Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:20:00 -
[541] - 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. Real-world economies are also based on limitless innovation. Economies are driven by constant invention and quality-of-life improvements. Imagine a real-life economy where innovation and improvement were removed; the very first Ford Model T is the car that humanity would have to live with for the rest of its existence. How would the automotive industry exist after the first few years, then? The few cars that need to be replaced from accidents wouldn't necessitate the existence of giant automotive plants, therefore the industry would collapse.
This is essentially how EVE is like. We have a set amount of things we can build, and can't create new ones by ourselves. Therefore, unlike real-life economies, EVE's economy is fueled by destruction of existing items.
Comparing EVE's economy to real-life economies is a ridiculous endeavor. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:25:00 -
[542] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Tippia, these are your comments from a different thread: [GǪ] Are you now saying that all this time you haven't really meant what you've been so vehemently claiming wasn't a troll? What?
In that thread, I said that with a nerfed CONCORD, miners would have an easier time bringing the pain to the gankers. In this thread, I say that with a nerfed CONCORD would encourage safer behaviour in those who are playing it unsafe today.
One does not contradict the other. Where do you get the idea that I somehow no longer mean what I said earlier?
Quote:So, basically, you're finally admitting you've been trolling this entire time. Why would I admit to something that isn't true, and why would I do it when I'm being quite consistent in what I'm saying? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:29:00 -
[543] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: tldr: It has never been about the insurance, you know. Lack of insurance won't stop people from dropping a few million on a suicide-gank boat. The real danger stemming from this change comes from the precedent it sets.
A precedent? I'm watching a trend lately where some people that resent any change are reverting to lore and "the past" as a defense because no other argument carries weight anymore. Regardless of whether any changes suggested might actually improve the game and increase subs, game potential and ultimately game life.
The largest volume of "don't break what works for me" is fighting an "it's broken, fix it for me" brigade which is becoming more and more vocal. Why? Because more of them are stating a POV that was never "allowed" by vets who think they know better. Is this because the "noobs" are starting to be a majority now? I simply don't know but something is brewing that's for sure.
We are definitely shifting from the very polarised view of what Eve "should be" to what Eve "could be" and we seem to be at a crossroads where the defense of "Eve principles" is being tested.
I personally prefer my games to evolve and not sit in some quaint fantasy land with idealogical stagnation. Is the acceptance/non acceptance of suicide ganking one of those stagnated gamestyles that could change?
I think the topic does need to have an airing and belligerent attitudes against those with contrary views is not the way to do it.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:32:00 -
[544] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Where do you get the idea that I somehow no longer mean what I said earlier?
Tippia wrote:No, I'm not advocating the removal of CONCORD
I see that you meant nerfing CONCORD (as in not being invinsible) and not removing them. But the point still stands. Do you or do you not want CONCORD nerfedin hi sec? |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:37:00 -
[545] - Quote
Tippia wrote:K Suri wrote:It's obvious you don't "multiplay" and it's also obvious that you live in highsec farming missions all day. Funny how GǣobviousGǥ and GǣfalseGǥ have become synonymsGǪ Suck it up and answer the question.
I have read this entire thread and you quote repeatedly using Eve INTENT as a basis for your arguments and yet the very concept of an MULTIPLAYER game is alien to you. What gives?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:37:00 -
[546] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Tippia wrote:No, I'm not advocating the removal of CONCORD Yes? So where do you get the idea that I somehow no longer mean what I said earlier? GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Miss President
SOLARIS ASTERIUS
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:38:00 -
[547] - Quote
Suicide ganking is just beginning with new BC cruiser hulls |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:39:00 -
[548] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Yes? So where do you get the idea that I somehow no longer mean what I said earlier?
Tippia wrote:No, I'm not advocating the removal of CONCORD GÇö I'm using it as a counter-example or reductio ad absurdum of the idea that insurance for ganks is not realistic. I'm advocating making highsec less safe for the various reasons I've enumerated earlier. So do you want CONCORD nerfed or not?
If you do want it nerfed, are you still claiming that it wouldn't affect hi sec players?
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:42:00 -
[549] - Quote
K Suri wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: tldr: It has never been about the insurance, you know. Lack of insurance won't stop people from dropping a few million on a suicide-gank boat. The real danger stemming from this change comes from the precedent it sets.
A precedent? I'm watching a trend lately where some people that resent any change are reverting to lore and "the past" as a defense because no other argument carries weight anymore. Regardless of whether any changes suggested might actually improve the game and increase subs, game potential and ultimately game life. The largest volume of "don't break what works for me" is fighting an "it's broken, fix it for me" brigade which is becoming more and more vocal. Why? Because more of them are stating a POV that was never "allowed" by vets who think they know better. Is this because the "noobs" are starting to be a majority now? I simply don't know but something is brewing that's for sure. We are definitely shifting from the very polarised view of what Eve "should be" to what Eve "could be" and we seem to be at a crossroads where the defense of "Eve principles" is being tested. I personally prefer my games to evolve and not sit in some quaint fantasy land with idealogical stagnation. Is the acceptance/non acceptance of suicide ganking one of those stagnated gamestyles that could change? I think the topic does need to have an airing and belligerent attitudes against those with contrary views is not the way to do it. One thing about EVE that we can't deny is that it was meant to be a pvp-focused MMO, with a heavy emphasis on non-consensual pvp. This isn't just something I'm pulling out of my buttocks; it was original developer intent, stated and confirmed by the developers.
So, here's a litmus test we should apply to the situation:
- Have the past changes (see: CONCORD buffs, lofty, insurance nerf #1, dec shields), and the proposed changes (see: insurance nerf #2, CONCORD buffs) been more or less conductive toward maintaining the original intent and core integrity of the game?
- Have the above changes changed the game for the better, or for the worse?
The second question can be possibly answered in terms of evaluating proportional subscription growth, and the overall approval rating that CCP gets from EVE players. |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:44:00 -
[550] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:Tippia wrote:Yes? So where do you get the idea that I somehow no longer mean what I said earlier? Tippia wrote:No, I'm not advocating the removal of CONCORD GÇö I'm using it as a counter-example or reductio ad absurdum of the idea that insurance for ganks is not realistic. I'm advocating making highsec less safe for the various reasons I've enumerated earlier. So do you want CONCORD nerfed or not? If you do want it nerfed, are you still claiming that it wouldn't affect hi sec players? Why even ask his opinion, he's a freakin' carebear! 'Bout time you all stop getting your chain yanked. He has no idea of the implication to gankers or otherwise because he's not even involved in it.
He does missions all day ffs. |
|
Jita Alt666
479
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:44:00 -
[551] - 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?
|
Yvan Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:44:00 -
[552] - Quote
About time lol WTF are the cops reinbursing your ship after killing you for breaking the law lol |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:45:00 -
[553] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:So do you want CONCORD nerfed or not? I would like to see it nerfed, yes. So where do you get the idea that I somehow no longer mean what I said earlier?
Quote:If you do want it nerfed, are you still claiming that it wouldn't affect hi sec players? GÇ£StillGÇ¥ presumes that I have claimed so in the past. What I've said is that it will not force them to adopt a new play style.
K Suri wrote:He does missions all day ffs. Incorrect. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Lord Wiggin
Furian Necromongers
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:46:00 -
[554] - Quote
As a past Highsec ganker (Alts of course) I can say I never decided to gank or not gank based on an Insurance payout. It should be removed, or at least modified for illegal activity. If your being punished, concord should void, or take the resulting payout as a fine....or they could institute a sliding scale fine depending on the sec status of the shot pilot. Perhaps even a Concord insurance bonus for negative sec characters, make sec status pay!
|
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
65
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:49:00 -
[555] - Quote
Arthur Frayn 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. Since you guys have had that "feeling" for such a long time, it's a pity you were too meek to act on it sooner.
You see? No matter what CCP does, they will -never- please the highsec bears. The bears will not be happy untill all of eve is available to them at zero risk. Im not kidding, or exaggerating. That is just what they're used to. Every game they've ever played has never had nearly the same level of risk as Eve does. These are the people who are unwilling or unable to cope with new concepts.
You could make their ships respawn 100%, with zero losses, and they will still complain about killmail record showing they died... or they'll complain that it took them 5 whole minutes to get back into the asteroid belt and continue mining. They wont ever stop whining. Its just their mentality. They want to be able to achieve 100% of the game with perfection. They want to get every single achievement and never die once. These are the guys who ragequit in L4D because they dont want to damage their Win/Loss ratio with another loss. These are not true eve players. These are not the players eve was intended to appeal to. By changing the game mechanics to suit these players, you are effectively destroying what made eve unique.
Please CCP, give the carebears their own shard. I know EVE's major feature is that everyone is on one shard, but at this rate, you have to ether destroy what makes eve great to keep the people who want godmode or singleplayer, or give them their own shard with the rules they will enjoy.
Its already done with the Chinese server. Please give the carebears their own universe so they dont have to destroy mine |
K Suri
Red Gooey Bananas
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:49:00 -
[556] - Quote
Tippia wrote:K Suri wrote:He does missions all day ffs. Incorrect. So a 4 man corp on 100% tax does?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
1289
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:54:00 -
[557] - Quote
K Suri wrote:So a 4 man corp on 100% tax does? At the moment, I mainly do S&I and trade with a sprinkling of exploration. I'm also gearing up for providing decshield services (but that won't be within SLOPS).
The others are being lazy bums by not providing any corp income. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
65
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 01:55:00 -
[558] - Quote
. |
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:02:00 -
[559] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Sure, I'll buy that. But tell me, how exactly are we supposed to go and pvp in low/null, if the majority of players never touch those areas with a proverbial ten-foot pole?
Which suggests the game is either broken (assuming the idea of the game is for players to get acquainted with things in hi-sec, then move on to low/null) or is based on a flawed premise that people want to play a game in an environment like null/low sec (at least with the level of risk vs reward in Eve).
It is either up to CCP to come up with something innovative to make it more attractive and/or up to those large alliances out there to adapt, come up with things that will attract people (offer to take groups out there and give free training on the rookie channel?) because their current behaviour doesn't seem to be working.
Destiny Corrupted wrote: And it's not like the carebears are willing to compromise.
Which isn't true, there are plenty of "carebear" posts that state hi-sec should not be risk free, but that the risk / reward is too much in favour of the ganker and that is what needs adjustment.
Destiny Corrupted wrote: If you're not willing to compromise, then we aren't either, and we'll continue to gank you. We'll keep ganking you right up to the point when ganking is no longer a sanctioned mechanic, at which point we will leave,
Speak for yourself, I PvP sometimes, I don't bother ganking in hi-sec, for the same reasons I don't bother whacking low level newbs on PvP servers in other games with my end-game raid geared character:
1- It is just about the dullest excuse for PvP out there. 2- It is counter-productive in terms of keeping/attracting players.
The fact that ganking in hi-sec is many peoples "PvP" in this game, just shows how broken this game is.
Destiny Corrupted wrote:The real danger stemming from this change comes from the precedent it sets.
Being a little melodramtic aren't we? It is just another adjustment, they happen all the time. |
Gealla
Capital Storm. Shadow of xXDEATHXx
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:05:00 -
[560] - Quote
The reality is, most of the points made in this thread are good points, from both sides.
Unfortunately, and I think CCP have realized this, maintaining EVE if a form such as it's original concept dictated would eventually spell the death of the game.
The type of players who enjoy that model are few and far between, this is demonstarted in EVE's absurdly bad Noob retention numbers. Subs now are not much different to when I started 6 years ago, but the cost to CCP has increased every year.
If CCP wants to survive as a company, they will need to make their cash cow into something that attracts the majority of new players and keeps them interested for more than the initial 14 day free period and, unfortunately, a safe highsec is the most likely to do this. This has been demonstarted in the recent layoff's, and the fact that the subcription level is so low that a few thousand vet's canceling their subs could force this to happen.
Making Highsec more dangerous would bring the game back closer into it's orignal concept, but it won't do anything to increase new subscriptions. |
|
Barakach
R-ISK EVE Trade Consortium
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:19:00 -
[561] - Quote
Kitty McKitty wrote:Eve is too hard and needs to protect its little high sec babbies with stupid mechanics. stupid mechanics to protect stupid crybabies. Eve should not be pandering to these whiners. It is meant to be a cold harsh universe FFS. Having said that, it wont stop people suicide ganking if they really want to, it will just make people look for higher value targets and encourage bears to get complacent.
This alone wouldn't really be that bad but combined with basically allowing anyone in high sec to completely easily avoid war decs and also reducing the 'ease' of scams it is just sending eve into a wrong direction of cotton wool and rainbows. Bullshit.
Yes, lets remove high sec and low sec and just have null sec everywhere!
Or lets just call it "high sec" and actually make it low sec.
Carebears aren't real people and shouldn't have a voice anyway. I should automatically be able to blow them up and laugh.
If you want to PvP that much, war dec them, or go play in low/null. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:21:00 -
[562] - Quote
Ryllic Sin wrote:Which isn't true, there are plenty of "carebear" posts that state hi-sec should not be risk free, but that the risk / reward is too much in favour of the ganker and that is what needs adjustment. I don't want to argue about semantics, but those players aren't exactly carebears. Also, their voices are entirely overshadowed by those who want non-consensual player interaction to be removed in its entirety.
Ryllic Sin wrote:Speak for yourself, I PvP sometimes, I don't bother ganking in hi-sec, for the same reasons I don't bother whacking low level newbs on PvP servers in other games with my end-game raid geared character:
1- It is just about the dullest excuse for PvP out there. 2- It is counter-productive in terms of keeping/attracting players.
The fact that ganking in hi-sec is many peoples "PvP" in this game, just shows how broken this game is. While you're more than entitled to your playstyle, those statements, aside maybe from point #2 (it hasn't really been proven, though), are simply opinions. Besides, a year-plus-old pilot isn't exactly a "low level newb," a Hulk isn't exactly a low-end spaceboat, and killing someone's untanked t1 hauler for 500 million ISK worth of faction gear isn't a dull excuse for pvp.
Ryllic Sin wrote:Being a little melodramtic aren't we? It is just another adjustment, they happen all the time. Adjustments can be good and bad. Fixing hybrids is an adjustment. The addition of a pvp flag would also be an adjustment. Just because adjustments happen all the time, doesn't mean all of them should. |
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:27:00 -
[563] - Quote
EvE is real?
Well, in real life .. - Police don't pay your gun or destroyed car if they catch you and take it away - you would get into yail for years when Police catches you after a crime
No refound is the first step ... now bring some sort of yail too!
After suizid gang and concorded ... you can't undock & use market & use contracts & direct trade & send/recive money for 48 hours (minimum, better 2 weeks).
Do I care if gangers lose the fun? No, in no way! They don't care about the fun of their targets too! |
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:28:00 -
[564] - Quote
I'm bored and taking the opportunity to post in a bunch of threads I've been eyeing for a while....
So here's my take, coming from someone who's only suicided a pod before, and hasn't lived in highsec in like 2 years. So you can either call me a neutral 3rd party, or say I don't know WTF I'm talking about. I think both sides have a strong argument for ganking. Insurance payout for a CONCORD kill never really made sense. Yes, I know, the insurance program in Eve doesn't really make sense to begin with, so we could start with that, but this part REALLY doesn't make sense. So yea, just from an immersion breaking standpoint it probably needed to be fixed. They would also make the argument that highsec is suppose to be less-risky (notice I didn't say safe, there should be no such thing in Eve), but there is less risk involved the higher into sec stat you move. So yea, gankers should probably only be ganking truly worthwhile targets, and not everyone that happens by because after insurance it only costs them pennies (comparatively, really I don't know because I'm not really into that profession).
Now, on the flip side, ganking is a legitimacy profession that has long been recognized by CCP. They don't give the persons stuff back when they get ganked, they respond with "such is Eve, it's dark and cold and ruthless". While this doesn't completely remove that profession, we should recognize that it puts a significant ding in their operation. While they've made precious few friends, we should all be able to recognize that Eve is a sandbox and even though others may not like them or what they do, they have the option of doing that as their Eve. That is their sandcastle, they should be allowed to build it.
So here's my attempt to satisfy both parties. Remove the insurance, but as compensation make a ship designed around suicide ganking (one might argue that this is the Tornado, but I really don't think it is). Every other profession has their specialized ships, from the Noctis to the frighter to the cov ops to the interceptor there is a ship that you can train for that makes what you do somehow better and easier. Design a ship (and I really couldn't begin to give you balanced specs) around their profession. What do you gankers think? would this be a worthwhile trade off, instead of having to borrow high alpha battleships that are more suited for 0.0 warfare and very cost ineffective, have something balanced to your specific needs? |
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
40
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:34:00 -
[565] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Also, their voices are entirely overshadowed by those who want non-consensual player interaction to be removed in its entirety.
It may be a matter of perception but I haven't been seeing that sentiment with any frequency on the forums.
|
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
69
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:36:00 -
[566] - Quote
Its not really any single one of these changes. If it was just the suicide ganking/insurance thing, ok fine, it does kinda make sense.
But its not just insurance, its every rule in eve slowly changing one little bit, like this, at a time. You cant even wardec highsec corps anymore. It was made legal by CCP to abuse the mechanics and evade wardecs. This also made all those expensive research towers in highsec effectively invincible. Pirates now get concorded when they're ganking corpmates... because now they can be kicked from corp while they're in the middle of their gank.
Next up is warp-to-0 autopilot, taking away entry level highsec ganking
And Cloaks have been whined about forever, and CCP has recently hinted at cloak changes, so god only knows what kind of nerfs thats going to get as well.
Its not just the insurance, its all of these things. Every single one of them all combined total up to WOW-In-Space future for eve. |
Jack All'Trade
Republic University Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:38:00 -
[567] - Quote
Kitty McKitty wrote:Eve is too hard and needs to protect its little high sec babbies with stupid mechanics. stupid mechanics to protect stupid crybabies. Eve should not be pandering to these whiners. It is meant to be a cold harsh universe FFS. Having said that, it wont stop people suicide ganking if they really want to, it will just make people look for higher value targets and encourage bears to get complacent.
This alone wouldn't really be that bad but combined with basically allowing anyone in high sec to completely easily avoid war decs and also reducing the 'ease' of scams it is just sending eve into a wrong direction of cotton wool and rainbows. Bullshit.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what griefer tears taste like. |
Jojo Jackson
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:39:00 -
[568] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Besides, a year-plus-old pilot isn't exactly a "low level newb," a Hulk isn't exactly a low-end spaceboat, and killing someone's untanked t1 hauler for 500 million ISK worth of faction gear isn't a dull excuse for pvp.
A 1+ year old miner is a "low level newb" if it comes to fights.
A Hulk is a low-end spaceboat when it comes to survibility (hell, some T1 frigs and cruisers can tank better AND are much easier to fitt!!).
You don't need to haul 500m ISK of faction gear to be ganged ... more often it is enough to have 1 (ONE) BP-COPY of some rocket + a bit of POS fuel in your cargo to be ganged! (which is in fact less then 5m of ISK).
Allways this STUPID advices like "don't use autopiolt" or "don't carrie expensive stuff" ... we ALL know, that this false advices are nothink but bad attamps to excuse agressive gameplay! - gangers are BEHIND the cates where hauler need to alligne for 10+ seconds (no manual fly will ever help you!!) - gangers attack for much less then 5m worth of cargo - gangers ALLWAYS chose targets where they know, they will get a 100% sure kill - NO mining or transport ship can be fitted for decent tanks ... you know it and it's FAIL balance (check out Perpetuum hauler/miner ... they can be tanked like creazy!)
Until now gangers have SERO risk in your FAIL "risk v. reward" calculation .. and every damn ganger know this! |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:50:00 -
[569] - Quote
BeanBagKing wrote:So here's my attempt to satisfy both parties. Remove the insurance, but as compensation make a ship designed around suicide ganking (one might argue that this is the Tornado, but I really don't think it is). Every other profession has their specialized ships, from the Noctis to the frighter to the cov ops to the interceptor there is a ship that you can train for that makes what you do somehow better and easier. Design a ship (and I really couldn't begin to give you balanced specs) around their profession. What do you gankers think? would this be a worthwhile trade off, instead of having to borrow high alpha battleships that are more suited for 0.0 warfare and very cost ineffective, have something balanced to your specific needs? While this would be awesome, it will never happen. In fact, the exact opposite will come to pass at some point: the newly-buffed destroyers and awesome tier 3 battlecruisers are going to get nerfed because their primary utility is going to be suicide-ganking.
Terminal Insanity wrote:Its not really any single one of these changes. If it was just the suicide ganking/insurance thing, ok fine, it does kinda make sense.
But its not just insurance, its every rule in eve slowly changing one little bit, like this, at a time. You cant even wardec highsec corps anymore. It was made legal by CCP to abuse the mechanics and evade wardecs. This also made all those expensive research towers in highsec effectively invincible. Pirates now get concorded when they're ganking corpmates... because now they can be kicked from corp while they're in the middle of their gank.
Next up is warp-to-0 autopilot, taking away entry level highsec ganking
And Cloaks have been whined about forever, and CCP has recently hinted at cloak changes, so god only knows what kind of nerfs thats going to get as well.
Its not just the insurance, its all of these things. Every single one of them all combined total up to WOW-In-Space future for eve. Pretty much. Hence my argument of a "precedent" in my long post on the previous page. |
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 02:57:00 -
[570] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: While this would be awesome, it will never happen. In fact, the exact opposite will come to pass at some point: the newly-buffed destroyers and awesome tier 3 battlecruisers are going to get nerfed because their primary utility is going to be suicide-ganking.
You're probably right (I hope not, but probably). However, you have a voice same as all the people that got insurance removed. Start a threadnaught and get TEARS and crew to really get in on the idea. Make it balanced so the 'bears really don't have anything to come back at you with (nothing reasonable anyway, I know it won't stop them from trying). If you believe, as most level headed people do I think, that ganking is indeed a mini-profession in it's own right, then it shouldn't be treated any differently from any other mini profession.
1% systems get traveled by 99% of the players! Occupy Niarja! (am I doing it right?) |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |