| Author |
Topic |
cytheras wrath |
Posted - 2011.02.22 07:31:00 - [ 31]
 Originally by: Shadowed Broker
What is this Hulkaggedon? Is it a new Amarr Mining Battleship?
no, its the new jove drink called hulkaggedon, its served best cold with frozen miner tears, and a hint of lime. tastes close to a suicide, served in most pirate stations, except its a seasonal drink. |
TheCounselor |
Posted - 2011.02.22 08:40:00 - [ 32]
Edited by: TheCounselor on 22/02/2011 08:40:39
|
Anzurel
Gallente
Dragon Highlords
Freemason Core |
Posted - 2011.02.22 08:57:00 - [ 33]
Originally by: Shadowed Broker
What is this Hulkaggedon? Is it a new Amarr Mining Battleship?
YOU SIR! are my new hero! and have made my morning. |
Echo Mae
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 09:16:00 - [ 34]
Hhahahahahah Hahahhhaha Hahahhah um.. U mad? Your stuff plox? |
Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative. |
Posted - 2011.02.22 10:52:00 - [ 35]
Originally by: Vincent Athena
Originally by: Malcanis
You could cite all the Newtonian and Einsteinin physics you liked, but they wouldn't matter a bit, because the game isn't based on Newtonian physics just as it's not based on western financial rules and laws.
Just because some parts of the game are immersion breaking does not mean every part of the game should be immersion breaking.
If a change can be made to improve immersion, I'm all for it. To me, not paying insurance to criminals would improve immersion.
But as I said, "Insurance" isn't about immersion. (God I wish CCP had called it something else btw). It's a ship replacement game mechanic. Suicide ganking is a valid playstyle. It's not an exploit or even unintended gameplay. CCP have repeatedly and explicitly affirmed that it's supposed to happen. It's the major source of risk in hi-sec. There is no obvious reason why one playstyle should be picked out and refused the same consideration all the others get. If you want to argue for removing insurance from gankers, you will need to provide game balance reasons. You will have to demonstrate that hi-sec is too dangerous compared to the potential rewards. (Or alternatively, you will need to suggest ways to reduce those rewards to match the reduced risks.) |
Iceni |
Posted - 2011.02.22 11:24:00 - [ 36]
It's not insurance, that's why... it's a compensation scheme.  If it was insurance, premiums would increase for customers who regularly claim on their policy and no claims bonuses would be given to those who don't. PEND management take note, you're mis-selling the product. |
Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 11:32:00 - [ 37]
Originally by: Space Tarantula Haklar
u mad? Combat? What combat? We don't want combat! We want easy targets for no work! It's not like Eve was supposed to be a cold harsh world 
Violencing someone's boat = combat, regardless of whether they have the wherewithal or presence of mind to take an active part in the fighting. Sure, if the victims don't mind, then the opposition and conflict is gone and it becomes more of a very rowdy barbecue, but considering all the whining they do seem to mind. Thus, combat. |
Space Tarantula Haklar |
Posted - 2011.02.22 13:55:00 - [ 38]
Edited by: Space Tarantula Haklar on 22/02/2011 13:58:24 Originally by: Tippia
(...)
Sure, if the victims don't mind, then the opposition and conflict is gone and it becomes more of a very rowdy barbecue, but considering all the whining they do seem to mind. Thus, combat.
Hehehe... My bad... Really stupid me... I see why i was mistaken: it's not like that form of aggression was more like "lynching" than "combat"  |
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel |
Posted - 2011.02.22 14:33:00 - [ 39]
OP you do not realize
1) highsec gankers use cheap ships
2. highsec gankers have enough ISK that they don't really give a crap about the insurance payout on a frig, cruis, or even a bc
3. the drops alone from the ships they kill often make it worth it
4. some people make money in this game to build sandcastles with. Gankers make money so that they can gank people.
Money is not the issue here. |
Sporked |
Posted - 2011.02.22 15:05:00 - [ 40]
Originally by: Aiwha
Originally by: Sporked
Originally by: Allyson Vannote
I'm going to have to say I'd like to see this implemented. Just to make suicide ganking a more intellectual practice.
How on earth would it make it more intellectual? If anything it would make it completely impractal to gank high value targets outsite of lowsec, thereby effectively removing an entire mini-profession. Guess how often anyone with half a brain carrying a high value cargo goes to lowsec unless it's their final destination? That's not making anything intellectual at all, it would just make it neccessary to stalk each and every freighter and indy carrying sufficiently valuable cargo to be worth ganking on the off chance it has a lowsec destination.
It means you'd have to check your targets carefully. Keep careful track of your profit margin, plan, scheme. It might be more viable to have a half dozen ruptures suicide something rather than a battleship. It will make it a challenge, not a loot pinata.  HTFU
Are you trying to imply that the people doing it for their EVE living aren't already doing all of that? Your way of doing things would neccessitate hundreds of people at once tracking hundreds of cargo carrying ships, all of whom would need to be talking to the gank squads who would be suffering information overload. It would be an alliance level operation to hit a single freighter fergodssakes, and like I said it still wouldn't happen outside of lowsec because nothing but alpha-bs can take down a freighter fast enough to weather the CONCORD response for long enough. For your idea, you would need FOUR Ruptures with max ship and gunnery skills (2713 alpha damage w/4x 720mm IIs loaded with RF EMP and 4 gyros) for every artypest/apoc (10896 for Tempest, 11622 for Apoc) that you currently need. It's simply not feasible to suicide gank hi-sec (remember, it's HIGH security not TOTAL security) targets without insurance payouts while we still have an omnipotent police force that it is against the game rules not to die to. If you want to remove insurance, then you should also remove CONCORDs ability to WTFPWN you the second they arrive on grid. More balanced, wouldn't you say? |
Karak Terrel
As Far As The eYe can see
Chained Reactions |
Posted - 2011.02.22 15:19:00 - [ 41]
Wait, page 2 and no RL car example? Maybe i missed it? |
Space Tarantula Haklar |
Posted - 2011.02.22 19:08:00 - [ 42]
Originally by: Sporked
(...)
It's simply not feasible to suicide gank hi-sec (remember, it's HIGH security not TOTAL security) targets without insurance payouts while we still have an omnipotent police force that it is against the game rules not to die to. If you want to remove insurance, then you should also remove CONCORDs ability to WTFPWN you the second they arrive on grid. More balanced, wouldn't you say?
Sounds fair to me, as long as, for instance, the "remove CONCORDs ability to WTFPWN" is also linked to a, let's say, "make neg sec status players valid targets for everyone in hi-sec systems"... |
Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative. |
Posted - 2011.02.22 19:50:00 - [ 43]
|
All Channels
EVE General Discussion
