| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Esmenet
   |
Posted - 2008.05.29 17:29:00 -
[181]
 Originally by: Jeirth
Originally by: RNGD Maniac
i dont support. empire isnt 100% safe, there should be some risk involved tbh
Indeed, the suicide gankers should have some risk, instead of a virtual risk free isk printing machine.
/Signed
Thats the mission runners you are talking about right?
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 18:19:00 -
[182]
Easy fix... remove insurance payouts. In fact remove insurance period.
Solves about 10 different problems including this one |
Windjammer
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 18:22:00 -
[183]
A ship which has been killed by Concord should receive no insurance pay off. Noob mistake or not. When I was a noob I made such a mistake and didn't have insurance. It never occured to me to whine to CCP about it. I'd done the tutorial and I knew the consequences. I had locked onto a target I wasn't supposed to in high sec. I had turned off the warning box. I had pushed the dang button to fire. I was responsible. I sucked it up, laughed, earned isk and bought another ship.
Higher sec hit for Concord offenses. Currently it is far to easy to recover sec status after a suicide gank. Elimination of insurance alone is not sufficiently punitive to put a crimp in the style of suicide gankers.
Currently it is actually possible to make a profit from the insurance payout alone. If you build the ship yourself, the insurance payout is higher than the cost of building the ship added to the cost of the insurance premium. I'm using a Dominix for this example.
Regards,
Windjammer
|
BlondieBC
7th Tribal Legion
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 18:53:00 -
[184]
Suicide GAnking is good for game.
|
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 19:00:00 -
[185]
Originally by: BlondieBC
Suicide GAnking is good for game.
Could you enlighten me as to the reasoning behind this statement?
|
Exodus Alpha
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 20:11:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Jeirth
Originally by: BlondieBC
Suicide GAnking is good for game.
Could you enlighten me as to the reasoning behind this statement?
Sorry, I think he mistyped that.
"Suicide ganking is good for me."
---
Suicide ganking only benefits those who can't hold their own against a competent opponent (also see reevaluation of Empire wardec mechanics), so they go after officer-fit CNRs and big haulers to get their ticket of the free ISK moneytrain.
I mean, face it. You find a ship that very obviously is worth a great deal or is carrying a great deal of cargo, you throw away a ship, you get free ISK. Where exactly is the risk involved for the reward? And don't say sec status loss, that's a joke (as is a good part of the sec status system as well). Every other avenue has more or less risk or more or less reward, so what about the carebear gankers?
Obviously suicide ganking should NOT be done away with in total - I don't advocate for any part of that. Eliminating more and more of the sandbox in Eve is NOT a good idea, and only serves to weaken Eve's main strongpoint. However, I do greatly support a general re-evaluation of suicide ganking, so...
/supported
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 22:17:00 -
[187]
Edited by: Esmenet on 29/05/2008 22:18:54
Originally by: Exodus Alpha
I mean, face it. You find a ship that very obviously is worth a great deal or is carrying a great deal of cargo, you throw away a ship, you get free ISK. Where exactly is the risk involved for the reward?
The security status loss and the loss of your ship is a much greater risk and penalty than anything a zero-risk high sec mission runner takes for his isk.
Simply speaking high sec mission runners (especially noob corp ones) completely destroy the concept of risk/reward in the game. You dont even need to pay attention to what you are doing. Removing the last neglible risk for this profession is simply wrong.
|
Tessen
Stellar Tide
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 22:27:00 -
[188]
|
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 22:46:00 -
[189]
Esmenet, it seems to me that you shift the concept of risk less isk from those that are actually making it, the suicide gankers, to those that have to haul through the myriad gank camps and then face the market pvp, which is actually a lot more cut-throat than ship to ship PvP is. Whereas all that suicide gankers face is a sec hit, and if they don't recycle the ganking character then all they have to do is a few hours ratting, less if they have low/no sec access and the relevant skill trained (as the skill works as it should according to CCP now). Please enlighten me if I am confused in my salient points?
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 22:53:00 -
[190]
Remove the insurance and you remove any ganks on ships with less that 500 - bil in mods as they will not be worth going for, so a huge NO.
|
|
|
Jaabaa Prime
Quam Singulari
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 22:56:00 -
[191]
Yes, Concordokkened ships should get a 0 payout from their insurance because they were involved in an illegal aggressive act.
Say NO to insurance on ships that are Concordokkened 
--
|
Cergorach
The Helix Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 23:19:00 -
[192]
Opposed!
I think EVE needs the thrill of the possible kill in High-sec, making it more difficult for the basic mission runner to get suicided will make it imposible to SG a ship fitted for evasion. Effectively making you invunerable in HS from SG...
I would like to note, that I never SG, never have, never will!
|
Gotrek65
Industrial Warlords
Dominatus Phasmatis
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 23:33:00 -
[193]
suicide ganking does indeed need to be nerfed
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 00:11:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Jaabaa Prime
Yes, Concordokkened ships should get a 0 payout from their insurance because they were involved in an illegal aggressive act.
Say NO to insurance on ships that are Concordokkened
If you do this 0.0ers should recieve no insurance for their ships as obviously no insurance would ever be paid for ships in lawless warzones.
SKUNK
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 00:34:00 -
[195]
Edited by: Farrqua on 30/05/2008 00:35:41
Originally by: Le Skunk
Originally by: Jaabaa Prime
Yes, Concordokkened ships should get a 0 payout from their insurance because they were involved in an illegal aggressive act.
Say NO to insurance on ships that are Concordokkened
If you do this 0.0ers should recieve no insurance for their ships as obviously no insurance would ever be paid for ships in lawless warzones.
SKUNK
And also Lo-Sec pirates, because by his statement "involved in an illegal aggressive act"
Which shows that there is no real cohesion of one thought on this issue. This thread is all over the place and I do not see how this could be brought to the CSm if everyone supporting this issue has a completely different spin on it.
Leave the damn insurance alone. Pilots need to focus on their own game play to stay safe not relying on some mechanic that may or may not have any real influence of getting suicide ganked.
Suicide gankers are already prepared to loose there ships anyway and you might possibly see an increase and different tactics just to make up the difference.
This is the wrong approach. And you are not identifying the real motivation.
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 00:58:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Farrqua
Edited by: Farrqua on 30/05/2008 00:35:41
Originally by: Le Skunk
Originally by: Jaabaa Prime
Yes, Concordokkened ships should get a 0 payout from their insurance because they were involved in an illegal aggressive act.
Say NO to insurance on ships that are Concordokkened
If you do this 0.0ers should recieve no insurance for their ships as obviously no insurance would ever be paid for ships in lawless warzones.
SKUNK
And also Lo-Sec pirates, because by his statement "involved in an illegal aggressive act"
Which shows that there is no real cohesion of one thought on this issue. This thread is all over the place and I do not see how this could be brought to the CSm if everyone supporting this issue has a completely different spin on it.
Leave the damn insurance alone. Pilots need to focus on their own game play to stay safe not relying on some mechanic that may or may not have any real influence of getting suicide ganked.
Suicide gankers are already prepared to loose there ships anyway and you might possibly see an increase and different tactics just to make up the difference.
This is the wrong approach. And you are not identifying the real motivation.
Yeah i think Mission Runners should be exempt from insurance. After all - what sane insurer would insure a guy who keeps flying into massive rat fleets, and gettign blow up occasionaly.
SKUNK
|
MongWen
Farmer Killers
United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 01:04:00 -
[197]
In some cases suicide runs are the only way to get your target, since there is no way to dec a NPC corp, and the ones that bail their corp when you dec them in order to be ôsafeö from loosing ships and fittings, and protecting farmers and macro miners at the same time.
Making suicide runs harder will make way for other changes that in turn will make it impossible to do any pirate actions in high sec, and destroy game styles in the process. And limiting the suicide runs to the rich.
Originally by: Le Skunk
If you do this 0.0ers should recieve no insurance for their ships as obviously no insurance would ever be paid for ships in lawless warzones.
I have to agree to this one, and added with no insurance payout for ship losses to mission rats. Sice you are throwing your ship into danger.
-------
And on a side note to the CSM members that are going to fight for changes that affect game styles in this manor, watch your backs in game, I have seen talks both in game and on third party sites that people will take action against them regardless of the drawbacks.
------------------
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 01:13:00 -
[198]
Originally by: Jeirth
Edited by: Jeirth on 29/05/2008 22:50:27
Esmenet, it seems to me that you shift the concept of risk less isk from those that are actually making it, the suicide gankers, to those that have to haul through the myriad gank camps and then face the market pvp, which is actually a lot more cut-throat than ship to ship PvP is.
Having done hundreds if not thousands of missions myself(many of them in high activity mission hubs) to support other activities thats simply a joke. You can easily do missions for a year and never ever loose a single ship to any gatecamp or rat. And market pvp is really practically nonexistant for a missionrunner.
The input from the player is minimal, i usually watched TV while doing them while the return in terms of isk is among the highest in the game for a simple grunt. In terms of risk/imput/reward its probably the easiest thing to do with the highest reward.
High sec needs more risk or its rewards nerfed.
|
Malcolm Gerhardt
Hadean Drive Yards
Archaean Cooperative
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 03:12:00 -
[199]
I support this discussion
Keep your Head low, Your Mind high and Your Mouth Shut |
Czanthria
Ad Astra Vexillum
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 03:18:00 -
[200]
--
Knowledge is Power! |
|
|
Arbor Down
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 12:28:00 -
[201]
I don't know what needs to be done, but something does.
I think making kill rights tradeable would probably be a good first step.
|
Amarr Holymight
Bat Country
Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 13:54:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Arbor Down
I don't know what needs to be done, but something does.
I think making kill rights tradeable would probably be a good first step.
Now there's a really good solution to your problem make new thread this one has failed.
|
Rafe Udall
R.U.S.E.
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 14:06:00 -
[203]
I support this. As it stands, suicide ganking is an important element in eve for various reasons, however it should not become a profession.
Currently, the way insurance works emphasizes that it is a game, and provides the ganker with effectively very low to zero risk.
I would like to think that in a world where you are effectively immortal, insurance companies would not run at a massive loss, as they clearly do now. |
Talkuth Rel
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 18:29:00 -
[204]
Issue supported. At the very least, this needs to be discussed by the CSM.
Personally, I'd take away insurance payouts regardless of the outcome, If you pick a fight with CONCORD, CONCORD (via SCC) does not cover your losses.
|
Amarr Holymight
Bat Country
Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 20:03:00 -
[205]
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=784681&page=1
Vote for transferable kill rights this will hinder suicide ganking.
|
Praxis1452
Corp 1 Allstars
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 20:43:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Rafe Udall
I support this. As it stands, suicide ganking is an important element in eve for various reasons, however it should not become a profession.
Currently, the way insurance works emphasizes that it is a game, and provides the ganker with effectively very low to zero risk.
I would like to think that in a world where you are effectively immortal, insurance companies would not run at a massive loss, as they clearly do now.
They will always run at a massive loss. If they made money then most players would lose more money than it's worth.
Suicide ganking should become a profession as the profitability of high-sec currently stands. It has pretty much no risk. People can get setups to Perma-run LAR's. specific hards for certain missions pretty much nullifies much risk at all. Yes, there are certain missions which are incredibly hard even for rigged t2 ships to do, however those are few and do not hinder isk making in high-sec. People flying around in t2 BS are not really suicided. It's just not worth it. It is the people who fly around in pimped ships with faction mods that make high-sec ganking worth it. t1 haulers carrying hundreds of millions worth of stuff SHOULD be suicided.
--------------------------------------------
ôHe who must expend his life to prolong life cannot enjoy it, and he who is still seeking for his life does not have it and can as little enjoy it" |
ishkabibble
Black Avatar
Lost Sheep Domain
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 22:37:00 -
[207]
Make it happen
NYC gets Rick Roll'd |
javer
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 23:10:00 -
[208]
Edited by: javer on 30/05/2008 23:09:52
boost concord to handle overloading and t2 ships also factor in plates/extenders and remove innsurance if the response from concord removes the ship as in real world you wont get payout if your responsible for killing your own innsurance object
--------------------------------------------
Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their Level and beat you with experience. |
Aida Cyprus
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 23:11:00 -
[209]
Edited by: Aida Cyprus on 30/05/2008 23:13:22
Totaly agree, missionrunning should be a viable path for those who enjoy PvE 100%. Some people do, and there is absolutely no reason why they should not have their game, as the "ganking" comunnity will still have theirs. The 100% missionrunners do need something to aim for, and that is usally the pimp ... after all, where else would you sell all that shiny faction stuff ? I mean if noone buys, they will drop to values where they work for pvp. Those PvEers buying them help fund the sellers (usually 0.0 people) PvP, which is a good thing imho.
Aida Cyprus
|
Frug
Repo Industries
R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.06.01 06:53:00 -
[210]
This idea has been floating around for so damn long.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - -
If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO
BOOO!! - Ductoris
Neat look what I found - Kreul
Hey, my marbles |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |