Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Girabaldi D'Protagonist
Minmatar In Theory.
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 12:27:00 -
[181]
Originally by: Nian Banks Edited by: Nian Banks on 27/07/2009 13:53:51
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Originally by: Drake Draconis Edited by: Drake Draconis on 24/07/2009 16:42:07 You want funny?
Every single reason for saying no is utterly stupid.
Even in-spite of the fact that this in no way hurts the criminal profession. Other than taking away "free ISK"
But Drake, you know everyone likes free ISK.
And I would like a free **** *** but I aint getting one, should I complain because noone wants to give me one?
Seriously, suicide gankers are giving miners a good reason not to mine. and then they just mission and hey we all know missions are broken because they give just as much minerals as mining. its a big WTF from me.
Spread the love a little <isk to missions, <isk to suicide gankers, >isk to miners and industrialists. Then maybe we are getting close to how it should be.
For some suicide gankers the idea is to make them not want to mine... that is the whole point in some instance.. yeah thats it..
With the prevalence of macro's invading every system, the only way to get the point across is to make their hulks and mackinaws go boom every 15 minutes.. they get the point and go somewhere else..
OH and BTW you don't need to spend a lot of money to pop a tanked hulk or mack.. its almost a science.. and looting the wrecks is easy too, including your team's wrecks.. you just have to know what you are doing..
For a lot of gankers that do this professionally, removal of the insureance payment won't be that big of a deal... hulks and macks still go boom.. and the salvage from one of those is in the Millions if you get the intact stuff.. plus the modules.. it all sells..
|
Awesome Possum
Insert Obscure Latin Name
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 20:07:00 -
[182]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
I'm well aware of the fact that it's a game. that's why I am using the approved process to bring something to the attention of the player's representatives that I don't agree with in the game mechanics. If this was real life, I'd have sued someone already.
I don't recall quoting you when I made that post.
Too many people here are equating in game mechanics to RL principles. Who cares what a RL cop or insurance company would do? The cops and insurance companies don't make the game or the rules, CCP does.
Quote: Despite what other people may have said, this is not what I am aiming for. I am simply aiming to make suicide gankers suffer the same moment of pause when they undock as I do. It only seems fair. Miners have to decide what to mine to maximize profits. Manufacturers have to decide what to manufacture for the same reason. Why should the suigankers get a pass on that decision just because they're being subsidized by the system?
You seem to forget that a hulk can be suicide ganked by 2-3 destroyers in cheap t1 crap for a total loss of... ? Even without insurance, its not going to stop anything.
Quote: All I want is for the suicide gankers to have to think before they shoot. Why are you so against leveling the playing field?
Considering there are already plenty of ways in game right now to keep from being suicide ganked, why are you trying to get in game mechanics changed just to penalize one small section of the game? Play the game. ♥
Wreck Disposal Services |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 20:45:00 -
[183]
The heart of this issue is that the proponents dont want non-consensual PvP in empire.
|
Sans Honore
Gallente Wirfadam Productions LTD
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 20:49:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Malcanis The heart of this issue is that the proponents dont want non-consensual PvP in empire.
This.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 20:55:00 -
[185]
Again.. what does this have to do with insurance voiding due to getting CONOCRD'ed? ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 22:10:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Quote: Despite what other people may have said, this is not what I am aiming for. I am simply aiming to make suicide gankers suffer the same moment of pause when they undock as I do. It only seems fair. Miners have to decide what to mine to maximize profits. Manufacturers have to decide what to manufacture for the same reason. Why should the suigankers get a pass on that decision just because they're being subsidized by the system?
You seem to forget that a hulk can be suicide ganked by 2-3 destroyers in cheap t1 crap for a total loss of... ? Even without insurance, its not going to stop anything.
I never suggested that it would stop suicide ganking. I suggested that it might the gankers think before they act. If they choose not to, that's not really my problem.
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Quote: All I want is for the suicide gankers to have to think before they shoot. Why are you so against leveling the playing field?
Considering there are already plenty of ways in game right now to keep from being suicide ganked, why are you trying to get in game mechanics changed just to penalize one small section of the game? Play the game.
You very nicely dodged answering the question you quoted. So I'll re-ask it. Why are you bound and determined to not have this one mechanic changed, since it does indeed impact such a small part of the game. I mean if it's so small, it shouldn't matter, right? Keep it as is, change it - shouldn't make any difference, since it's just a tiny little part of the game.
I just want the job the gankers choose to follow to actually reflect it's true cost instead of having that occupation be subsidized.
Unless you'd like to propose to CCP that they start seeding the market with free minerals so my chosen occupation can be subsidized too? --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 23:08:00 -
[187]
Isn't insurance NOT the same as CONCORD? Meaning the insurance company could care less what you do with your ship, they're still going to pay for it if you have the coverage....
|
Amber Harden
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 12:08:00 -
[188]
Reading through peoples idea of what insurance is for is bizarre.
That said - I can see both sides of the arguement.
PVP, wanted or not, is a strong driving force in market stimulation. Without it the high sec industrialists would have a much harder time selling the products and produce.
The stupidity of this is there is very little punishment for a ganker. They fully understand the risk they take when they attack and can calculate the money outlayed versus the possible reward from the wreck.
The thing that is missing here is reality. What insurance company in its right mind would insure someone at a fraction of the cost of a ship, that is destroyed 2 hours later.....answer, nearly all of them, once.
After that you would pay far more for insurance in premiums. Repeated insurance mis haps would eventually result in no one wanting to insure you....ever again.
Sure Gankers take a security status hit - big deal - go kill some Battleships and recover this.
Higher insurance costs for repeat gankers on an ever increasing scale.
Then place cheaper, less reputable insurers in low sec systems, (where all the gankers tell industrialists they should be anyway) - that charge far less but have a % chance of not paying out.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 13:39:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Amber Harden Reading through peoples idea of what insurance is for is bizarre.
That said - I can see both sides of the arguement.
PVP, wanted or not, is a strong driving force in market stimulation. Without it the high sec industrialists would have a much harder time selling the products and produce.
The stupidity of this is there is very little punishment for a ganker. They fully understand the risk they take when they attack and can calculate the money outlayed versus the possible reward from the wreck.
The thing that is missing here is reality. What insurance company in its right mind would insure someone at a fraction of the cost of a ship, that is destroyed 2 hours later.....answer, nearly all of them, once.
After that you would pay far more for insurance in premiums. Repeated insurance mis haps would eventually result in no one wanting to insure you....ever again.
Sure Gankers take a security status hit - big deal - go kill some Battleships and recover this.
Higher insurance costs for repeat gankers on an ever increasing scale.
Then place cheaper, less reputable insurers in low sec systems, (where all the gankers tell industrialists they should be anyway) - that charge far less but have a % chance of not paying out.
I could get behind the idea of a sliding scale of ship insurance based on actual market value and pilot performance (i.e. ship loss). it might need some tweaking, but the overall idea is intriguing and it accomplishes my main goal. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 14:55:00 -
[190]
Give us the tools for player run insurance and this wouldn't be an issue.
Riskier pilots would pay more, gankers wouldn't get insured, and your standard player would play and pay more or less how they do now. |
|
Kytanos Termek
Darkstorm Command Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 16:17:00 -
[191]
Edited by: Kytanos Termek on 31/07/2009 16:17:39 Supported. I just dont think it feels right to get insurance if your go Jihad on someone. Terrorists should not get money :-)
|
Dariah Stardweller
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 21:33:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Originally by: De'Veldrin
You seem to forget that a hulk can be suicide ganked by 2-3 destroyers in cheap t1 crap for a total loss of... ? Even without insurance, its not going to stop anything.
Awesome! That means all the gankers can stop whining and just switch to destroyers and insurance can be nerfed
|
Allen Ramses
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 22:46:00 -
[193]
Edited by: Allen Ramses on 31/07/2009 22:46:24 Supported. Insurance sucks. CONCORDOKKEN insurance is no exception. ____________________ CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |