open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: The Circle of Life
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 ... : last (24)

Author Topic

Celia Therone
Posted - 2010.04.04 00:46:00 - [541]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Celia Therone
CCP had far more data and far more experience when they announced that T3 cruisers would cost, what was it, 200 million isk each? Now, after some truly monumental changes like the one that cut datacore prices by 99%(!), the hulls alone are running at about 200 million.

So after a few tweaks the ship costs what they said it would cost. Nice!


CCP claimed T3 cruisers (hull+5 subsystems) would cost about 200 million isk.

Currently hull alone costs 200 million isk. The 5 subsystems that you have to fit to turn it into a t3 ship cost around another 170 million.

Total price is therefore around 370 million for an unfit t3 cruiser.

You can confirm this is ballpark correct by going to contracts in game and looking for ships (although most ships are sold with rigs and often fittings). Or you can go to Jita and look up the prices yourself.

So over a year later and multiple huge drop rate boosts have resulted in a price for T3 cruisers almost double that predicted by CCP before launch. You know, back when players on the test servers had priced things out and predicted that T3 cruisers would cost far more than CCP said it was aiming for.

So, frankly, when you say that CCP has better numbers and more experience than the player base I am thoroughly unconvinced. They also have tight schedules, different priorities and a seeming reluctance to listen to economic feedback from their testers.

Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Celia Therone
You remember what grav sites were like when wormholes first went live? You ended up going into 0 sec space to mine base veldspar.

And? How many people emorage-quit over these?


I never said anyone emo-rage quit over anything, stop with the straw men. I was responding to your point that CCP had the information and the numbers and the players didn't. CCP put those ****ty asteroid fields into w-space over protests (including mine) that they would be unused. Sure enough almost no-one used them and a few months later CCP went in and hugely buffed w-space grav sites. We're talking order of magnitude buf***e.

Fusion Power
Posted - 2010.04.04 00:55:00 - [542]
 

Originally by: Ruby Xenoshade

I'll still be out there mining! I'm one of the very few that enjoys being harassed, can flipped, spam convoed, and accused of being a macro. I derive a perverse sense of worth out of it.


Stop whinning, you missed the game.
Harassment, can flipping, miner ganking, and especially spamming and scamming are activities that as, as we have seen so far all this years, activities that are highly desireable and supported by CCP.

Matrae Cor
Minmatar
Third Return Inc.
Posted - 2010.04.04 01:16:00 - [543]
 

I can't imagine that CCP would do anything to impair their real world business model. One risk that they surely must guard against is the game getting stale - so it has to evolve. So changing the game's dynamics as discussed in this thread are likely to keep it interesting and add to the game's vitality. Any economic disruption will be short lived, will not drive people out of EVE, and will represent a great opportunity short term for the spaculators and risk takers in the game. I view this as a good thing.

Another thing they need to guard against is giving any single group in the EVE community too much of an advantage. It is in this vein that I have two concerns.

First is the frequently expressed changes in T-1 insurance. This may have an adverse impact on the noobs entering the game and experiencing EVE's learning curve. Keeping new players in the game is vital to EVE's continued success.

My other concern is with suicide ganking. As mentioned in other posts, the current risk-reward equation gives suicide ganking a significant advantage and little significant risk. The answer to this problem is simple - no insurance payout when a ship is lost to CONCORD. Also the cargo of the lost victum ship should be embargoed for two hours, durning which time the player who lost the ship can return with a replacement and reclaim his cargo and be peacefully on his way. This will halt the suicide ganking entirely.

Fusion Power
Posted - 2010.04.04 01:22:00 - [544]
 

What? No ganking? No way, sir!
Suicide ganking and other people harassment is the sole essence of this game, and greatly rewarded.

Capt Fossil
Gallente
Posted - 2010.04.04 02:21:00 - [545]
 

Edited by: Capt Fossil on 04/04/2010 02:23:06
Originally by: Fusion Power
What? No ganking? No way, sir!
Suicide ganking and other people harassment is the sole essence of this game, and greatly rewarded.

One of the really fail things with the way Insurance works now, and will continue to work after the next expansion.......so far.


If CCP thinks the way to keep people playing this game is to reward the instant gratification kids vs the the hardworking long term traders/industrialists/alliance members/serious pirate corp pvp guys, is the way to riches then more power to them. I will continue to sell characters (and close the accounts) to these kids (who are prolly buying their isk) and find some other way to keep myself occupied.

This whole suicide ganking "look the other way approach" by CCP, and other indicators; play dress up in Incarna Rolling Eyes, "Noob friendly" probing, almost total ignoring of skill's in the invention process, AND "OMG aren't all those hundreds of lame scammers in Jita cool" are NOT encouraging me to continue my 7 remaining accounts.

Get a grip CCP.

1. NAIL the Macro users
2. Cater to your loyal customer base, not ex-WoW punks.
3. Solve your major lag problems BEFORE you make another "expansion"....crap for free is still crap, AND if it makes formerly decent gameplay worse it is SUPER CRAP!

I had TEN accounts, now seven.............paying US Dollars every couple of months. ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROBLEM WITH MACRO USERS...and maybe give us an incentive to help you with it.

Because this whole Insurance, mineral rebalancing thing is a crock of crap without a major attack on Macro'ers.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.04.04 02:41:00 - [546]
 

Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 04/04/2010 02:47:02
Originally by: Celia Therone
CCP claimed T3 cruisers (hull+5 subsystems) would cost about 200 million isk.

Currently hull alone costs 200 million isk. The 5 subsystems that you have to fit to turn it into a t3 ship cost around another 170 million.

Total price is therefore around 370 million for an unfit t3 cruiser.

The price estimated/targeted by CCP was 100-300M, not 200M. So 200M for hull and buying the cheapest subsystems should get you quite close to the upper range.

If they wanted the price to drop, they could just do some changes to the loot tables. So no changes means they do not consider the current price to be wrong.

Originally by: Capt Fossil
If CCP thinks the way to keep people playing this game is to reward the instant gratification kids vs the the hardworking long term traders/industrialists/alliance members/serious pirate corp pvp guys, is the way to riches then more power to them. I will continue to sell characters (and close the accounts) to these kids (who are prolly buying their isk) and find some other way to keep myself occupied.

I've hauled lots of expensive stuff, yet never been suicided.

How do you get their attention? This is one of the aspects of the game I've always wanted to experience first-hand.

Fusion Power
Posted - 2010.04.04 03:05:00 - [547]
 

The "Insurance fraud" indirectly gives many jobs for miners, haulers, builders and soldiers, with moderate profit that cannot compete with L4, not in small percentage, but it works, fills the market, all are happy.

It works good, it's brilliant and brings profit for ccp.

That's all I have to say about that.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.04.04 06:01:00 - [548]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

You're also assuming that macro-miners/ISK-farmers will be the only ones mining after prices drop. That is a somewhat strange assumption since ISK-farmers are the ones MOST focused on how much they bring in. If you see a large scale drop in mineral prices they'll either:
  1. Decide mining is still worth it, keep mining, and prices will drop some more
  2. Decide mining is not worth it and switch to missioning/ratting if that pays better
  3. Decide EVE is not worth it and move to another MMO that pays better
My guess is a) for starters, then b) with some of them going c).



Unless people saying that most of the ice miners are macro are wrong, macro users are willing to do low pay activity if it is easy to macro.

Maybe they aren't part of a RMT ring and simply players using home made macro, but apparently there is a good number of macro users accepting a low hourly return.

Rico Lobo
Posted - 2010.04.04 06:19:00 - [549]
 

ok my thoughts more or less in order

NPC Loot
Frankly replacing them with a mix of sellable "tags", trade goods type loot (seriously I just blew up a pirate ship and there's not even Grog in the wreck?) and "trashed components" (to get minerals out of them) are good ideas.

The catch is going to be how much of the T2 loot that will not be hitting the market now will need to be built to supply the needed bits.

Overall though I think its a fairly good thing on your end

As for the people who think that it should just be striped out altogether and not replaced, may I ask how then are people supposed to make money to pay for all the stuff they are going to have to buy from you. New players will not have the big bankroll to weather the change in income yet because, guess what, there bloodily newbie's, they don't have the skills to fit the T2 crap you want to sell them (if they remove all the other stuff as well as some of you idiot seem to think is a good idea) let alone buy it (remember all that loot they used to sell you to reprocess? simply striping it all out strips them of having the some of the cash they need to pay you for the stuff they want to sell.

also striping the loot and upping the bounties will take away income from the people who buy and resell or buy and haul to resell materials. switching the drops to either refineable slag or a mix of slag and/or sellable to npc loot means your not really impacting the people who "make money" by hauling just to solve one problem

as for insurance?

Simple,

the insurance company is no longer ger offering insurance to pod pilots (for whatever lore reason, mostly because they cant break even with the losses) however your corp (npc) can reimburse you in part for any losses you incur while in there employ (basically your signing a contract making your services exclusive to them) or if your with the Faction war militia you can get reimbursed for losses from them.

Ship losses "on the clock"(Ie while running a mission) will not cause a faction hit, but losses "off the clock" will cause a minor faction hit. that should put an end to insurance fraud as you will need to replace your standing loss every time you blow up a ship while running missions.

Player corps can decide if they want to "sign up" with a npc corp., doing so will get them better access to missions, just don't turn them down when they expect you to "repay the favor"

Valea Silpha
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2010.04.04 09:18:00 - [550]
 

Yay for t2 and t3 continuing to be an income barrier for PvP. 33mil for a vagabond AFTER the platinum pack is utterly ridiculous, and I don't see anyone doing it.

Since you're balancing insurance, you really should make t2 and t3 less painful to loose. Sure there should be a penalty to loosing your ships, but it'd be nice to see the very expensive ships like black ops a bit more flyable. As it stands its not worth using them for anything that there is risk involved in.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.04 09:46:00 - [551]
 

Originally by: Celia Therone
So, frankly, when you say that CCP has better numbers and more experience than the player base I am thoroughly unconvinced. They also have tight schedules, different priorities and a seeming reluctance to listen to economic feedback from their testers.

So essentially you're saying that with their access to the database... access to years of statistics from the game... access to the games code base... and access to the people who wrote the game (most of them anyway)... CCP has WORSE numbers and LESS experience than the player base?

That makes sense... NOT Rolling Eyes

CCP has not over the last years made ANY game play changes that didn't turn out to make a better game (or at least didn't make things worse)! They've introduced bugs, but THAT can be blamed more on their schedules than game play changes.

Some things they don't get exactly right, like infinitesimally small issues like the price of T3 stuff, but then they fix it later....

They also are listening to feedback, but keep in mind that at LEAST 50% of that feedback is centred on that persons personal view of the game and what the game should be, and based more often than not on what is profitable for that person. So listen to, but not automatically accept what players say is the wise solution...

Your disdain for CCP (why do you play their game if it is so bad?) blinds you to the simple fact than on a whole they do a reasonably good job at bringing this game forward. This change will do the same.

Mera Jade
Gallente
Banshee Wail
Posted - 2010.04.04 19:10:00 - [552]
 

When you are working on the insurance stuff, why not make it so if you get killed by concord, you wont get any insurance payout at all? After all, if you do a DUI, you wont get insurance if you crash the car.....

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.04 20:06:00 - [553]
 

Originally by: Mera Jade
When you are working on the insurance stuff, why not make it so if you get killed by concord, you wont get any insurance payout at all? After all, if you do a DUI, you wont get insurance if you crash the car.....

Several answers to that....

Insurance was partly intended to help newbies who made mistakes, like shooting something not allowed thus getting CONCORD'ed. This compensation has later become somewhat deprecated as there are now plenty of warnings, but this is a relative recent development.

Some time ago (somewhere on this forum) a CCP dev explained WHY it was so difficult to implement. In short, the part of the code that pays out the insurance has no information about the circumstances in which the ship died, and only know that it DID die. There is thus no way of telling CONCORD kills from others. IIRC from his explanation changing this would involve the tinkering with a lot of internal code modules, and would be anything but trivial.

Back when ship prices were higher than insurance, suicide gankings were not a big problem. They happened, and should happen, but not in anywhere near the numbers they do now. When insurance payout is fixed with this patch, the suicide gankings will probably not need any more fixing to be reduced to a reasonable level.
Changing insurance to not pay out for CONCORD kills may not be needed, and if so the correct prioritisation from CCP would be not to assign a lot of resources to doing so, but instead use them for something more important...

unwitting destruction
Posted - 2010.04.04 23:51:00 - [554]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

Changing insurance to not pay out for CONCORD kills may not be needed, and if so the correct prioritisation from CCP would be not to assign a lot of resources to doing so, but instead use them for something more important...


Suicide ganking has become enough of a problem that it IS something they should prioritize. Something like suicide ganking should come at a cost, not a guaranteed income for killing indiscriminately. Suicide gankers should actually be forced to have some skill, not just the ability to use a Brutix. You can't pvp against them- if you pre-emptively attack them you will get killed by concord (and a brutix is more than capable of surviving a suicide gank attempt). You can't protect the ships they are coming for- again a pre-emptive attack will get you killed. So what is left? Fly away every time you see a Brutix? Outstanding. That could make for the ULTIMATE harrassment.

Suicide ganking should not be removed from the game, but the cost of doing so should be high enough that the ganker will actually need a little skill and know-how (as opposed to the so called "pro suicide gankers". What a joke) to make sure that their target will bring in a sizable profit and that they can kill it. This every 15 minutes another barge goes boom BS is getting stupid.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.05 00:33:00 - [555]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 05/04/2010 00:36:13
Originally by: unwitting destruction
Originally by: Kerfira
Back when ship prices were higher than insurance, suicide gankings were not a big problem. They happened, and should happen, but not in anywhere near the numbers they do now. When insurance payout is fixed with this patch, the suicide gankings will probably not need any more fixing to be reduced to a reasonable level.
Changing insurance to not pay out for CONCORD kills may not be needed, and if so the correct prioritisation from CCP would be not to assign a lot of resources to doing so, but instead use them for something more important...

Suicide ganking has become enough of a problem that it IS something they should prioritize. Something like suicide ganking should come at a cost, not a guaranteed income for killing indiscriminately. Suicide gankers should actually be forced to have some skill, not just the ability to use a Brutix. You can't pvp against them- if you pre-emptively attack them you will get killed by concord (and a brutix is more than capable of surviving a suicide gank attempt). You can't protect the ships they are coming for- again a pre-emptive attack will get you killed. So what is left? Fly away every time you see a Brutix? Outstanding. That could make for the ULTIMATE harrassment.

Some fancy creative omission there (re-added the important bit from the post of mine you quoted, in red), and some BS arguments about how the situation is now, not how it'll be after this change. Rolling Eyes

As suicide ganking ONLY became a problem when effective ship price dropped to 0, it is a reasonable assumption it'll return back to its previous level when ships once more start costing money to lose.
If that is the case (this should be fairly easy for CCP to determine when mineral/ship prices have stabilised after this patch), then there is no reason for CCP to waste valuable development effort on something that has effectively already been fixed, especially if that change is as complex as stated...
There are far more important things in EVE that needs looking at...

Besides, it is utterly easy to avoid getting suicided (unless you insist on playing afk). For mining all you really have to do is use an exploration or mission site. For hauling all you have to do is tank your paper-thin hauler.
A bit of common sense, and suicide ganking is not a serious threat....

Jamie Banks
Quantum Horizons
Posted - 2010.04.05 01:54:00 - [556]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

Originally by: unwitting destruction

Originally by: Kerfira

Stuff


Same Stuff


More of the same stuff


I can confirm, that you have posted the exact same stuff as each other, and still failing to see that you are reposting the same result.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.04.05 06:17:00 - [557]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Mera Jade
When you are working on the insurance stuff, why not make it so if you get killed by concord, you wont get any insurance payout at all? After all, if you do a DUI, you wont get insurance if you crash the car.....

Several answers to that....

Insurance was partly intended to help newbies who made mistakes, like shooting something not allowed thus getting CONCORD'ed. This compensation has later become somewhat deprecated as there are now plenty of warnings, but this is a relative recent development.

Some time ago (somewhere on this forum) a CCP dev explained WHY it was so difficult to implement. In short, the part of the code that pays out the insurance has no information about the circumstances in which the ship died, and only know that it DID die. There is thus no way of telling CONCORD kills from others. IIRC from his explanation changing this would involve the tinkering with a lot of internal code modules, and would be anything but trivial.

Back when ship prices were higher than insurance, suicide gankings were not a big problem. They happened, and should happen, but not in anywhere near the numbers they do now. When insurance payout is fixed with this patch, the suicide gankings will probably not need any more fixing to be reduced to a reasonable level.
Changing insurance to not pay out for CONCORD kills may not be needed, and if so the correct prioritisation from CCP would be not to assign a lot of resources to doing so, but instead use them for something more important...


Interesting. So probably removing insurance from concord kill could add lag in fleet battles (ship killed, check all the people on killmail, pay/don't pay).


Kanatta Jing
Posted - 2010.04.05 06:29:00 - [558]
 

Waiting 5 minutes to hand out insurance might reduce a fraction of the dreaded death lag and remove the above problem.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.05 07:51:00 - [559]
 

Originally by: Jamie Banks
I can confirm, that you have posted the exact same stuff as each other, and still failing to see that you are reposting the same result.

Ehhh.... No....

You seriously fail at reading....
Originally by: Kerfira
Changing insurance to not pay out for CONCORD kills may not be needed, and if so the correct prioritisation from CCP would be not to assign a lot of resources to doing so, but instead use them for something more important...

Originally by: unwitting destruction
Suicide ganking has become enough of a problem that it IS something they should prioritize.

I can confirm that you do not understand the difference between 'prioritise' and 'not prioritise'...

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.05 08:04:00 - [560]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 05/04/2010 08:09:52
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Interesting. So probably removing insurance from concord kill could add lag in fleet battles (ship killed, check all the people on killmail, pay/don't pay).

Originally by: Kanatta Jing
Waiting 5 minutes to hand out insurance might reduce a fraction of the dreaded death lag and remove the above problem.

The dev didn't go into detail... It was quite a while ago, and probably in the 'Features and Ideas' forum, so please keep in mind I'm going from memory.

The main point was something like this: The kill notification gets handed off by one system to another that does some stuff, hands it off (with participant information) to yet another that does some stuff, including notifying the killmail system, hands it off (without participant information) to yet another system, which then forwards it to the system that deletes the ship from the DB and at the same time pay out insurance.

Since the last system is the only one actually accessing the database for information about the ship, including reading the entry, that is the logical place to look up insurance information. If you did it anywhere else (apart from in the KM system), the amount of lookups would double AND they'd happen on the node where the kill happened.
As I understood it, the killmail system was completely separate and not 'real-time', and notifications to it were not sure to get there (we're seeing this as missing and bugged killmails). For this reason the insurance payout could not be placed there as it'd not always work.

tl;dr version: The information that a kill is done by CONCORD is not available where the insurance is paid out, and changing this would require major rework/testing/bugfixing etc. as well as more network/CPU etc. resources...

Darth Skorpius
m3 Corp
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.04.05 11:58:00 - [561]
 

Originally by: Celia Therone
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Celia Therone
CCP had far more data and far more experience when they announced that T3 cruisers would cost, what was it, 200 million isk each? Now, after some truly monumental changes like the one that cut datacore prices by 99%(!), the hulls alone are running at about 200 million.

So after a few tweaks the ship costs what they said it would cost. Nice!


CCP claimed T3 cruisers (hull+5 subsystems) would cost about 200 million isk.

Currently hull alone costs 200 million isk. The 5 subsystems that you have to fit to turn it into a t3 ship cost around another 170 million.

Total price is therefore around 370 million for an unfit t3 cruiser.

You can confirm this is ballpark correct by going to contracts in game and looking for ships (although most ships are sold with rigs and often fittings). Or you can go to Jita and look up the prices yourself.

So over a year later and multiple huge drop rate boosts have resulted in a price for T3 cruisers almost double that predicted by CCP before launch. You know, back when players on the test servers had priced things out and predicted that T3 cruisers would cost far more than CCP said it was aiming for.

So, frankly, when you say that CCP has better numbers and more experience than the player base I am thoroughly unconvinced. They also have tight schedules, different priorities and a seeming reluctance to listen to economic feedback from their testers.


ccp can say they want somethign to cost x isk but if the people producing that item want to charge y isk, ccp cant do anything abotu that, they can only alter loot tables and success rates to lower the costs of making that item in an atempt to get players to lower thier prices, but it is still up to the players.

so frankly, you should be moaning at the playerbase, not ccp as it is the playerbase that controls prices in a player driven market

jarlgeir
Posted - 2010.04.05 13:09:00 - [562]
 

What is planned seems to be some much needed minor tweaking of the system. When I did not find any info on Insurance for suicide gankers, I almost lost interest in this thread, but having had a look at it all I see CCP just might do something about it at some unspecific later date.

Which is unsatisfactory.

Why not do it now? It's more important than the other minor tweaks, IMHO.
Self destructs and Deaths by Concord should result in 0 insurance payout.

Right now the insurance system is a subsidy paid by CCP to eliminate all risk and encourage any ganker to take out my mining barge in Hi-sec (assuming I have not bored myself to death by mining) or any other ship I might fly in hi-sec while semi-afk.

I object to CCP paying other players to destroy the entertainment value I still find by playing EVE - so they can gank with no cost and no risk.
I have no objection whatsoever to gankers coming for me while paying the cost out of their own pocket (after all I need something to keep me from falling asleep while mining)

I want to see a dev statement here concerning priority for this problem.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.05 13:59:00 - [563]
 

Originally by: jarlgeir
I object to CCP paying other players to destroy the entertainment value I still find by playing EVE - so they can gank with no cost and no risk.

And that is one of the benefits of this change, that suicide ganking becomes expensive again!

CCP want to LIMIT suicide ganking, not eliminate it, and that is what this change will do! Stupid players who don't take precautions or afk will still get ganked, and SHOULD be, but the ones who pay attention will be mostly safe!

After this change, if you assume a ganker wants 20m profit from a gank with a tier-2 battleship, the ship being ganked would have to contain a cargo valued around 100m (half gets blown up on average, and insurance is 30m). This is a reasonable level as if the pilot of the ganked ships pays a little attention and doesn't take excessive risks (tank the ship and don't afk), he'll survive the gank anyway.

Mining barges should be more or less completely safe from the casual ganker... Note that at the moment most gankers are just doing it to get a little entertainment and perhaps some extra ISK from a ship they'd suicide anyway. That'll completely stop after this change!

Stop whining.... If you get suicided, the responsibility for it is YOURS, since it is so easy to avoid...

Ankerr Feranniss
Minmatar
Pator Tech School
Posted - 2010.04.05 14:16:00 - [564]
 

The insurance change has IMHO some interesting sides and some unfair ones.

The interesting sides are that insrance payout should somehow follow markets, and that T2 and T3 insurance should become something which actually make sense, even if it's ok to cover just a part of the ship cost.

The unfair ones...
"Market prices" are not such a simple thing to evaluate, would CCP employ a simple average of prices, which has no real meaning, or would they go for the lowest sell prices at hubs, which is different from buy offers, or for an average between the two, etc... well, plenty of room for wrong evaluations, resulting possibly in payouts which are not really in line with what a pilot would pay a ship away from large hubs, or even worse in 0.0.

Beside that, it would be completely unfair if the payout price would change WHILE the insurance is active, since the insurance cost is fixed (you pay it when doing insurance) and so should be the payout. It would make sense instead that insurance cost and payout would move together (cost should be a fixed percentage of total payout), but once the ship is insured you will know exactly how much you'll get in case of a loss.
This would also reduce the risk of speculations on ship prices...

Another unfair idea is that of different payouts based on the supposed loss ratio of ships, or on the supposed role... If a ship is much used, for any reason, it will have a high loss ratio, so that will help suicide gankers for example, and penalize those who try to use their ships wisely. If the "intended role" rule is used instead, that will again push pilots to use the ships in the role CCP wants them to use ther ships, taking away another bit of the "sandbox" approach many of us like about EVE and moving it another step closer to boredom.

A general reduction of payouts on T1 ships is unfair too, simply because insurance is currently limited to covering the ship hull loss and doesn't take into any account the modules fitted.
While the reasoning beside this is probably just a question of avoiding to check the killmail (with all the connected issues it would bring) the current insurance prices allow for some compensation of the fitting loss, at least for basic usage.
The proposed insurance payout cut will put an additional financial risk on poorer pilots, while richer pilots won't feel much difference if all.

ChrisIsherwood
Posted - 2010.04.05 15:00:00 - [565]
 

Originally by: Darth Skorpius
not ccp as it is the playerbase that controls prices in a player driven market


It is easy to oversell the player-driven aspect.

"All T0 is makeable by players" is very different than "Most T0 is made by players"
Mineral prices are essentially dictated by the IER.
Trit spawns are stealth changed.
See how the mineral prices and strategy change on May 18th.

Players are independent actors on a stage created and modified by CCP.

Ghurthe
Posted - 2010.04.05 16:01:00 - [566]
 

As annoying as losing T2 and T3 ships is with the ****e insurance pay out I feel it's fine as it is.

Nerfing the supercap insurance payout is a terrible idea in my estimation.

Overall I think that CCP needs to go back to the drawing board on this one.

I hope they do things right and know better than me in the end. Good luck guys.

Erovicious
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.04.05 17:02:00 - [567]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
Stop whining.... If you get suicided, the responsibility for it is YOURS, since it is so easy to avoid...


So sick of seeing this. I fit up a mackinaw with maximum yield for mining ice, and went out to mine up some Isotopes for my JF before heading out to 0.0. Only planning on being there for 45m to an hour.

I head out to the ice belt and before I've finished three cycles - I'm blown up by a torp Raven. I'm not afk, I'm not macroing, I'm simply mining ice. I AM NOT responsible for some kiddie-**** loving infant that gets his rocks off by killing ships that cannot otherwise defend themselves (thanks CCP) - and getting paid to do it by a completely f'd up Insurance system.

It truly is a sad state of affairs when 0.0 is SAFER than Empire.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.04.05 17:11:00 - [568]
 

Originally by: Erovicious
I head out to the ice belt and before I've finished three cycles - I'm blown up by a torp Raven. I'm not afk, I'm not macroing, I'm simply mining ice.


If you were mining ice (period) you are doing it wrong. Ice you mine yourself isn't free. Also, I think they should remove ice from highsec and 0.0. Let the mackinaws come to lowsec!

-Liang

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.05 17:16:00 - [569]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 05/04/2010 17:27:29
Originally by: Erovicious
Originally by: Kerfira
Stop whining.... If you get suicided, the responsibility for it is YOURS, since it is so easy to avoid...

So sick of seeing this. I fit up a mackinaw with maximum yield for mining ice, and went out to mine up some Isotopes for my JF before heading out to 0.0. Only planning on being there for 45m to an hour.

I head out to the ice belt and before I've finished three cycles - I'm blown up by a torp Raven. I'm not afk, I'm not macroing, I'm simply mining ice. I AM NOT responsible for some kiddie-**** loving infant that gets his rocks off by killing ships that cannot otherwise defend themselves (thanks CCP) - and getting paid to do it by a completely f'd up Insurance system.

It truly is a sad state of affairs when 0.0 is SAFER than Empire.

Mistake spotted and marked in red! You probably didn't align either, didn't tank, and didn't pay attention!
Instead, you sacrificed safety for gain, i.e. KNOWINGLY ran a risk, and then effed up! Laughing

COMPLETELY your own fault! You KNOW what the rules of the game are, and still you expect it to somehow be different for you Rolling Eyes

If think a 'GB2WOW' is in place here, or maybe a 'Hello Kitty Online is that way -->' since you don't seem to grasp that this is a game where YOU and YOU ALONE are responsible for your security, and for what happens when you don't do it!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.

Have a nice day, and hope you get blown up again next time you do the same stunt Twisted Evil

Erovicious
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.04.05 18:08:00 - [570]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
If you were mining ice (period) you are doing it wrong. Ice you mine yourself isn't free.


Huh? Where did I say anything about it being free? And if everyone stopped mining ice, there'd be a lot of POS's in trouble and cap ships sitting still. This is a meritless and senseless response.


Pages: first : previous : ... 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 ... : last (24)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only