Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:29:00 -
[1]
It devalues ships. If a ship is destroyed, and it's insured, then the pilot says 'oh well, I only lost 35m on this BS'. The relative value of that ship to the pilot is the replacement cost of the mods plus new insurance, not the cost of the ship.
One major problem that this causes is it makes it extremely hard to cripple an opponent financially through war losses. With insurance you're effectively diluting combat accomplishments because killing a 130m ISK BS isn't taking 130m out of the enemies' wallet, but only 33m or so, plus fittings, which are usually T2, and as we all know, T2 mods are cheap as hell now.
Another problem with insurance is trying to make a living ransoming people as a pirate. The players go 'oh well, blow me up, I don't care. It's insured.' If this is such a harsh world CCP, why the hand holding?
Frankly, I'm all for removing insurance payouts from suicide killers in empire, but CCP should be fair to everyone and remove all insurance from all ships across the board.
With respect to new players: allow new players to insure their ships (any sort) for the first three months (90 days) of their account. After that, no insurance. And no, this wouldn't circumvent the no payout rule for Concord deaths.
*Or*, an even more interesting option: design 'noob cruisers' that you can get for free. They would be fairly weak in performance, but noobs could run missions with them and do hauling stuff at a low level, they'd be a little more capable than noob frigs, but you'd only be allowed to get them for free for your first sixty days in Eve. After that you're on your own to make up for your mistakes.
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:32:00 -
[2]
No you see, insurance is only a problem when whiney AFKers are disadvantaged.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
GI0VANNI
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:36:00 -
[3]
I do not agree. When you are established in the game, yes... insurance can be a safe haven that is easy to get, but I remember, I spent months working for my first BS, and to loose that outright would have put me in a foul mood. Also, a lot of advanced players will only fly T2 ships where the insurance is near enough worthless anyway.
Insurance is a good thing.
Just because you feel it ruins your pirate ways does not mean that it should get stopped for everyone.
Live with it.
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar Metafarmers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:41:00 -
[4]
It's not required... you can just fly around in uninsured ships and leave us alone
You're not afraid of the dark, are you? |
sableye
principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:47:00 -
[5]
I agree with getting rid of insurance as well to stop so much isk entering the game.
Join The Fight With Promo Today View The North Star! |
El'Niaga
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:49:00 -
[6]
No what they are doing is fair.
This is a risk vs reward game.
There is no risk in hi sec suiciding because the person gets more back in insurance than he paid for his ship and fittings.
Thus they eliminate the insurance for concord deaths and they reintroduce risk vs reward.
You can still gank that hauler in hi sec if you want, just better be sure he's carrying enough to make it worth your while. Makes you have to be selective in targets which is good.
Since concord does not respond in low sec and 0.0 it will not affects ganking there :).
|
Sky Marshal
Aeden
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:50:00 -
[7]
Quote: Another problem with insurance is trying to make a living ransoming people as a pirate. The players go 'oh well, blow me up, I don't care.
Hum, I guess it is more 'Oh well, why pay the ransom, you will blow me up anyways'.
Eve is an harsh world, but Eve is still a game. Make things too difficult after the loss of an expensive ship will only demoralize the player, so it is a bad idea.
Same after 90 days of gaming, there is no guarantee that the wallet can support a loss.
____
Removing/Replacing Local is the stupidest idea who can be asked, ever. |
Gamesguy
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:52:00 -
[8]
Originally by: El'Niaga No what they are doing is fair.
This is a risk vs reward game.
There is no risk in hi sec suiciding because the person gets more back in insurance than he paid for his ship and fittings.
Thus they eliminate the insurance for concord deaths and they reintroduce risk vs reward.
You can still gank that hauler in hi sec if you want, just better be sure he's carrying enough to make it worth your while. Makes you have to be selective in targets which is good.
Since concord does not respond in low sec and 0.0 it will not affects ganking there :).
Where is the risk of the guy sitting in NPC corp running lvl 4 missions all day? He makes more isk/hour than the majority of the people ratting in 0.0, and those in 0.0 have way more risk.
If suicide ganking is too risk free, the solution is to increase the risk, not decrease the reward. Tradable killrights would be a good start.
Alternatively, simply nerf NPC corp wardec protection and these changes can stay. Newbies would be kicked out of noob corp after say 6 months or so.
|
Xavieer Naidoo
Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:53:00 -
[9]
No. Just no. Why no ? It's very simple. If somebody looses all his ISK due to ship loss, say after 3 months of playing it is very likely that he will quit. CCP and we as a community would not want that.
