much sense. Would you be so kind to explain your thoughts?
it makes a lot of sense. instead of everyone being able to just jump into bs for every single engagement, we will see people use some smaller ships and more tactics.
smart cruiser fleet will eat bs fleet alive, but nobody will use them. why should they when they can just jump into good old bs?
if everyone and their grandfather wasn't able to get a battleship so easily, eve would become a much more varied experience. winning an engagement would mean slightly more than having to npc for a few hours.
|
cal nereus
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 11:10:00 -
[34]
No insurance means a poor nooblet like me would be fairly screwed. I lost two cruisers in the span of half an hour, but thanks to insurance and a friend who helped me salvage and loot my own wrecks, I was able to bounce back quickly.
In the absence of insurance, a young nooblet like myself wouldn't be able to jump into PvP as quickly. Indeed, it would be a general drop in ship use for all players. Players who usually pilot battleships would switch to cruisers, pilots who use cruisers switch to frigates, and some frigate users would just say "screw it" and do some high-sec mining or mission-running.
Removing insurance sounds like a brilliant way to reduce PvP and remove people from 0.0, while insuring that those who stay still blob, but blob in slightly smaller ships across the board. No real change. Instead of people complaining about BS and Capital fleets, it'll be people complaining about the all-powerful Cruiser fleet. :)
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS....
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 11:20:00 -
[35]
Quote:
- It will cause people to be ALOT more careful with their ships and take smaller / cheaper ones out instead, causing them to be rarer and more powerful at the same time.
And this would even destroy pvp more. People not engaging often enough allready!
|
Shoukei
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 11:55:00 -
[36]
Originally by: d026
And this would even destroy pvp more. People not engaging often enough allready!
people do engage, when odds are blatantly stacked in their favor. absence of insurance wont have any impact at all, aside from making people show up in cheaper ships.
if all ships in eve were free, winning an engagement would have become even more meaningless than it is now. lets boost this experience even farther, so when you take down a battleship, you feel like you actually did something.
|
cal nereus
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 12:05:00 -
[37]
Honestly, if there was no insurance, why would I PvP? The cost outweighs the benefit, and therefore, I won't do it. With insurance, the cost is outweighed by the benefit, so I have an incentive to PvP. Correct?
|
Neena Valdi
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 12:07:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: Neena Valdi
Originally by: Shoukei
in reality, it wont change a thing, aside from people flying cruisers now and then instead of battleships all the time.
This have not much sense. Would you be so kind to explain your thoughts?
it makes a lot of sense. instead of everyone being able to just jump into bs for every single engagement, we will see people use some smaller ships and more tactics.
smart cruiser fleet will eat bs fleet alive, but nobody will use them. why should they when they can just jump into good old bs?
if everyone and their grandfather wasn't able to get a battleship so easily, eve would become a much more varied experience. winning an engagement would mean slightly more than having to npc for a few hours.
Which game are you playing and how long since you last time were in 0.0?
|
Seph Res
PPN United
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 12:11:00 -
[39]
the only thing where insurance payout should be removed:
if u selfdestruct ur ship
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected]) |
Great Artista
Caldari
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 12:16:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Seph Res
the only thing where insurance payout should be removed:
if u selfdestruct ur ship
Well now, what about CONCORDOKKENing? 
_______
GA out. |
Chr0nosX
Ore Mongers
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 12:18:00 -
[41]
It would make people more hesitant of engaging. Most people engage these days if they outnumber the enemy this would make people want to have 3x the numbers at least.
In conclusion it would:
Ruin PvP
Ruin Good fights
Ruin EVE
|
Saranda
Omega Fleet Enterprises
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 12:20:00 -
[42]
Removing the insurance wont fix anything.. however t2 ship insurance would maybe increase more t2 ships in the fights.. I dont mind either way.. Aint insuring small or t2 ships anyways and still keep going to pvp with em.
It would only affect the "poor" people out there and hit them really hard.. and I think they have a right to participate in the fun aswell.
Thats my 5 cents.
|
gpYUAN29
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 12:26:00 -
[43]
It makes sense from a roleplaying / backstory viewpoint:
- Why would insurance companies cover the loss of a ship you took out into lawless space, willingly?
Because there are only 150,000 odd podpilots in a Galaxy with a population of thousands of billions and the exclusivity and prestige of having one as a client is worth almost any loss (within reason).
[b]It makes sense from a gaming balance viewpoint:
- It will increase the 'oh i lost a battleship and 50Mil fittings' to 'oh snap i lost 150mil'.
- It will cause people to be ALOT more careful with their ships and take smaller / cheaper ones out instead, causing them to be rarer and more powerful at the same time.
- It will put more stress on the 'healing' side of eve, (logistics, carriers) since a battleship will actually be a valuable asset.[b/]
- It will increase the number of people banding together, causing more blobbing, counter-blobbing etc etc
- It will cause more players to avoid combat
- It is a very bad idea for reasons myriad and unspeakable
|
R3dSh1ft
Dark Knights of Deneb
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 12:31:00 -
[44]
Edited by: R3dSh1ft on 24/07/2007 12:31:12
Originally by: Seph Res
the only thing where insurance payout should be removed:
if u selfdestruct ur ship
haha agreed, far too much of this self-destruct to avoid KM crap now
DKOD - an awesome synchronised killing machine |
Shoukei
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 13:09:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Neena Valdi
Which game are you playing and how long since you last time were in 0.0?
i play this game called eve and i live in 0.0. last time i checked, in eve losses are supposed to hurt. that is what makes it worth killing someone.
what part of it confuses you?
|
Mrmuttley
Guns 'N' Hoses
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 14:10:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Laboratus
It would only make people avoid pvp.
Thus it would suck ass.
Hence, it would be a bad idea.
As a conclusion, I vote Hell no.
A hell no from me as it would encourage isk buying IMHO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Time for a new Sig.
Any Ideas? |
madaluap
Gallente
Mercenary Forces
Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 14:17:00 -
[47]
This really isnt the brightest idea tbh. You are basicly boosting people that fight in empire and mission *****s, while nerfing 0.0. That is allready reason enough to stop this.
Secondly, people dont think the way you do. If dying gets a bigger penalty as now, than they wont downgrade. They will more likely upgrade to capital or big blobs. We might even see more warpcorestab + sensorboost/damps setups.
I understand the motive behind it, but dont forget: nerfing insurance makes T2 ships "cheap", it would increase the price of T2. Changing insurance will have more drawbacks than positive sides, especially if you only nerf 0.0.
_________________________________________________
Breetime
A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA |
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 14:54:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Spank YouLater
Congrats you win the award for the ""Stupidest idea EVER"".
At least im using my head to speak, not my arse.
sup /b/ |
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 14:56:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 24/07/2007 14:57:06
Originally by: madaluap
This really isnt the brightest idea tbh. You are basicly boosting people that fight in empire and mission *****s, while nerfing 0.0. That is allready reason enough to stop this.
Secondly, people dont think the way you do. If dying gets a bigger penalty as now, than they wont downgrade. They will more likely upgrade to capital or big blobs. We might even see more warpcorestab + sensorboost/damps setups.
I understand the motive behind it, but dont forget: nerfing insurance makes T2 ships "cheap", it would increase the price of T2. Changing insurance will have more drawbacks than positive sides, especially if you only nerf 0.0.
Hmz..guess im expecting too much from Joe Sixpack then :(
What i do gather from the replies (as some of the smarter ones may have caught, this was kind of an experimental post), is that people are simply not willing to fly smaller ships.
sup /b/ |
Jehuty Vanricadia
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 15:02:00 -
[50]
Make it work the same was as car insurance does, if you insure your battleship in 0.0 in an outpost it will cost % more due to it being a lawless area.
With car insurance or certainly my one, it would charge me more if my address is registered to some ghetto area, the likelihood of my insurance claim in this area is greatly increased compared with my little sea side village with like 1,000 people, 900 of which are over 60; where I am charged a very low amount due to my location.
Note I have not been driving long either.
|
Imperius Blackheart
Caldari
Trinity Nova
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 15:03:00 -
[51]
Removing insurance would do one thing, remove conflict from 0.0, or at least reduce it, people would be too scared to take any real risks, plus it would make blob warfare the only choice, small gangs a thing of the past. Plus the weaker and poorer would be forced back to empire and 0.0 population will fall further.
|
Shoukei
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 15:07:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Imperius Blackheart
Removing insurance would do one thing, remove conflict from 0.0, or at least reduce it, people would be too scared to take any real risks, plus it would make blob warfare the only choice, small gangs a thing of the past. Plus the weaker and poorer would be forced back to empire and 0.0 population will fall further.
people are already scared to take any risks. now, they would just be scared to take any risks in that nice expensive bs they actually had to spend more than few hours to buy.
eve is meant to hurt.
|
Bluestealth
Minmatar
BlueLabs
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 15:17:00 -
[53]
I am in 100% support of the removal of insurance... as I have been for 3+ years...
O yes... even as a newbie I thought it was broken.
|
Jenna Shame
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 15:36:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Sokratesz
The point is to make battleships more rare in 0.0, instead of them being the first thing people think of when confronted with 0.0 warfare (see first 2 replies). That mentality of 'bigger is better' needs to be broken. Not neccesarily less people in the blob, but smaller ships, focusing more on tactics than raw firepower.
I think what you are really saying is you enjoy flying a support ship.
There are plenty of tactics in alliance warfare beyond the BS blob.
As is it though EvE can't even support BS fleet tactics lag wise. Put trying to do fancy maneuvers in there and it just doesn't work. Get rid of lag and you will see a lot more variations in tactics.
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS....
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 16:46:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: d026
And this would even destroy pvp more. People not engaging often enough allready!
people do engage, when odds are blatantly stacked in their favor. absence of insurance wont have any impact at all, aside from making people show up in cheaper ships.
if all ships in eve were free, winning an engagement would have become even more meaningless than it is now. lets boost this experience even farther, so when you take down a battleship, you feel like you actually did something.
most of the people flee already if you engage them with similar or even less firepower. Higher death penalty wont do any good and as previous posters said probably force blobbing. Rather decrease death penalty and have some MORE PVP.
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS....
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 16:48:00 -
[56]
Edited by: d026 on 24/07/2007 16:48:37
Originally by: Jenna Shame
Originally by: Sokratesz
The point is to make battleships more rare in 0.0, instead of them being the first thing people think of when confronted with 0.0 warfare (see first 2 replies). That mentality of 'bigger is better' needs to be broken. Not neccesarily less people in the blob, but smaller ships, focusing more on tactics than raw firepower.
I think what you are really saying is you enjoy flying a support ship.
There are plenty of tactics in alliance warfare beyond the BS blob.
As is it though EvE can't even support BS fleet tactics lag wise. Put trying to do fancy maneuvers in there and it just doesn't work. Get rid of lag and you will see a lot more variations in tactics.
Btw we mainly fly cruiser sized vessels and smaller if we go roaming (and we do this daily) BS are just to bulky and slow. I never see many BS in our gangs except at gates or in fleet ops..
|
DarkMatter
Sintered Sanity
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 16:49:00 -
[57]
I honestly think it's time to remove all insurance...
Insurance in a war does not make sense.
Insurance payout from death by Concorde does not make sense.
If you go into low sec and die, it's your fault.
If you go to a mission in high sec to fight NPC pirates, don't see why an insurance company would reimburse you...
Only thing that should get insured are Frieghters in high sec, that are not involved in a war.
Building the homestead
|
Mr McKin
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 16:51:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Spank YouLater
Congrats you win the award for the ""Stupidest idea EVER"".
At least im using my head to speak, not my arse.
Is there any difference?
I rate this idea 0/10.
|
Ishmael Hansen
No Quarter.
Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 17:09:00 -
[59]
It will only make the difference between people with large pockets and the poor ones bigger, people with much isk already fly tech 2 ships and don't care about insurance anyway.
Now if you are doing missions or whatever to afford that new cruiser, and you lose it in pvp with no insurance, well less pew pew for everyone.
And no, imo the "stupidest idea ever" was the one of paying $ to ccp and get more sp's with it
|
Death Kill
Caldari
direkte
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 17:32:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Sounds to me like it would increase blobbing to minimize risk of losing your ship,
Dont worry stacking nerf, hitpoint increase and warp to zero took care of that.
Tuxford is in charge remember?
Originally by: myself
The Amarr templar joke is a joke stupid people can laugh at. Its the joke any dumb person can laugh at.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |