Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 17:20:00 -
[181]
Originally by: Bleeshtar
Anyone taking the 'risks' you mention will most likely start losing ships, therefore driving up their rates. Therefore 'encouraging' them to act a little more responsably.
Give them a bad enough 'record' and they might be lucky to get insurance at all.
Ahh, so your point is that CCP should actually encourage people to keep away from pvp, as pvp makes you lose ships.
Your point is noted and rejected. Thanks.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 17:26:00 -
[182]
Originally by: Balen Organa
Originally by: Le Skunk The next time some ****head parrots out the
"no insurance for concord kills, *snort* - its obvious innit"
I shall scream until i am sick
SKUNK
No insurance for concord kills. (waits for the scream )
SCREEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMM
Skunk
|
Bleeshtar
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 17:33:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Bleeshtar
Anyone taking the 'risks' you mention will most likely start losing ships, therefore driving up their rates. Therefore 'encouraging' them to act a little more responsably.
Give them a bad enough 'record' and they might be lucky to get insurance at all.
Ahh, so your point is that CCP should actually encourage people to keep away from pvp, as pvp makes you lose ships.
Your point is noted and rejected. Thanks.
Not quite what Im saying. Perhaps if your very bad at pvp it would discourage people. All Im saying is that if you lose x number of ships within x number of hours your rates should go up. Go for some period of time without loss and your rates should go back down again. That should discourage the killing/dying sprees.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 17:34:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Bleeshtar
Not quite what Im saying. Perhaps if your very bad at pvp it would discourage people. All Im saying is that if you lose x number of ships within x number of hours your rates should go up. Go for some period of time without loss and your rates should go back down again. That should discourage the killing/dying sprees.
It would also hit the 0.0 alliances involved in territory wars and anyone basing their game style on pvp a lot more than it would suicide gankers.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 17:53:00 -
[185]
Originally by: Bleeshtar
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Bleeshtar
Anyone taking the 'risks' you mention will most likely start losing ships, therefore driving up their rates. Therefore 'encouraging' them to act a little more responsably.
Give them a bad enough 'record' and they might be lucky to get insurance at all.
Ahh, so your point is that CCP should actually encourage people to keep away from pvp, as pvp makes you lose ships.
Your point is noted and rejected. Thanks.
Not quite what Im saying. Perhaps if your very bad at pvp it would discourage people. All Im saying is that if you lose x number of ships within x number of hours your rates should go up. Go for some period of time without loss and your rates should go back down again. That should discourage the killing/dying sprees.
Your sugggestion strikes faction warfare perfectly for wrecking damage.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente The Flying Tigers Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 17:54:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Ralara 1) they can scout for you and let you know if there's, I dunno, a blob of 20 battleships sitting 2 jumps ahead.
2) they can warp-web your freighter so it insta=warps - put a Rapier in gang and you're good to go.
That's what good escorts are.
1) Is a scout, not an escort. And yes, scouts can help a lot as suicide ganking doesn't work well with logon traps or as well with cloaked ships. So that might work but it's hardly the traditional defintion of an 'escort'.
2) Only works if there are no points on the ship (can't warp if you're scrammed) and if the Rapier is same/corp. If you're not you lose the Rapier to Concord.
If I instalock a hauler with my scrammers already keyed on (and why wouldn't they be?) that hauler isn't going anywhere unless it has more stabs than I have points on scram. Which is unlikely since there will be several of 'me' in order to bring the ship down quickly before Concord kills us and I'll be running S2 scrammers in mid slots, likely several of them.
But yes, the Scout's a decent idea. May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
BritishInvader
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 17:55:00 -
[187]
Edited by: BritishInvader on 07/07/2008 17:55:00
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Bleeshtar It has always struck me as strange that you can continue to purchase insurance at the same rate regardless of how many ships you have lost recently regardless of how the ship was lost.
You would think that after two or three 'suicides' the insurer would begin to consider you a bad risk.
Game mechanic wise though 'it' does not know wether you were the sucider or suicidee. But you would think something along the lines "Thats the third ship youve lost in the last 24 hours. Your a bad risk. Your insurance rates just went up."
For the millionth time: EvE "insurance" is nothing to do with RL insurance. It's a ship replacement mechanic. Until you understand and accept that in this, as in many other ways, EvE is not real life, the game will cause you unnecessary frustration and difficulty.
Actually it's an economy balancing mechanic. -----+----- Mail : BritishInvader for signature orders.
|
Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente The Flying Tigers Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 17:58:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Ki An Ahh, so your point is that CCP should actually encourage people to keep away from pvp, as pvp makes you lose ships.
Your point is noted and rejected. Thanks.
Your attitude is rejected, thanks.
Actually anyone PvPing seriously is likely running a T2 ship for which the insurance is a joke anyway (at least it is for my assault ships) so the argument doesn't hold water save for the T1 Battleships in the blobs.
Serious PvPers aren't going to be daunted by a lack of insurance.
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 18:07:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom
Your attitude is rejected, thanks.
Actually anyone PvPing seriously is likely running a T2 ship for which the insurance is a joke anyway (at least it is for my assault ships) so the argument doesn't hold water save for the T1 Battleships in the blobs.
Serious PvPers aren't going to be daunted by a lack of insurance.
Yeah, everyone who pvps does so in a T2 ship. Your logical deduction astounds me.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Lord Makk
The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 18:08:00 -
[190]
Suicide ganks is how EVE tells you that you just have failed at transporting your goods. :)
|
|
baltec1
Antares Shipyards
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 18:19:00 -
[191]
Edited by: baltec1 on 07/07/2008 18:23:14
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom
Your attitude is rejected, thanks.
Actually anyone PvPing seriously is likely running a T2 ship for which the insurance is a joke anyway (at least it is for my assault ships) so the argument doesn't hold water save for the T1 Battleships in the blobs.
Serious PvPers aren't going to be daunted by a lack of insurance.
Yeah, everyone who pvps does so in a T2 ship. Your logical deduction astounds me.
Battle Barge
my ship has a II in it I suppose
|
hedfunk
Caldari Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 18:40:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Sorted
I know better than most how it works mate...
Shame you can't quote though, mate....
<3
I like the kill right trading idea, sounds awesome.
Even better, BAN ALL SUICIDE GANKERS.
|
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 18:50:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom
Originally by: Ki An Ahh, so your point is that CCP should actually encourage people to keep away from pvp, as pvp makes you lose ships.
Your point is noted and rejected. Thanks.
Your attitude is rejected, thanks.
Actually anyone PvPing seriously is likely running a T2 ship for which the insurance is a joke anyway (at least it is for my assault ships) so the argument doesn't hold water save for the T1 Battleships in the blobs.
Serious PvPers aren't going to be daunted by a lack of insurance.
You got any fraps of the famous "Flying Tigers take down a cynojammer with HACs and Inties" op?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 18:57:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Bleeshtar
Anyone taking the 'risks' you mention will most likely start losing ships, therefore driving up their rates. Therefore 'encouraging' them to act a little more responsably.
Give them a bad enough 'record' and they might be lucky to get insurance at all.
Ahh, so your point is that CCP should actually encourage people to keep away from pvp, as pvp makes you lose ships.
Your point is noted and rejected. Thanks.
It's a stretch calling suicide ganking PvP and those that do it won't stop because they don't get the insurance payout, I think we've established that much. I don't think you care one bit about game balance, you're just here defending your shit.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 19:01:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
It's a stretch calling suicide ganking PvP and those that do it won't stop because they don't get the insurance payout, I think we've established that much. I don't think you care one bit about game balance, you're just here defending your shit.
Way to reach for the straw man there, bud. I never made any claim of wether or not suicide ganking is pvp (it is). I simply told the guy that his 'solution' would miss it's intended target and hit everyone who pvps.
My guess is that you don't pvp, so you don't care either way, amirite?
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 19:55:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
It's a stretch calling suicide ganking PvP and those that do it won't stop because they don't get the insurance payout, I think we've established that much. I don't think you care one bit about game balance, you're just here defending your shit.
Way to reach for the straw man there, bud. I never made any claim of wether or not suicide ganking is pvp (it is). I simply told the guy that his 'solution' would miss it's intended target and hit everyone who pvps.
My guess is that you don't pvp, so you don't care either way, amirite?
Tech II ships don't pay very much and most the money invested are in modules anyways so no I don't insure my PvP ships and if I do it's just to spite the enemy limiting my losses some, I don't ever need that money.
I don't see how no insurance payout for someone shot by Concord affects everyone who PvPs, if so get your overview sorted.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 20:02:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus Tech II ships don't pay very much and most the money invested are in modules anyways so no I don't insure my PvP ships and if I do it's just to spite the enemy limiting my losses some, I don't ever need that money.