And on the sidenote, T2 insurance is really ******ed. It's like you bought a luxury car for 200.000 $ u wreck it and then the insurance company says: - "here's 10.000 for your ship, it's platinium insurance" - "but why, I paid 200.000$ for this car!" says the stunned owner - "well, all the materials your car was made of are only worth 10.000$, we don't take economy and real prices into account".
So to summarize - t2 insurance is bad enough. Suicide gankers should not get their insurance paid out though.
|
Spaztick
Canadian Imperial Armaments EVESpace
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:53:00 -
[10]
I don't insure my T2 ships anyway, I gain at most a few million back on the cost. But seriously, more people should have some type of spacer in their sigs to show it's not part of the post. |
|
Zephyr Rengate
dearg doom
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:53:00 -
[11]
Me not like Bellum anymore.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:57:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Zephyr Rengate Me not like Bellum anymore.
Implying that someone actually liked me in the first place? \o/
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
El'Niaga
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:58:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: El'Niaga No what they are doing is fair.
This is a risk vs reward game.
There is no risk in hi sec suiciding because the person gets more back in insurance than he paid for his ship and fittings.
Thus they eliminate the insurance for concord deaths and they reintroduce risk vs reward.
You can still gank that hauler in hi sec if you want, just better be sure he's carrying enough to make it worth your while. Makes you have to be selective in targets which is good.
Since concord does not respond in low sec and 0.0 it will not affects ganking there :).
Where is the risk of the guy sitting in NPC corp running lvl 4 missions all day? He makes more isk/hour than the majority of the people ratting in 0.0, and those in 0.0 have way more risk.
If suicide ganking is too risk free, the solution is to increase the risk, not decrease the reward. Tradable killrights would be a good start.
Alternatively, simply nerf NPC corp wardec protection and these changes can stay. Newbies would be kicked out of noob corp after say 6 months or so.
Most mission runners dip into low sec at some point, thus most can be killed at some point. Tradeable killrights wouldn't help. You couldn't trust the person getting it to actually kill the guy. What pirates would do is set up an alt (I'm sure you've never heard of those) and then just use it to get the killrights to their main assuring he never dies as a result of the tradeable killrights. Almost the same way they operate now.
|
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr Imperial Servants
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:00:00 -
[14]
Don't remove insurance, just reduce it to 6 weeks or 3 weeks. It will make it more of an isk sink. If people "cash in" their insured ship every 3 weeks, it will put the demand/supply scale heavily on the demand part, so prices will raise making it unproffitable to "cash in".
I'm set in this game and don't insure anymore. Even forget when I go on suicide missions .
|
Gamesguy
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:04:00 -
[15]
Originally by: El'Niaga
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: El'Niaga No what they are doing is fair.
This is a risk vs reward game.
There is no risk in hi sec suiciding because the person gets more back in insurance than he paid for his ship and fittings.
Thus they eliminate the insurance for concord deaths and they reintroduce risk vs reward.
You can still gank that hauler in hi sec if you want, just better be sure he's carrying enough to make it worth your while. Makes you have to be selective in targets which is good.
Since concord does not respond in low sec and 0.0 it will not affects ganking there :).
Where is the risk of the guy sitting in NPC corp running lvl 4 missions all day? He makes more isk/hour than the majority of the people ratting in 0.0, and those in 0.0 have way more risk.
If suicide ganking is too risk free, the solution is to increase the risk, not decrease the reward. Tradable killrights would be a good start.
Alternatively, simply nerf NPC corp wardec protection and these changes can stay. Newbies would be kicked out of noob corp after say 6 months or so.
Most mission runners dip into low sec at some point, thus most can be killed at some point. Tradeable killrights wouldn't help. You couldn't trust the person getting it to actually kill the guy. What pirates would do is set up an alt (I'm sure you've never heard of those) and then just use it to get the killrights to their main assuring he never dies as a result of the tradeable killrights. Almost the same way they operate now.
Thats not an argument, thats an excuse. The level 4 mission runner in NPC corp is completely invulnerable, his missions do not require him to go into lowsec, ratting in 0.0 carries inherent risks associated with the activity.
Your argument would be like me saying suicide ganking is full of risk because most of those people live in 0.0 and pvp there. No, the activity itself has little risks associated with it, just like running L4 missions in highsec. Increase risk for both.
This is something we called reputation and trust. Why would you sell the killright to some 10 day old npc corp alt? Are you stupid? If this is implemented, I'm sure some people would build a reputation of being reliable and they would get more of those trades, just like how chribba is nearly universally trusted.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:06:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Don't remove insurance, just reduce it to 6 weeks or 3 weeks. It will make it more of an isk sink. If people "cash in" their insured ship every 3 weeks, it will put the demand/supply scale heavily on the demand part, so prices will raise making it unproffitable to "cash in".
I'm set in this game and don't insure anymore. Even forget when I go on suicide missions .
Are you aware that your idea is a godsend for suicide gankers as they will always benefit from the insurance, while it make it almost worthless for other people?
Suicide gankers are so used to being subsidized by CCP that they don't choose the target anymore?
|
El'Niaga
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:07:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: El'Niaga
Where is the risk of the guy sitting in NPC corp running lvl 4 missions all day? He makes more isk/hour than the majority of the people ratting in 0.0, and those in 0.0 have way more risk.
If suicide ganking is too risk free, the solution is to increase the risk, not decrease the reward. Tradable killrights would be a good start.
Alternatively, simply nerf NPC corp wardec protection and these changes can stay. Newbies would be kicked out of noob corp after say 6 months or so.
Most mission runners dip into low sec at some point, thus most can be killed at some point. Tradeable killrights wouldn't help. You couldn't trust the person getting it to actually kill the guy. What pirates would do is set up an alt (I'm sure you've never heard of those) and then just use it to get the killrights to their main assuring he never dies as a result of the tradeable killrights. Almost the same way they operate now.
Thats not an argument, thats an excuse. The level 4 mission runner in NPC corp is completely invulnerable, his missions do not require him to go into lowsec, ratting in 0.0 carries inherent risks associated with the activity.
Your argument would be like me saying suicide ganking is full of risk because most of those people live in 0.0 and pvp there. No, the activity itself has little risks associated with it, just like running L4 missions in highsec. Increase risk for both.
This is something we called reputation and trust. Why would you sell the killright to some 10 day old npc corp alt? Are you stupid? If this is implemented, I'm sure some people would build a reputation of being reliable and they would get more of those trades, just like how chribba is nearly universally trusted.
Level 3 and 4 missions send you to low sec all the time. Yes you could decline taking those but that limits your income since you can only reject 1 per agent per 4 hours without taking a standing hit.
There are alts that are years old in this game. Most of whom belong to the pirates.....
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:09:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Don't remove insurance, just reduce it to 6 weeks or 3 weeks. It will make it more of an isk sink. If people "cash in" their insured ship every 3 weeks, it will put the demand/supply scale heavily on the demand part, so prices will raise making it unproffitable to "cash in".
I'm set in this game and don't insure anymore. Even forget when I go on suicide missions .
Are you aware that your idea is a godsend for suicide gankers as they will always benefit from the insurance, while it make it almost worthless for other people?
Suicide gankers are so used to being subsidized by CCP that they don't choose the target anymore?
Venkul is 100% right. Hence, remove all insurance!
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Zephyr Rengate
dearg doom
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:10:00 -
[19]
In all my time in motsu not once did I ever come close to going into lowsec...
|
Gamesguy
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:11:00 -
[20]
Originally by: El'Niaga
Level 3 and 4 missions send you to low sec all the time. Yes you could decline taking those but that limits your income since you can only reject 1 per agent per 4 hours without taking a standing hit.
No thats bullshit. The right agents do NOT send you into lowsec. Only hauling missions and agents in systems that border lowsec do. Stop lying.
Quote: There are alts that are years old in this game. Most of whom belong to the pirates.....
So you automatically trust anyone whose been in the game for years?
|
|
Dzajic
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:13:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Where is the risk of the guy sitting in NPC corp running lvl 4 missions all day? He makes more isk/hour than the majority of the people ratting in 0.0, and those in 0.0 have way more risk.
Err... wtf? You are either assuming that mission runner does it all day long and that one can not rat in 0.0 safely all day long.
Per hour income on mission running will only exceed good 0.0 ratting if person is dualboxing with CNRs or Golems.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:29:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Dzajic
Err... wtf? You are either assuming that mission runner does it all day long and that one can not rat in 0.0 safely all day long.
And you are assuming a suicide ganker does it all day long. We're talking about risk free professions here. High sec level 4 mission running is completely risk free.
Originally by: Dzajic
Per hour income on mission running will only exceed good 0.0 ratting if person is dualboxing with CNRs or Golems.
No. Per hour income on mission running - if you include ALL the rewards - is higher than 0.0 ratting in all but the best of systems. Sure, you might (might) get better liquid isk in 0.0, but all together you're better off running level 4 missions.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Gamesguy
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:30:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Dzajic
Originally by: Gamesguy
Where is the risk of the guy sitting in NPC corp running lvl 4 missions all day? He makes more isk/hour than the majority of the people ratting in 0.0, and those in 0.0 have way more risk.
Err... wtf? You are either assuming that mission runner does it all day long and that one can not rat in 0.0 safely all day long.
Per hour income on mission running will only exceed good 0.0 ratting if person is dualboxing with CNRs or Golems.
You can't rat in 0.0 safely all day long, there are these things called roaming gangs. If your alliance has people defending you from them, then you must add their manhour into the equation as well.
"Good 0.0 ratting?" Emphasis on good. Most of 0.0 is crap, mission running earns more isk/hour than someone ratting in say.... geminate.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:44:00 -
[24]
Guys, let's keep it on topic shall we? Discuss the merits of removing insurance, not how much ISK/hour carebears make. K?
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Andreya
Direct Intent
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:46:00 -
[25]
i agree. just removing insurance would make this game more fun for myself. knowing when i slaughter poeple, they are actually loosing isk... now that T2 gear is so darn cheap
_________________________________________________________ Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Navigator ([email protected]) |
Sheriff Jones
Amarr Please Enter Password
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:47:00 -
[26]
Remove insurance from ships, put insurance for fittings.
Tadaa?
My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit. |
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr Imperial Servants
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:49:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Don't remove insurance, just reduce it to 6 weeks or 3 weeks. It will make it more of an isk sink. If people "cash in" their insured ship every 3 weeks, it will put the demand/supply scale heavily on the demand part, so prices will raise making it unproffitable to "cash in".
I'm set in this game and don't insure anymore. Even forget when I go on suicide missions .
Are you aware that your idea is a godsend for suicide gankers as they will always benefit from the insurance, while it make it almost worthless for other people?
Suicide gankers are so used to being subsidized by CCP that they don't choose the target anymore?
Venkul is 100% right. Hence, remove all insurance!
Well, according to the Dev blog, insurance will no longer be paid when Concord are on the killmail. If that goes live, my suggestion works again
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:58:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Andreya i agree. just removing insurance would make this game more fun for myself. knowing when i slaughter poeple, they are actually loosing isk... now that T2 gear is so darn cheap
this is a game ... it should not be a grind fest for gear and ships ... however is you remove insurance, it will become one ... many people will leave ... a game is meant to be fun, not a second job ... --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
mishkof
Caldari Finis Lumen Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:00:00 -
[29]
Yes.
I think that we should also make it so that you have to spend 160 hours in a arena type setting spamming f1-F8 to get the ship in the first.
Also, instead of the pesky skill system in place you should need a certain number of NPC kills before you are eligable to kill a player. This way everyone is properly trained and you know that person worked hard to be have the privilage to engage you. For example you would have to kill 25 NPC battleships for every 1 player battleship you kill.
I think these are all wonderful ideas, and promote skill and hard work into realm of PVP.
I own a T2 BPO and Capital alt, therefor all of my views will be pro-Capital Alt/T2 BPO orientated. Please pick one of the following settings for your response. []hate me []troll me []smack me |
Mika Meroko
Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:02:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Mika Meroko on 06/08/2008 09:03:31 Remember, CCP doesnt think the way you pew pew ers do...
CCP accounting wont like alot of suggestions that turns eve lopsided/too harsh...
yes, the dev blog change might **** off a few pirates to quit (btw, send me your stuff)
but chances are, the account loss will be less than if well, quite frankly, if its let continue....
atm, suicide ganking is just too profitable =P
even a failed one doesnt mean much loss for the ganker (and barely any sec status loss)
hell, I have a JC in npc pie 0.0 space on my pie, and yeah, even ganking a 50 mill loot indy in highsec isnt that big of a set back of sec status for me..
Originally by: CCP Atropos I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |