| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Inertial
The Python Cartel
   |
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:10:00 -
[1]
For insurances to be balanced it have to be:
1. Everyone gets insurance, no matter what.
2. No one gets insurance.
If the game is to remain balanced, there is no middle ground.
|
Inertial
The Python Cartel
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:26:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: DrefsabZN
How is it not an exploit of the game mechanic's if you are using something to commit criminal actions that should cost you your ship to get away with not actually suffering any loss?
Im not complaining im pointing out what I see to be the fix for the issue. Im not saying ganking shouldn't be done. But killing people in empire is a criminal offense thats why concord comes and kills you. What insurance company out there will replace your car if you trash it Ram raiding some place? None. The choice to do something in game that is classed as illegal is fine, but it need's to carry the consequence of if you do it you have some comeback. At the moment the current insurance system allows for criminal actions with out consequence. Show me where in the play guide or dev blogs where this was an intended effect?
As i've already stated I've never been a victim of a gank, and nether have any of the people I play online with (well not high sec ones anyway). I only have an issue with exploit's, and from the sounds of things this is an exploit because you can kill people in empire (without war dec's) and suffer nothing for it.
What about ratters bringing their ships against hordes of combat fitted Pirate NPCs hellbent on your destruction.
Call a insurence agent and ask what it costs to insure a Mondeo if you want to take it to a warzone.
|
Inertial
The Python Cartel
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:32:00 -
[3]
Originally by: DrefsabZN
This is true, but the cost of this is to low because if they pick the loot up from the guy they gank they make enough to cover this with easy from even a poorly fitted ship. Maybe raising this cost could help (for example getting less of your insurance payout), meaning only those people with really expensive setup's are worth ganking. At the moment you can turn a profit ganking people with basic setups and that just seam's crazy to me.
I don't think ganking should be removed just made so that its something thats an investment and if you pick the right targets pays off, if you don't then your left with a nice isk dent in the wallet. Because it seams like its to cheap and easy to do right now.
That is ok, if players who loose their ships on the harder missions also get their payout decreased. Same with players who loose their ships against rats of a level higher than their ship or players who get ganked by higher SP players. Its obvious that they didn't play it safely and where somewhere they shouldn't have been.
If it is so cheap and easy to do, try it yourself. See how easy it is to make a profit.
If players who commit criminal acts get lower payouts, its going to become harder to pirate, in a environment, where it is already hard to be a pirate (especially a low-SP one like me).
|
Inertial
The Python Cartel
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 13:33:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Meirre K'Tun
Originally by: Brucette
There has been much talk about the liklyhood of insurance policies responding even in the event of criminal activity recently.
People argue one way and the other - hurts silly noobs who turn off their warnings, encourages suicide ganking... etc. What about concord-sanctioned wars?
The correct fix is obvious and fair:
No insurance for any hull > cruiser.
Protection for the noobs. Keeps the combat serious.
so, you want that titans take out 3 times the amount of isk as they do now with one blast?
sounds like a good idea!
Actually that makes it seem like a good idea now, because personally I wish titans had a bigger impact on wars.
|
| |
|