I don't see how no insurance payout for someone shot by Concord affects everyone who PvPs, if so get your overview sorted.
Maybe you should stop wandering into ongoing discussions without a clue to what they are about?
Read the exchange between me and the other guy and you'll see why you are being annoyingly stupid right now.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 20:06:00 -
[198]
Let's face it, people should stop AFKing and pretending it's not their fault when they lose their ship
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Woodwraith
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 20:28:00 -
[199]
People still think theyre playing checkers when the rest of us are playing chess, I dont get it.
use a scout, move the load in quantitys that arent worth ganking. we are pod pilots, and above the law. check that, in most of the game, WE ARE THE LAW.
|
Dantes Revenge
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 20:44:00 -
[200]
Back to the topic.
I don't think CCP should completely stop suicide ganking, it's what keeps you on your toes in highsec and gives you a small insight into what to expect in lowsec and below.
However, maybe trim it down a bit by the insurance system as people have suggested, no insurance for actions that involve Concord. This would mean that a suicide squad would have to weigh up if the loot they gain would be worth the loss of their ships. It still means that a freighter full of T2 or faction stuff would be a valid target but simple griefing like smartbombing outside Jita 4-4 for fun and suiciding mining barges would end because the loss of insurance payout just isn't worth it. As it stands now, suicide a freighter and even if it's empty, you've lost nothing but a bit of standings. The freighter pilot has lost half a billion isk even with insurance.
Considering that a freighter is completely undefendable in highsec, it really needs something. Your gang/corp can't shoot the suiciders until they all start shooting at the frighter by which time it's too late and the freighter is lost. If Concord can't save a freighter in time with their firepower, it's pretty obvious that a few players aren't going to achieve a lot.
Standings don't mean squat. These are often alts with no other purpose than to suicide players and even if they are not, a bit of ratting can correct the standings and provide a bit of income into the bargain so nothing really lost there either.
In no way does this affect normal PVP insurance and as long as you don't incur Concords wrath, you get insurance paid out as normal.
This would reduce the suiciding to a more tolerable level but not eliminate it altogether.
|
|
Terminus adacai
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 20:51:00 -
[201]
The number of responses to this thread that support or defend suicide ganking astounds me. I have yet to ever read in all the ganking threads, ONE STRONG argument for insurance payouts for gankers.
I know that insurance was not mentioned in the OP, but that is what makes suicide ganking doable. No reasonable risk vs reward.
As for the clueless remarks about not going AFK while traveling, what are you guys smoking? Even if a freighter uses warp to 0 and makes the gate, the gank squad just follows it and attacks it on the other side.
Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance. |
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 21:07:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Terminus adacai The number of responses to this thread that support or defend suicide ganking astounds me. I have yet to ever read in all the ganking threads, ONE STRONG argument for insurance payouts for gankers.
How about the fact that it's people who oppose insurance for suicide ganking that are supposed to make those kinds of arguments? Furthermore, the only thing that needs to be discussed is if suicide ganking is balanced or not in its current form. I think it is. The only thing that needs done is making kill rights tradeable.
Originally by: Terminus adacai
As for the clueless remarks about not going AFK while traveling, what are you guys smoking? Even if a freighter uses warp to 0 and makes the gate, the gank squad just follows it and attacks it on the other side.
You don't really know much about suicide ganking I take it?
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 21:08:00 -
[203]
Originally by: Dantes Revenge Back to the topic.
I don't think CCP should completely stop suicide ganking, it's what keeps you on your toes in highsec and gives you a small insight into what to expect in lowsec and below.
However, maybe trim it down a bit by the insurance system as people have suggested, no insurance for actions that involve Concord. This would mean that a suicide squad would have to weigh up if the loot they gain would be worth the loss of their ships. It still means that a freighter full of T2 or faction stuff would be a valid target but simple griefing like smartbombing outside Jita 4-4 for fun and suiciding mining barges would end because the loss of insurance payout just isn't worth it. As it stands now, suicide a freighter and even if it's empty, you've lost nothing but a bit of standings. The freighter pilot has lost half a billion isk even with insurance.
Considering that a freighter is completely undefendable in highsec, it really needs something. Your gang/corp can't shoot the suiciders until they all start shooting at the frighter by which time it's too late and the freighter is lost. If Concord can't save a freighter in time with their firepower, it's pretty obvious that a few players aren't going to achieve a lot.
Standings don't mean squat. These are often alts with no other purpose than to suicide players and even if they are not, a bit of ratting can correct the standings and provide a bit of income into the bargain so nothing really lost there either.
In no way does this affect normal PVP insurance and as long as you don't incur Concords wrath, you get insurance paid out as normal.
This would reduce the suiciding to a more tolerable level but not eliminate it altogether.
I'm still waiting for someone to define what a "tolerable" level is, let alone demonstrate why the current level is "too much".
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 21:09:00 -
[204]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
I've seen your kind before kiddo, I've heard all your pro-gank rethorics, you stick around a few years and then maybe your rants will have some weight.
You're not making any sense. I was having a conversation with a guy who proposed that amount of ships lost should set the price for insurance. I told him this would hit pvpers harder than it would suicide gankers. You then made a nonsensical and completely off-topic remark on how I shouldn't compare suicide gankin with pvp.
Are you quite done being stupid?
I raise your not making any sense with that you've not made any sense the entire thread, you've brought nothing new or balanced to the table but a mouthful of wrong. If you want to have a private conversation with someone without being called on your bullshit then convo them ingame.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Tippia
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 21:10:00 -
[205]
Originally by: Wendat Huron A gank gang wouldn't have a scout scanning freighters on the entry side of a system well ahead of the gank gang itself now would they. That's clearly too clever for them.
Sure they would, but then the complaint shouldn't be about WTZ being pointless, but about freighters aligning slower than a beached whale.
|
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 21:12:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
I've seen your kind before kiddo, I've heard all your pro-gank rethorics, you stick around a few years and then maybe your rants will have some weight.
You're not making any sense. I was having a conversation with a guy who proposed that amount of ships lost should set the price for insurance. I told him this would hit pvpers harder than it would suicide gankers. You then made a nonsensical and completely off-topic remark on how I shouldn't compare suicide gankin with pvp.
Are you quite done being stupid?
I raise your not making any sense with that you've not made any sense the entire thread, you've brought nothing new or balanced to the table but a mouthful of wrong. If you want to have a private conversation with someone without being called on your bullshit then convo them ingame.
tl;dr: "No"
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Tippia
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 21:13:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus If you want to have a private conversation with someone without being called on your bullshit then convo them ingame.
There's a difference between calling someone on their BS and randomly interjecting completely unrelated remarks on arguments that haven't even been presented.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 21:14:00 -
[208]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
I raise your not making any sense with that you've not made any sense the entire thread, you've brought nothing new or balanced to the table but a mouthful of wrong. If you want to have a private conversation with someone without being called on your bullshit then convo them ingame.
Seriously, I'm not gonna try to smack you. I'm just gonna tell you one more time that you have misunderstood the entire exchange to which you replied. The fact that you continue posting means you're either A: too stupid to realise your mistake, or B: so embarassed by your mistake that you have to deflect it by attacking me.
For the record, I've made quite a lot of sense in this thread. My suggestions would solve the entire debate, and people are stupid for not listening.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 21:14:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Wendat Huron A gank gang wouldn't have a scout scanning freighters on the entry side of a system well ahead of the gank gang itself now would they. That's clearly too clever for them.
Sure they would, but then the complaint shouldn't be about WTZ being pointless, but about freighters aligning slower than a beached whale.
Case in point, WTZ is useful though for avoiding getting ganked it's useless as you get gotten on the entry not leaving a system.
These forums are FUBAR, upgrade this decade! |
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 21:17:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
I raise your not making any sense with that you've not made any sense the entire thread, you've brought nothing new or balanced to the table but a mouthful of wrong. If you want to have a private conversation with someone without being called on your bullshit then convo them ingame.
Seriously, I'm not gonna try to smack you. I'm just gonna tell you one more time that you have misunderstood the entire exchange to which you replied. The fact that you continue posting means you're either A: too stupid to realise your mistake, or B: so embarassed by your mistake that you have to deflect it by attacking me.
For the record, I've made quite a lot of sense in this thread. My suggestions would solve the entire debate, and people are stupid for not listening.
I don't own up to being any of the above, you and your alt supporter here can hold your peprally and call it a victory if you will, myself I have it as a general rule that if someone consistantly refer to others as being stupid over and over it's more often a projection of the own mental shortage.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |