EVE Search - Thanks for caving in CCP.

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Thanks for caving in CCP.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:41:00 - [61] Originally by: Pesky LaRue Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Pesky LaRue what so many people fail to understand that is if people want to pay $15 a month to hang out in Empire, that's THEIR business, not YOUR business. just because YOU want to gank people who don't want to be ganked doesn't mean you should be able to. Linkage i know you're having trouble getting your tiny mind around this, but you CAN still gank people in high-sec, it just won't be as easy. i understand that you want to stamp your foot a few times until you get some attention but go find a link to ANYWHERE that says you won't be able to suicide gank anymore and we'll all give you a little hug and wipe your tears away. "just because YOU want to gank people who don't want to be ganked doesn't mean you should be able to" This statement is incorrect. See link. Impending changes are irrelevant. - DesuSigs
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:41:00 - [62] Edited by: J Kunjeh on 06/08/2008 15:43:30 Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist We live in a world where nobody can accept responsibility for their own actions and it's always somebody else's fault. It's not my fault that I AFK-hauled and got ganked! Isn't that the same mentality the other way around? They can't accept the fact that an aggressive attack on another person in high-sec should warrant a very hard and tough punishment. If you purposefully killed someone in front of CONCORD, knowing that you yourself would die ... shouldn't that carry a hefty punishment? It seems more than 'fair', to use the term, that if you commit the crime, you don't get insurance payouts, AND you get enough of a sec hit that you can't enter high-sec. The lack of accepting 'responsibility' goes both ways. I totally agree Ruze. And I also fully support these new changes to the security standings of gankers (and no, I've never been ganked, so it's not personal). Highsec is supposed to be relatively safe compared to lowsec. You wouldn't expect to conk a sleeping homeless man over the head and steal his stuff out in front of a police office with no consequence would you? Then why would you expect to gank someone right next to CONCORD with little consequence?
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:42:00 - [63] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Tarminic Hell, under the current system it's profitable to suicide gank an empty hauler with 2 tractor beams FITTED SOMEWHERE ON THE SHIP and expanded cargohold IIs in its low-slots. WTB: Low-slot tractor beams. BECAUSE I AM AWESOME Fixed. rgr - DesuSigs
Pesky LaRue Minmatar L.O.S.T. Defence Force	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:47:00 - [64] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Pesky LaRue Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Pesky LaRue what so many people fail to understand that is if people want to pay $15 a month to hang out in Empire, that's THEIR business, not YOUR business. just because YOU want to gank people who don't want to be ganked doesn't mean you should be able to. Linkage i know you're having trouble getting your tiny mind around this, but you CAN still gank people in high-sec, it just won't be as easy. i understand that you want to stamp your foot a few times until you get some attention but go find a link to ANYWHERE that says you won't be able to suicide gank anymore and we'll all give you a little hug and wipe your tears away. "just because YOU want to gank people who don't want to be ganked doesn't mean you should be able to" This statement is incorrect. See link. Impending changes are irrelevant. you know, you're right, let me qualify that statement - "just because YOU want to gank people who don't want to be ganked doesn't mean you should be able to without fear of any consequences beyond losing a cheap ship" once again, if you can link me to anything saying this will stop suicide ganking, i'll pipe down. hell, i'll even send you enough ISK to buy you some kleenex and a happy meal. but the reality of this is that suicide ganking will still be possible - just like ram-raiding a store in the middle of the day on rodeo blvd is possible - it's just going to be harder and left in the realm of the "professional ganker" and not "random griefer" This message came from the Minmatar Messiah, accept no imitations Pesky LaRue, Minmatar Messiah Bringing Salvation To Your System Soon! ++ PRAY FOR PESKY ++
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:49:00 - [65] Originally by: Pesky LaRue you know, you're right, let me qualify that statement - "just because YOU want to gank people who don't want to be ganked doesn't mean you should be able to without fear of any consequences beyond losing a cheap ship" Fair enough. And I never said this would stop suicide ganking. But one must not confuse the necessity of consequences on the part of the ganker with a right not to be ganked on the part of the gankee. - DesuSigs
Kruntologist Red Eye .Inc. Rare Faction	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:50:00 - [66] Originally by: Janu Hull Edited by: Janu Hull on 06/08/2008 14:19:45 If you suicide gank any ship that isn't worth more than the ship you're about to lose, you're essentially a barking moron deserving of a painful reminder to play intelligently. Stop being sloppy and target the good stuff. This isn't the death of suicide ganking, its just a reminder to gankers that this game isn't meant to be easy on the predator any more than the prey. This, tbh. It isn't the end of suicide ganking. This will just be the end of unintelligent suicide ganking (ie ppl attacking empty freighters hoping something good will be inside and losing very little if wrong).
Mara Kell Steel Beasts	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:51:00 - [67] Originally by: 5pinDizzy I tell you what, although the principles of the EVE world are getting screwed, I am going to LOL HARD at the first whine on this forum by the carebear who accidently shot a neutral entity in a l4 mission, got concorded and recieved no insurance. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Concord isnt triggered anymore by shooting neutral structures in missions.
Praleon Gallente Eve Liberation Force Liberty.	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:54:00 - [68] I don't normally chime in on these kinds of topics because standard internet trollery is far beneath my general concern, and I know that 95% of the responses will be thus. That being said, EVE Online is a video game that tries to simulate life in a futuristic universe with empires, rules, society, etc. I will dismantle this and all similar posts from 3 perspectives, simulation-wise, game balance-wise, and meta-game wise. 1) Simulationist One part of an Empire is "Law"... to hold any credibility, all empires must enforce laws that protect peaceful life within them. If they don't? Well, that makes them just about as useless as your average 0.0 space corp... completely incapable of controlling what happens in its own space. That's why 0.0 corps don't turn their space into 0.5, 0.7, or 1.0. In its current state, the game allows you to "suicide gank" innocent people and take, potentially, every last thing they have. The POINT of CONCORD shooting you down when you do this is to PROTECT the assets of ANYONE in their space. That's what a "government" does, and it's what this simulates. TECHNICALLY, they should stay at the scene and revive the damaged ship, protect the wreckage, and/or return the contents of the destroyed ship to the original owner... which is what the police would really do if we were to gang up and wreck a semi on the highway in real life. If we want to rob a semi truck in said fashion, we'll have to do it out in the boonies somewhere and clear out before the police arrive. They are SIMULATING the safety of controlled space in this fashion, and the proposed changes PERFECTLY REINFORCE THIS CONCEPT. 2) Game Balance "I don't think people fully realize what's at stake here... As the OP title hinted at, this is CCP caving in and going back on one of their core principles, in what seems a desperate measure to keep disgruntled players who were too lazy to play on any other mode than AFK-mode. What dies here isn't suicide ganking, because there will still be ways, what dies here is CCP's integrity and, IMO, much of what was attractive about this game in the first place; the cold, unforgiving atmosphere." This kind of retort indicates absolutely minimal thinking about the repercussions of the behaviors of players in the game. I've never been suicide ganked. As a matter of fact, I didn't buy an obelisk because of suicide ganking being present in the game. They will in fact kill suicide ganking, as, it is not an intended method of taking people's things away from them. 0.5-1.0 space is considered "safe space" and is a place for people to play the game when they DO NOT FEEL LIKE MESSING WITH YOU. Now, how is it not balanced? It allows those who are trying to SAFELY MAKE A LIVING to be ruthlessly GANKED by those who already HAVE MADE A LIVING in EVE. This is one of EVE's forms of griefing. The dev's have CLEARLY COMMUNICATED that they intend 0.0 and lowsec to be the place for PVP. Already in game is the ability to war dec someone's corporation in high sec, to steal someone's jetcanned minerals, and to salvage other people's wrecks. These things should be enough. To be continued: Praleon CEO Judgement Klan Corporation
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:54:00 - [69] Originally by: 5pinDizzy You know all those ISK farmers we're supposed to petition that you never ban? They aren't going to suicide ganked either now, they must all be jumping for joy as the sound of this news. I don't really understand this arguement TBH, obviously they should be banned, but you would have to suicide gank them all day everyday for it to make a difference. One of the systems I frequent there are dozens of them, it would be impossible to make any significant impact on them currently by suicide ganking. So I'm not sure how reducing frequency with which the fraction of a percent of them that ever so occasionally get suicide ganked; get ganked; is going to change anything at all. Quote: I can't think of anyone who deserves sympathy that's been suicide ganked. - The people carrying 100mill in the untanked t1 hauler? No. - The freighter carrying 99 gazzillion isk in capital ship bpo's? No. This change isn't going to make those people any safer. They will still be quite killable for quite a profit. If they fail to die though, you will lose more, thus bringing some risk into the other side of the equation.
Slanty McGarglefist	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:55:00 - [70] As you can see, CCP has most likely been instructed to stay away from the forums today. The userbase is very hostile today. __________________________________________________ Originally by: CCP Wrangler No Doh!

Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:55:00 - [71] Originally by: Praleon I don't think people fully realize what's at stake here... As the OP title hinted at, this is CCP caving in and going back on one of their core principles, in what seems a desperate measure to keep disgruntled players who were too lazy to play on any other mode than AFK-mode. What dies here isn't suicide ganking, because there will still be ways, what dies here is CCP's integrity and, IMO, much of what was attractive about this game in the first place; the cold, unforgiving atmosphere. QFT - DesuSigs
Nexus1972 Pat Sharp's Potato Rodeo Daedalus Hegemony	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:57:00 - [72] I dont see the problem. At the moment Suicide ganking with purchase costs and insurance means apart from a sec hit no cost to the aggressors and even that can be made up quickly. This will not stop suicide ganking - it just means that the target has to be worth killing as opposed to people just ganking ppl for the heck of it. I personally have never been ganked, but then I dont carry anything of value unless escorted. It redresses the risk->reward balance which due to the dropping costs of t1 ships means that the risk is no longer there. To the gankers this could be good for you too - just think of all the extra people that will now consider afk piloting safe now - more juicy targets, it just that you will have to pick your targets more carefully now. It also means if pilots with good standing decide to clear up a few pirates in low sec we dont take such a big sec hit ourselves now. --------------------- Pat Sharpe's Potato Rodeo
Pesky LaRue Minmatar L.O.S.T. Defence Force	Posted - 2008.08.06 15:58:00 - [73] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Pesky LaRue you know, you're right, let me qualify that statement - "just because YOU want to gank people who don't want to be ganked doesn't mean you should be able to without fear of any consequences beyond losing a cheap ship" Fair enough. And I never said this would stop suicide ganking. But one must not confuse the necessity of consequences on the part of the ganker with a right not to be ganked on the part of the gankee. again, that's a very fair comment. i don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this but the initial knee-jerk reaction from too many people has been "OMG THIS RUINS MY FUN AND MAKES CAREBEARS HAPPY WHICH MAKES ME CRY ALONE AT NIGHT AND MAKES ME FEEL ALL 'SANDY'" when it's just another time that the old EVE addage of "adapt or die" seems very fitting. This message came from the Minmatar Messiah, accept no imitations Pesky LaRue, Minmatar Messiah Bringing Salvation To Your System Soon! ++ PRAY FOR PESKY ++
J Valkor Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:01:00 - [74] I'm sorry suicide ganking is no longer risk free? You will still be able to kill t1 haulers carrying hundreds of million in ISK with a t1 fitted BC. You are just ****ed that it is cutting into your profit margins.
Pesky LaRue Minmatar L.O.S.T. Defence Force	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:02:00 - [75] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Praleon I don't think people fully realize what's at stake here... As the OP title hinted at, this is CCP caving in and going back on one of their core principles, in what seems a desperate measure to keep disgruntled players who were too lazy to play on any other mode than AFK-mode. What dies here isn't suicide ganking, because there will still be ways, what dies here is CCP's integrity and, IMO, much of what was attractive about this game in the first place; the cold, unforgiving atmosphere. QFT ok, i agree largely with you but if CCP hadn't always believed there should be a 'relative safe-zone' then they would never have added CONCORD, sentry guns, etc, etc. i don't think it's true to say they are "caving", per se, but that they are readjusting some of the current rules to bring the game closer into line with what they have always had as their vision for EVE. it WILL still be a cold, unforgiving atmosphere, now it will just take more determination on the part of the pirate or ganker to attack people in high-sec. This message came from the Minmatar Messiah, accept no imitations Pesky LaRue, Minmatar Messiah Bringing Salvation To Your System Soon! ++ PRAY FOR PESKY ++
Praleon Gallente Eve Liberation Force Liberty.	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:07:00 - [76] Edited by: Praleon on 06/08/2008 16:10:06 "I can't think of anyone who deserves sympathy that's been suicide ganked. - The people carrying 100mill in the untanked t1 hauler? No. - The freighter carrying 99 gazzillion isk in capital ship bpo's? No. - Giant gangs of mining barges? Hell No." This is completely imbalanced. People doing these BORING activities in hi-sec are PAYING THE WAGES so that they can begin to participate in PVP, or at least work on the sidelines of PVP. They deserve to be completely robbed for this? Game balance wouldn't have it such that you and your gang of 10 guys get a big reward for blowing up a ship that CANNOT BE FITTED TO DEFEND AGAINST YOU. Game balance would not have you harvest a sack of BPOs from an innocent traveller and be able to turn massive profit from that which you got with little to no risk. RISK vs. REWARD. You want big reward? Go set up some moon mining operations out in 0.0, explore, invent, and haul. Steal from those who are doing it there. That's where the RISK comes in for you. This dude tugging BILLIONS of ISK worth of tritanium in Hi-Sec? He's gonna make like 15% profit for 3 hours of infinitely boring work with no risk. You want to be able to cut in on his profit and add a ridiculous risk to turn his 3 hour SNORE-A-THON into a 3 hour, potentially GAME RUINING LOSS? TOUGH SHIT. Those days are over, and CCP's wise for it. 3) Meta-Game The game above the game... where CCP earns money by attracting customers, and, we have more fun as the population and size of the game universe increases... can only be positively influenced by this change... If a group of 5 miners quit because they all lost their 100 mil ISK hulks and tons of minerals for the 4th time, that's 5 less players contributing positively to the in-game economy. That's $75 USD less for CCPs wallet, and that's 5 people walking around, anytime being asked about EVE saying, "Well, the game is okay, but, people who have been playing it for 3+ years pretty much run it and will kill you for no reason with you having no recourse. They'll blow up your ships and take everything you've got by suicide ganking, etc. I do not recommend the game"... and believe me, EVE ONLINE has enough of those walking around. So what if you quit? When you're asked about EVE Online you're going to say "omg it suxors because u used to be able to steal from innocent people and have no punishment but then they put police in and i have to hack it out in 0.0 now and lolz it sucks." Really? You and your suicide gank-squad's $75 USD is FAR LESS IMPORTANT than the miner and hauler player's $75 USD, because they are RESPONSIBLY PLAYING THE GAME rather than EXPLOITING POOR GAME AI AGAINST FELLOW PLAYERS. You and your mates are giving people incentive to QUIT the game, while he and his mates are helping people afford better ships for less money. Period. To conclude... These forums, and all proposed changes to this MMO and any other MMO I've played (DAOC, DDO, WOW, LOTRO, Planetside, Tabula Rasa, etc etc etc) are always plagued by ELITISTS who are so afraid that they'll lose their superiority that NO CHANGE is good, and by TROLLS/GRIEFERS, who only want to play the game to boost their own ego by annoying and hurting other people. OMG CCP "caved" and listened to its important user-base instead of it's self-assuming-of-importance 0.0/suicide gank crowd? LOL. Give me a break. CCP is doing a great job of LISTENING TO ITS USERS. If they didn't they'd be like the other MMOs out there, that blindly just do their own thing. CCP should listen less to its old players and more to its new. I'm neither, I'm a couple years in... EVE is the best MMO out there. Don't let your own lack of insight ruin it because you are SO concerned with trying to seem elite and hardcore. And for this issue? Take your ELITISM and HARDCORENESS out to lowsec (empty) and 0.0 (too hot for you? Oh, I thought you were good at this game.) Have a nice day and, /flame on. Praleon CEO Judgement Klan Corporation
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:08:00 - [77] Sounds like a good fix to me. No reason why you should collect insurance when you are purposely losing your ship. That's insurance fraud. Adapt. This is a issue that should of been implemented long ago. Just because it wasn't there, doesn't make it wrong to put it in now. Maybe CCP doesn't want losers, who should be playing the game, sitting in Empire waiting for the next big suicide gank. Play the game you losers. Eve wasn't developed for people to take advantage of loopholes and get their jollies. Maybe CCP wants you to actually play their game? Ever think of that? Suicide ganking is just lame. This fix doesn't change much... expect what is right. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Trind2222 Amarr The Red Ring	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:10:00 - [78] carebars day to day. They got wardeck nerfed They Got suicide nerfed They got nano nerfed Welcome to high sec where we all can make allot isk on lvl 4 Or is a early 1. April joke.
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:11:00 - [79] Originally by: 5pinDizzy Why are the people playing smart always getting nerfed and the lazy ones always getting more protection? I don't see an issue. You can still gank someone. You won't collect your insurance, but waa-waa-waa... cry all you want. You want the best of BOTH worlds... fat chance. Gank people... grief people all you want... but CCP is doing good here. Lose your insurance... that's the counter effect. Deal with it. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
MailDeadDrop Archon Industries	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:16:00 - [80] Originally by: 5pinDizzy I am going to LOL HARD at the first whine on this forum by the carebear who accidently shot a neutral entity in a l4 mission, got concorded and recieved no insurance. There are some Eve players, myself included, that would be interested in offering player-issued insurance policies. Since they would be player-issued, and since there would be several issuers, the policies would likely have a great variety of terms; enough so that most everyone's tastes could be satisfied. Unfortunately CCP has yet to implement the mechanisms to allow such player-issued policies to exist and resist fraud. So we're stuck with CCP-issued policies. Maybe the hinted-at Winter "industrial-oriented" expansion will address this. MDD Jump Clones: 8M and NO corp switching

The Economist Logically Consistent	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:17:00 - [81] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Praleon I don't think people fully realize what's at stake here... As the OP title hinted at, this is CCP caving in and going back on one of their core principles, in what seems a desperate measure to keep disgruntled players who were too lazy to play on any other mode than AFK-mode. What dies here isn't suicide ganking, because there will still be ways, what dies here is CCP's integrity and, IMO, much of what was attractive about this game in the first place; the cold, unforgiving atmosphere. QFT Yep. The general trend of incremental steps towards the fluffy side worries me. CSM: This so called council got elected by 5.7% of the player base! (12678 votes) Who the hell are they going to represent???
Slaver Hatastus	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:23:00 - [82] Originally by: 5pinDizzy Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 06/08/2008 16:21:04 This is not a balance change, this is from ONE EXTREME TO THE OTHER. I can't stress this enough. y'know, it's really hard for me to believe you're actually asking us for sympathy on how hard it is to attack someone who isn't fighting back. AND NO, I'VE NEVER BEEN GANKED
Slaver Hatastus	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:23:00 - [83] Originally by: Mjeh Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu I dont see whats changed, you can still kill the chumps afking through highsec space with a hold full of isk goodness. They're lowering concord response times, so while you can still kill chumps it will be much harder now. How much harder we don't know yet. hard enough for it to be a challenge instead of relatively easy money, you mean?
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:25:00 - [84] The change was a long time coming, anyone not seeing this must be blind. War declarations use them. Oh yes, that'd put you at risk at times when you don't want to be, my bad. Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Tatsujin Koufu	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:25:00 - [85] Originally by: Mjeh Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu I dont see whats changed, you can still kill the chumps afking through highsec space with a hold full of isk goodness. They're lowering concord response times, so while you can still kill chumps it will be much harder now. How much harder we don't know yet. Did'nt they also mention increased lock time on the DPS component of the concord response?
Atlas Oracle Minmatar Native Freshfood	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:25:00 - [86] the humor element in this is pretty much win... all the hardcore internet tough guys with their "eve is a harsh place" teddy bear and "adapt" mantra, crying about it being more costy to gank carebears. irony is a great spice. rich irony, very humorous.
Juleko	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:25:00 - [87] I'd probably have more sympathy if it weren't for the fact that suicide ganking = zero risk (just bring enough numbers) and crazy rewards, certainly compared to mission running. Suicide ganking with insurance has a fixed cost of operations. You can whine about the time it takes to plan a gank but let's be honest, it's not hard to co-ordinate 6-7 overloaded torp Ravens to fire on someone who appears on grid/undocks. And, despite what the pro-gankers say, there isn't a foolproof way of avoiding a suicide gank. You can scout ahead, you can avoid low-sec, but ultimately if you're out in a ship you've spent countless hours and ISK building up then you're screwed. Suicide ganking is so successful because it is impossible to defend against (that and the fact that people are generally stupid, but that's just the icing on the cake). No tank is going to withstand 20+ seconds of torp volleys hitting them, deadspace/officer or not. If you're tackled - you're dead, simple as that. So, raising the cost of operations isn't going to remove suicide ganking - nor should it - but it will certainly make choosing appropriate targets a bigger factor rather than the Jihadswarms and "lol suicide Badger IIs for lulz", etc.
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:26:00 - [88] Originally by: Mjeh The issue is CCP caving in to the overwhelming whine. And yes, we all understand the economic principles behind it, but the guts displayed by CCP when they stated 'if you don't want to lose all your savings in a high sec gank, don't play like an idiot' was what kept some of us playing. Now no more. Ummm... you can still get ganked in high sec. CCP didn't cave in to anyone. I suggest you actually play Eve instead of trolling in high sec for ganks. There's so much more to this game, and you're peeved that others actually do what the devs intended for people to do. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Mjeh STRONG POLITIK	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:28:00 - [89] Originally by: Slaver Hatastus Originally by: Mjeh Originally by: Tatsujin Koufu I dont see whats changed, you can still kill the chumps afking through highsec space with a hold full of isk goodness. They're lowering concord response times, so while you can still kill chumps it will be much harder now. How much harder we don't know yet. hard enough for it to be a challenge instead of relatively easy money, you mean? Ignoring the point at the core of this so blatantly that I don't know why I grace your post with a reply... Probably hard enough that you can't do it solo any more, but this remains to be seen. Keep in mind what type of targets we're talking about here. For suicide ganks we're mostly talking about tech I haulers _AUTOPILOTING_ towards a gate. Are you telling me these targets should be a challenge?
Juleko	Posted - 2008.08.06 16:30:00 - [90] Originally by: Christari Zuborov Originally by: Gojyu Perhaps you guys should move to hello kitty online, you're playing the wrong game. Eve is a harsh, unforgiving kinda place. You guys made suicide ganking something so mundane it was considered the norm, now the harsh and unforgiving part has come around to bite you on the ass. CCP have decreed that you guys are now going to have to actually pony up some isk in order to kill someone is secure space, you know, actually have a bit of risk to go with that reward Give me a big break... Look, everyone knows all this does is raise the bar to free travels in candyland. So instead of hauling 150 million isk freely afk, people can now haul 400 million in isk freely afk because it takes that much more to make it worth while. This isn't a fix at all, it doesn't add RISK to the ganker, it gives no incentive to the hauler to play smarter, it just gives out more free hauling passes... As much as it pains me to say it - this guy is right. Changing insurance doesn't alter the mechanics of suicide ganking at all, it just increases the cost. Variable CONCORD response times would be an interesting change, but I suspect that wouldn't work too well as a unilateral change.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.