|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Jita Alt666
460
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 19:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm predicting that it will take 2-3 weeks before players who seriously engage in ganking have adapted to to minimise their financial loses.
The first thing that comes to mind is that with concord payouts removed, it means a higher gank success to gank faliure ratio is needed, to either provide or financial return, or minimise loses to maintain enjoyment periods for longer. To ensure a higher successful ratio expect more concord baiting and more overkill ganking. |
Jita Alt666
460
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
Aubepine Finfleur wrote:Scalar Angulargf wrote: Empire does need more PVP. Carebears need to HTFU and deal with it.
If you want a game where you're always safe, go back to STO or PVE WOW
I can gatecamp in lowsec, run scams on a disposable character, and missions on a third one to have access to LPs stores and highsec markets. I can even gank from time to time with the 3rd one, since running missions keeps his sec status in the positive. And when some goody-two-shoes come to bust my camp, I just dock up waiting for them to go, refresh my scams and continue running missions. I just need three accounts, but between the gateganking, the scams and the missions, I have more than enough to buy plex with isk. Why would I need to HTFU ? I risk nothing, and am always safe. What do you mean exactly ?
Lets hope plex prices rise enough and then stabilise at a level that makes your solo gameplay strategy broken.
|
Jita Alt666
467
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:58:00 -
[3] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Kheper Ra wrote: Not sure I understand the logic of why hi-sec needs to be made 'more unsafe'.
I'm not sure either. In game yesterday, I opened the star map and set the legend to show me "ships destroyed in the last hour." Now, I don't know if it was a glitch or something....but by a vast majority, the greatest amount of activity in that regard was in hi-sec empire space. Someone else try that and post the results. 'Cause if I were to interpret that I would gather that hi sec is less safe than low or null sec. At least in that hour it was.
Define safe and unsafe: If 6 players die in a 0.8 system with 600 players in it (entering/exiting or residing) during an hour long period that is a 1% death rate If 3 players die in a 0.0 system with 30 players in it (entering/exiting or residing) during an hour long period that is a 10% death rate Which one is more dangerous?
Define "ships destroyed in the last hour": How many died in missions? How many died to gankers? How many self destructed? How many died in consensual PVP?
Taking a map image as evidence of safety is not the most accurate way of gaining knowledge. |
Jita Alt666
472
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
MeestaPenni wrote:Anyone?....quit beating around the bush.
Where are the majority of ships destroyed?
I'll get that....in hi sec and low sec border systems.
The perception that low and null sec is much more dangerous needs to be changed. I'll bet everyone would agree to that. Unfortunately, I don't think the current FOTM will have the best affect. Instead of the focus on the "bad guys" ganking ships in hi sec....maybe the focus should be on raising awareness of how empty low and null really are.
I understand what you are attempting to do - recolour discussion regarding safety in a manner so that high sec players see the risk vs reward opportunities in a different light. I think that intent it useful and productive. Breaking out from high sec is not actually that difficult (in eve terms) it requires investment in skills and taking the time to learn the fundementals.
Your argument however is akin to saying; "There are more deaths of people in fully enclosed motor vehicles (cars) each year than people on motorbikes, therefore it is safer to ride a motorbike than drive a car."
This I can not agree with.
|
Jita Alt666
476
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:We took the insurance out because having it was silly. It's like a double reward when you gank someone, you get their cargo and insurance. It won't stop suicide ganking, it just fixes something we haven't really felt made sense for a long time. What about when people self destruct and time it for an alpha or two before CONCORD arrives? Is there a way to prevent payout for that?
From memory, it takes 2 minutes to self destruct. I can not remember whether you can warp and keep self destruction ticker counting - if so then good on the self destruct pilot. The timing to do so shows competent game play. |
Jita Alt666
476
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
Tippia: Your posts in this thread make sense and are reasonable (although off topic). You are being trolled (repeatedly) by a few forum dwellers who are not interested in expanding their understanding, but merely in arguing. Please don't feed them.
Matrix: The hub of the matter is that Eve Online is one continuous universe that embraces different player styles/types. Some feel changes that are occurring in Empire are the thin end of the wedge in creating different player zones with Empire looking increasingly like completely safe space. |
Jita Alt666
478
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
Vordel wrote:Scan though thread quikly. Not sure if someone mentioned this.
The suicide ganking standard of isk to ehp ratio I have heard is 6000 isk per ehp. This is based on a Insured Tempest BS gank ship.
With the insurance removed, new ratio should be 7500 isk per ehp. Based on uninsured Naga.
If they keep insurance in, it will be 2400 isk per ehp. Based on Insured Naga.
Using a Fenrir with 174,000 ehp
6000 isk/ehp = 1 billion isk cargo 7500 isk/ehp = 1.3 billion isk cargo 2400 isk/ehp = 418 million isk cargo
With these numbers, I think leaving insurance in would break game more than removing it.
That is an interesting point. |
Jita Alt666
478
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:51:00 -
[8] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Tippia wrote:It's not about the impact GÇö it's about being able to interdict and disrupt the activities that go on in highsec. Being able to do so is a necessity for the economy to work properly. This is the biggest load of bollocks I've read this month. All real-world economies work perfectly fine without people bombing tractor trailers.
I remember oil prices jumping 5% when a suicide bomber hit the residential compound of a Saudi Oil Company. |
Jita Alt666
479
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:19:00 -
[9] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Jita Alt666 wrote:I remember oil prices jumping 5% when a suicide bomber hit the residential compound of a Saudi Oil Company. That is an example of terrorism harming the economy. Rising oil prices are bad for everyone. In fact, the single-commodity dependency inherent in the oil industry is directly comparable to the current crisis with blue ice and oxygen isotopes.
Precisely.
|
Jita Alt666
479
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:44:00 -
[10] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
If you do want it nerfed, are you still claiming that it wouldn't affect hi sec players?
You expect some one to answer that question and cover off all possible permutations in the space of 6000 characters?
|
|
Jita Alt666
481
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 08:28:00 -
[11] - Quote
Black Dranzer wrote:Suicide Gankers, pre-nerf wrote:Lol HTFU crybabies deal with it adapt or die Suicide Gankers, post-nerf wrote:WTF CCP fix it you're ruining the game why won't you subsidize my ganking BAWWWW THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH.
Your reading comprehension is lacking. |
|
|
|