| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Outsourced Techsupport
56k Dialup.
   |
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:06:00 -
[1]
The insurance rates of T2 ships need to be increased significantly. At least to, say, half the purchase price of the ship. The current rates have an adverse effect on PVP in general.
No, this isn't a carebear "remove loss" concept. A few simple points -
1) Tech2 ships, for obvious reasons, are preferred in PVP.
2) It's not highly difficult to train for Tech2 ships. Most moderately old characters have them.
3) Points 1 & 2 logically lead to a large amount of tech2 ships being flown in PVP.
I'm assuming I've not lost anyone with those simple points. 
The downside, of course, is that these ships are an enormous risk. You're looking at well over 100M, sometimes 200M, when one explodes. This causes pilots to become exceptionally risk averse.. and where does that lead? A few strategies.
1) Blobbing- Speaks for itself. Bring so many people you don't stand a chance to lose. No one wants to risk a 200M isk HAC in a fair fight.
2) Nano- "If we get blobbed, or can't win, we run.". Same thing. Sacrifices combat ability for the ability to escape if need be. A risk deterrant.
3) Cloak / Hide / Logoffski - You get the idea.
4) Simply refusing to fight - The big one. The more it costs to lose, the less willing people are to fight.
More often than not, you get two groups never really engaging, a few stragglers get ganked (20 v 1, oh the excitement. More fun for the 20, of course, but only in the "I didn't lose a ship" sense. Not the "That was a satisfying and exciting engagement", sense.) .. otherwise, another encounter with minimal PVP.
And this continues. Ganks and non-encounters. Everyone is terrified they might lose.
There's always the option to fly tech1, which is more insurable, but a tech1 fleet against a tech2 fleet is no contest. Unless it's a blob against a small tech2 fleet, the tech2 ships are going to win.
tl;dr- People are forced to fly more expensive, riskier ships to be competitive. While this makes sense, it has the unfortunate side effect of causing people to become more risk averse. Increasing the insurance payout to mitigate this, even partially, would be a step in the right direction.
Less PVP is never a good thing. PVP which consists of sitting around bored while two sides hide from one another is never a good thing. Even if the loss was halved, it would remain significant..
But maybe it would at least be a step in the right direction. Maybe, just maybe, people wouldn't cower from a fight they're not guaranteed to win from the start.
Is there a single PVPer who would oppose more chances to actually, y'know, pvp? |
Outsourced Techsupport
56k Dialup.
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:06:00 -
[2]
The insurance rates of T2 ships need to be increased significantly. At least to, say, half the purchase price of the ship. The current rates have an adverse effect on PVP in general.
No, this isn't a carebear "remove loss" concept. A few simple points -
1) Tech2 ships, for obvious reasons, are preferred in PVP.
2) It's not highly difficult to train for Tech2 ships. Most moderately old characters have them.
3) Points 1 & 2 logically lead to a large amount of tech2 ships being flown in PVP.
I'm assuming I've not lost anyone with those simple points.
The downside, of course, is that these ships are an enormous risk. You're looking at well over 100M, sometimes 200M, when one explodes. This causes pilots to become exceptionally risk averse.. and where does that lead? A few strategies.
1) Blobbing- Speaks for itself. Bring so many people you don't stand a chance to lose. No one wants to risk a 200M isk HAC in a fair fight.
2) Nano- "If we get blobbed, or can't win, we run.". Same thing. Sacrifices combat ability for the ability to escape if need be. A risk deterrant.
3) Cloak / Hide / Logoffski - You get the idea.
4) Simply refusing to fight - The big one. The more it costs to lose, the less willing people are to fight.
More often than not, you get two groups never really engaging, a few stragglers get ganked (20 v 1, oh the excitement. More fun for the 20, of course, but only in the "I didn't lose a ship" sense. Not the "That was a satisfying and exciting engagement", sense.) .. otherwise, another encounter with minimal PVP.
And this continues. Ganks and non-encounters. Everyone is terrified they might lose.
There's always the option to fly tech1, which is more insurable, but a tech1 fleet against a tech2 fleet is no contest. Unless it's a blob against a small tech2 fleet, the tech2 ships are going to win.
tl;dr- People are forced to fly more expensive, riskier ships to be competitive. While this makes sense, it has the unfortunate side effect of causing people to become more risk averse. Increasing the insurance payout to mitigate this, even partially, would be a step in the right direction.
Less PVP is never a good thing. PVP which consists of sitting around bored while two sides hide from one another is never a good thing. Even if the loss was halved, it would remain significant..
But maybe it would at least be a step in the right direction. Maybe, just maybe, people wouldn't cower from a fight they're not guaranteed to win from the start.
Is there a single PVPer who would oppose more chances to actually, y'know, pvp? |
Seelath
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:09:00 -
[3]
 Quote:
No, this isn't a carebear "remove loss" concept.
Yes, it is.
|
Seelath
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:09:00 -
[4]
Quote:
No, this isn't a carebear "remove loss" concept.
Yes, it is.
|
LuckyStrike
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:11:00 -
[5]
Im in favour of removing insurance all together,
scrap those stupid t1 fitted bs ships that cost on 10m to loose - that together with mission loot removal, losses will be felt again.
-
Alt_
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:11:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Crumplecorn on 12/09/2008 11:15:25
Buy T2 ship.
Sell to self repeatedly at inflated price.
Insure.
Destroy.
Since the insurance price is based on the material cost, the crap coverage indicates an obvious target if you want to make T2 ships more accessible.
Also: I like the idea of removing insurance, the problem is too many people are used to low losses from T1, not that T2 losses are too high.
T2 shouldn't be the standard.
-
DesuSigs |
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:11:00 -
[7]
no point/no need, RMT just got a boost with the new, higher GTC prices (500m ISK I heard).
How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
|
LuckyStrike
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:11:00 -
[8]
Im in favour of removing insurance all together,
scrap those stupid t1 fitted bs ships that cost on 10m to loose - that together with mission loot removal, losses will be felt again.
-
Alt_
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:11:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Crumplecorn on 12/09/2008 11:15:25
Buy T2 ship.
Sell to self repeatedly at inflated price.
Insure.
Destroy.
Since the insurance price is based on the material cost, the crap coverage indicates an obvious target if you want to make T2 ships more accessible.
Also: I like the idea of removing insurance, the problem is too many people are used to low losses from T1, not that T2 losses are too high.
T2 shouldn't be the standard.
-
DesuSigs |
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:11:00 -
[10]
no point/no need, RMT just got a boost with the new, higher GTC prices (500m ISK I heard).
How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
|
Benilopax
Gallente
Pulsar Combat Supplies
Alternative Realities
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:12:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Benilopax on 12/09/2008 11:13:32
Ok first, you should get broadband. 
In regard to your post, since I started playing Eve I have always agreed with the idea that if you want to fly the best ships you have to take the risk that they will be destroyed with little to compensate. How do you prevent losing isk through tech 2 ships? Fly smart.
|
Benilopax
Gallente
Pulsar Combat Supplies
Alternative Realities
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:12:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Benilopax on 12/09/2008 11:12:42
Damn doble post.
|
Benilopax
Gallente
Pulsar Combat Supplies
Alternative Realities
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:12:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Benilopax on 12/09/2008 11:13:32
Ok first, you should get broadband.
In regard to your post, since I started playing Eve I have always agreed with the idea that if you want to fly the best ships you have to take the risk that they will be destroyed with little to compensate. How do you prevent losing isk through tech 2 ships? Fly smart.
|
Benilopax
Gallente
Pulsar Combat Supplies
Alternative Realities
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:12:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Benilopax on 12/09/2008 11:12:42
Damn doble post.
|
Dr Sheepbringer
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:14:00 -
[15]
And there is reason why i have my PVE ships and PVP ships. The pvp ones are listed as "i can loose them". Of course I fly frigs and those are cheap compared to bigger ships.
And yes, this is carebear whine.
|
BiggestT
Caldari
Space Oddysey
Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:14:00 -
[16]
Originally by: LuckyStrike
Im in favour of removing insurance all together,
scrap those stupid t1 fitted bs ships that cost on 10m to loose - that together with mission loot removal, losses will be felt again.
wow..this definately
Proudly annoying FC's since 2007
Originally by: Sherrif Jones
*ding ding!*
wrangler: Hello and w-
*ding ding!*
wrangler: Damn nano-whiners *goes back to reading*
|
Dr Sheepbringer
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:14:00 -
[17]
And there is reason why i have my PVE ships and PVP ships. The pvp ones are listed as "i can loose them". Of course I fly frigs and those are cheap compared to bigger ships.
And yes, this is carebear whine.
|
BiggestT
Caldari
Space Oddysey
Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:14:00 -
[18]
Originally by: LuckyStrike
Im in favour of removing insurance all together,
scrap those stupid t1 fitted bs ships that cost on 10m to loose - that together with mission loot removal, losses will be felt again.
wow..this definately
Proudly annoying FC's since 2007
Originally by: Sherrif Jones
*ding ding!*
wrangler: Hello and w-
*ding ding!*
wrangler: Damn nano-whiners *goes back to reading*
|
Tippia
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:15:00 -
[19]
Do we really need to have more ISK inserted into the economy?
|
BiggestT
Caldari
Space Oddysey
Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:15:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Benilopax
Edited by: Benilopax on 12/09/2008 11:13:32
Ok first, you should get broadband.
In regard to your post, since I started playing Eve I have always agreed with the idea that if you want to fly the best ships you have to take the risk that they will be destroyed with little to compensate. How do you prevent losing isk through tech 2 ships? Fly smart.
I disagree with that statement, while higher risk comes with better ships sounds good, its not really fair, as the players already have to spend isk/time getting to be able to fly the dman things and afford the higher price in the first place let alone get jibbed when needing to replace it
Proudly annoying FC's since 2007
Originally by: Sherrif Jones
*ding ding!*
wrangler: Hello and w-
*ding ding!*
wrangler: Damn nano-whiners *goes back to reading*
|
Tippia
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:15:00 -
[21]
Do we really need to have more ISK inserted into the economy?
|
BiggestT
Caldari
Space Oddysey
Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:15:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Benilopax
Edited by: Benilopax on 12/09/2008 11:13:32
Ok first, you should get broadband.
In regard to your post, since I started playing Eve I have always agreed with the idea that if you want to fly the best ships you have to take the risk that they will be destroyed with little to compensate. How do you prevent losing isk through tech 2 ships? Fly smart.
I disagree with that statement, while higher risk comes with better ships sounds good, its not really fair, as the players already have to spend isk/time getting to be able to fly the dman things and afford the higher price in the first place let alone get jibbed when needing to replace it
Proudly annoying FC's since 2007
Originally by: Sherrif Jones
*ding ding!*
wrangler: Hello and w-
*ding ding!*
wrangler: Damn nano-whiners *goes back to reading*
|
Outsourced Techsupport
56k Dialup.
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:16:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Benilopax
Ok first, you should get braodband.
In regard to your post, since I started playing Eve I have always agreed with the idea that if you want to fly the best ships you have to take the risk that they will be destroyed with little to compensate. How do you prevent losing isk through tech 2 ships? Fly smart.
Personally, I have no problem flying smart, or losing ships.
My own attitude does not, however, change the fact that 90% of people would rather run away from an even fight, and will refuse to engage if the odds aren't stacked perfectly for them.
Hint: When I said 50% of the value, I meant roughly. Not a dynamic system based on easily manipulated market values, but a general estimate. 50-60 million, flat, regardless what you paid for it.
On a 1-200M isk ship, it's not an enormous amount, but at least you'd not be completely shafted. |
Outsourced Techsupport
56k Dialup.
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:16:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Outsourced Techsupport on 12/09/2008 11:19:05
Originally by: Benilopax
Ok first, you should get braodband.
In regard to your post, since I started playing Eve I have always agreed with the idea that if you want to fly the best ships you have to take the risk that they will be destroyed with little to compensate. How do you prevent losing isk through tech 2 ships? Fly smart.
Personally, I have no problem flying smart, or losing ships.
My own attitude does not, however, change the fact that 90% of people would rather run away from an even fight, and will refuse to engage if the odds aren't stacked perfectly for them.
Hint: When I said 50% of the value, I meant roughly. Not a dynamic system based on easily manipulated market values, but a general estimate. 50-60 million, flat, regardless what you paid for it.
On a 1-200M isk ship, it's not an enormous amount, but at least you'd not be completely shafted.
Edit: Removing insurance to make losses "real again" might be an interesting thought. In concept.
But you do realize people are terrified they might lose a ship already? Nano ring a bell? How often do people fight when they can't guarantee a win?
Would you be happier with, say, one fight a month.. but that person loses a billion when they die? I know I'd rather soften the edge a little bit. Not for myself, but for the people who won't fight otherwise.  |
Granmethedon III
RuffRyders
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:19:00 -
[25]
Remove game controlled insurance, introduce player controlled insurance. Problem solved.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:32:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Granmethedon III
Remove game controlled insurance, introduce player controlled insurance. Problem solved.
I would certainly like to be able to control my own insurance payouts.
-
DesuSigs |
loot venda
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:36:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Granmethedon III
Remove insurance
Fixed for you.
|
Sarin Adler
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 11:37:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Seelath
Quote:
No, this isn't a carebear "remove loss" concept.
Yes, it is.
This. I've a better idea: remove insurance, is nonsense.
P.S: also T1 would get more used, heck you don't need to be so elite and fly T2 all the time.
---
Alts, the root of all evil. |
Zaran Darkstar
Divine Slaves
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 13:13:00 -
[29]
Originally by: LuckyStrike
Im in favour of removing insurance all together,
scrap those stupid t1 fitted bs ships that cost on 10m to loose - that together with mission loot removal, losses will be felt again.
I agree |
Seeing EyeDog
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 13:16:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
no point/no need, RMT just got a boost with the new, higher GTC prices (500m ISK I heard).
with a higher Real Money: ISK ratio, the GTC market is dead. No one will spend 40 dollars for 500m, its not cost effective
_____________________
Originally by: Locus Bey
Intelligence isn't a prequisite for being a Goon, in fact its a deficit.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |