These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Tornado battleganker - the horror of poor hulkster?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#21 - 2011-10-21 17:32:01 UTC
mkint wrote:
Now we get a tier 3 BC that does the same job as a tier 1? Why not just go ahead and remove the tier 1's from the game altogether?
That's less of a problem — the tier-1s need to be fixed regardless.

The larger worry is that these tier-3s will obsolete the tier-2s just like the tier-2s did to the tier-1s.

Hopefullly, that “less tank than a battleship” is a typo, and they actually mean “less tank than a battlecruiser” (as in, tanks like a cruiser, at best).
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#22 - 2011-10-21 17:37:43 UTC
Razin wrote:
Igualmentedos wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Razin wrote:
The best solution is to have no insurance, period.



+1


I disagree I think its great where it's at except for one thing; remove or reduce the amount paid to those killed by concord. Maybe cut the ISK payment in half?
Why?


It's a matter of opinion so we can sit here and talk about this all day, but I feel it (insurance) encourages PvP, helps newer players adjust to Eve, and provides an even greater gap between Tech 1 and Tech 2, which there should be.

As to why I feel suicide ganking shouldn't get full payment on insurance:

Suicide ganking is too easy, if someone wants to gank you, they can do it, and it's pretty much impossible to stop. Let's be honest, a gank BC does not cost a lot of ISK. You throw on some pretty damage mods, guns and...thats it. Next, you insure it and off you go killing people with very little set back. There is very little risk, for a (IMO) huge reward. The reward is being able to kill your enemies (who aren't suspecting it) with ease. Then, when you get sick and tired of face ******* unsuspecting people and incur a negative sec standing, you just biomass and restart.

From what I can see, there is very little risk for the excessive reward.

Since I answered your question, I would like to know "Why?" Why do you feel insurance shouldn't exist?
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#23 - 2011-10-21 17:39:14 UTC
Tippia wrote:
mkint wrote:
Now we get a tier 3 BC that does the same job as a tier 1? Why not just go ahead and remove the tier 1's from the game altogether?
That's less of a problem — the tier-1s need to be fixed regardless.

The larger worry is that these tier-3s will obsolete the tier-2s just like the tier-2s did to the tier-1s.

Hopefullly, that “less tank than a battleship” is a typo, and they actually mean “less tank than a battlecruiser” (as in, tanks like a cruiser, at best).


Hopefully they tank like a weak cruiser (Caracal! Sad ), otherwise even a strong (cruiser) tank with BS damage might be a little ridiculous. I guess we'll see when they release them on sisi.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#24 - 2011-10-21 17:39:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:
mkint wrote:
Now we get a tier 3 BC that does the same job as a tier 1? Why not just go ahead and remove the tier 1's from the game altogether?
That's less of a problem — the tier-1s need to be fixed regardless.

The larger worry is that these tier-3s will obsolete the tier-2s just like the tier-2s did to the tier-1s.

Hopefullly, that “less tank than a battleship” is a typo, and they actually mean “less tank than a battlecruiser” (as in, tanks like a cruiser, at best).


Can't replace, for example, the drake... at least as far as things like Sleeper sites and missions with frigs and cruisers running around in here. The ships they can't hit will be the ones that do them in. At least the T2s are more balanced as far as viable targets. A flock of Sleeper frigs will eat these tier 3s like candy.

It would be funny to watch though...

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#25 - 2011-10-21 17:44:40 UTC
Uhoh, I'm going to buy a jump freighter for AFK hauling in high sec immediately.

Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook 

Razin
The Scope
#26 - 2011-10-21 17:59:09 UTC
Igualmentedos wrote:


It's a matter of opinion so we can sit here and talk about this all day, but I feel it (insurance) encourages PvP, helps newer players adjust to Eve, and provides an even greater gap between Tech 1 and Tech 2, which there should be.

As to why I feel suicide ganking shouldn't get full payment on insurance:

Suicide ganking is too easy, if someone wants to gank you, they can do it, and it's pretty much impossible to stop. Let's be honest, a gank BC does not cost a lot of ISK. You throw on some pretty damage mods, guns and...thats it. Next, you insure it and off you go killing people with very little set back. There is very little risk, for a (IMO) huge reward. The reward is being able to kill your enemies (who aren't suspecting it) with ease. Then, when you get sick and tired of face ******* unsuspecting people and incur a negative sec standing, you just biomass and restart.

From what I can see, there is very little risk for the excessive reward.

Since I answered your question, I would like to know "Why?" Why do you feel insurance shouldn't exist?


Insurance exists to help players recoup their ship losses. It is assumed that any loss that is reimbursed is incurred within the game rules (otherwise the petitioning mechanism is used). It doesn’t matter if the loss happened as a result of huge disparity in the involved players’ age, equipment used, or without any ‘fun’ for the player suffering the loss. Since both the ganker and the gankee are playing within the game rules, both are reimbursed as per the purchased ‘policy’. It’s just a game mechanic.

Whether this game mechanic is still required is debatable, but in my opinion the current levels of achievable player income make ship insurance an unnecessary ISK faucet. Completely removing insurance would also make these empire ganking discussions a little more substantive by focusing on issues of ship balance, etc.
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#27 - 2011-10-21 18:06:18 UTC
Razin wrote:
Igualmentedos wrote:


It's a matter of opinion so we can sit here and talk about this all day, but I feel it (insurance) encourages PvP, helps newer players adjust to Eve, and provides an even greater gap between Tech 1 and Tech 2, which there should be.

As to why I feel suicide ganking shouldn't get full payment on insurance:

Suicide ganking is too easy, if someone wants to gank you, they can do it, and it's pretty much impossible to stop. Let's be honest, a gank BC does not cost a lot of ISK. You throw on some pretty damage mods, guns and...thats it. Next, you insure it and off you go killing people with very little set back. There is very little risk, for a (IMO) huge reward. The reward is being able to kill your enemies (who aren't suspecting it) with ease. Then, when you get sick and tired of face ******* unsuspecting people and incur a negative sec standing, you just biomass and restart.

From what I can see, there is very little risk for the excessive reward.

Since I answered your question, I would like to know "Why?" Why do you feel insurance shouldn't exist?


Insurance exists to help players recoup their ship losses. It is assumed that any loss that is reimbursed is incurred within the game rules (otherwise the petitioning mechanism is used). It doesn’t matter if the loss happened as a result of huge disparity in the involved players’ age, equipment used, or without any ‘fun’ for the player suffering the loss. Since both the ganker and the gankee are playing within the game rules, both are reimbursed as per the purchased ‘policy’. It’s just a game mechanic.

Whether this game mechanic is still required is debatable, but in my opinion the current levels of achievable player income make ship insurance an unnecessary ISK faucet. Completely removing insurance would also make these empire ganking discussions a little more substantive by focusing on issues of ship balance, etc.


I would like to see other ISK faucets altered (Concord bounties? Please?) instead of one that is in the game to help people and encourage PvP.

I still stand by my argument that there is little risk for excessive reward when suicide ganking. Again, we could go on all day about this so to each his own.
Endeavour Starfleet
#28 - 2011-10-21 18:22:15 UTC
It does show that either they intend to or need to start planning for more nerfs to the hisec ganks. I have no doubt that the goons will abuse the hell out of these and as such things like removing insurance for CONCORD involvement in your actions and yet even faster response times for them need to be on the table.

Another option perhaps is the need to change the paper bags that are the buffer tank on almost all mining craft. Tho that opens up a whole nother bag of worms right there and it's likely best to make CONCORD changes first.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#29 - 2011-10-21 18:26:11 UTC
Igualmentedos wrote:
I still stand by my argument that there is little risk for excessive reward when suicide ganking.


There is zero risk. The cost of the ship and fittings is simply an expenditure as a cost of doing business. It is no different than stocking up on ammo for running missions.

When I ran missions I knew, +/- 50, about how many rounds I would need to complete a mission. It made the P/L statement much easier to figure. Same way with suicide ganking....

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#30 - 2011-10-21 18:42:28 UTC
MeestaPenni wrote:
Igualmentedos wrote:
I still stand by my argument that there is little risk for excessive reward when suicide ganking.


There is zero risk. The cost of the ship and fittings is simply an expenditure as a cost of doing business. It is no different than stocking up on ammo for running missions.

When I ran missions I knew, +/- 50, about how many rounds I would need to complete a mission. It made the P/L statement much easier to figure. Same way with suicide ganking....


I would argue there is some risk, but either way it's a disproportionate amount of risk.
Vricrolatious
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#31 - 2011-10-21 19:05:48 UTC
Vastek Non wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Someone needs to reassess his cost/benefit analysis with regards to using these as disposable ships.


Five words:


No insurance for concorded ships.




Its never made sense in the past, and it makes no sense now. You want to suicide a ship, sure do it, but you have to pay a cost.


Oh yes, and i'm really looking forward to the Gallente/Amarr versions Big smile


Insurance means nothing when Dear Leader offers to pay you for the kill that you before Concord destroyed your ship!

WIDot, Best Dot, Even Sans Dot! -Vric
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#32 - 2011-10-21 19:06:53 UTC
Vricrolatious wrote:
Vastek Non wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Someone needs to reassess his cost/benefit analysis with regards to using these as disposable ships.


Five words:


No insurance for concorded ships.




Its never made sense in the past, and it makes no sense now. You want to suicide a ship, sure do it, but you have to pay a cost.


Oh yes, and i'm really looking forward to the Gallente/Amarr versions Big smile


Insurance means nothing when Dear Leader offers to pay you for the kill that you before Concord destroyed your ship!


what?
Burseg Sardaukar
Free State Project
#33 - 2011-10-21 19:08:21 UTC
Igualmentedos wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Razin wrote:
The best solution is to have no insurance, period.



+1


I disagree I think its great where it's at except for one thing; remove or reduce the amount paid to those killed by concord. Maybe cut the ISK payment in half?


Hell, I support disallowing insurance for players after a certain age.

The insurance is a good buffer for noobs to learn, and most of the time I forget to insure the ship I suicide gank with anyway. Removing insurance isn't going to stop my ganking at all.

Can't wait to dual box my Dust toon and EVE toon on the same machine!
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#34 - 2011-10-21 19:12:31 UTC
Burseg Sardaukar wrote:
Igualmentedos wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Razin wrote:
The best solution is to have no insurance, period.



+1


I disagree I think its great where it's at except for one thing; remove or reduce the amount paid to those killed by concord. Maybe cut the ISK payment in half?


Hell, I support disallowing insurance for players after a certain age.

The insurance is a good buffer for noobs to learn, and most of the time I forget to insure the ship I suicide gank with anyway. Removing insurance isn't going to stop my ganking at all.


I don't want suicide ganking to stop. I want there to be more of a set-back to the ganker.
RougeOperator
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2011-10-21 19:13:00 UTC
Fun new tool for carebears.

They wont have to train up BS skills anymore to run level 4 missions.

Imagine how easy they will make level 3 missions.

**Space wizards are real, they can make 10058 votes vanish. "and for a moment i hurd 10k goons cry out, then silence" **
Vricrolatious
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#36 - 2011-10-21 19:28:07 UTC
Igualmentedos wrote:
Vricrolatious wrote:
Vastek Non wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Someone needs to reassess his cost/benefit analysis with regards to using these as disposable ships.


Five words:


No insurance for concorded ships.




Its never made sense in the past, and it makes no sense now. You want to suicide a ship, sure do it, but you have to pay a cost.


Oh yes, and i'm really looking forward to the Gallente/Amarr versions Big smile


Insurance means nothing when Dear Leader offers to pay you for the kill that you before Concord destroyed your ship!


what?


If I take a Thorax or a Brutix (or something else cheap and disposable) into Empire and pop a miner in an ice belt, sure I'll lose my ship, but I'll get paid a bounty from the alliance wallet. Insurance is great, but bounties are better.

Goons, putting the game back in the player's hands!

WIDot, Best Dot, Even Sans Dot! -Vric
Anachronic
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2011-10-21 19:30:11 UTC
RougeOperator wrote:
Fun new tool for carebears.

They wont have to train up BS skills anymore to run level 4 missions.

Imagine how easy they will make level 3 missions.




I would LOVE to see you try and run a Lvl4 in one of these boats...

Without a BS sized tank you will just melt or it will take you forever to run the missions cause of warpouts
Vricrolatious
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#38 - 2011-10-21 19:32:07 UTC
Anachronic wrote:
RougeOperator wrote:
Fun new tool for carebears.

They wont have to train up BS skills anymore to run level 4 missions.

Imagine how easy they will make level 3 missions.




I would LOVE to see you try and run a Lvl4 in one of these boats...

Without a BS sized tank you will just melt or it will take you forever to run the missions cause of warpouts


Depends really, you can run a fair amount of L4s in a Drake when setup correctly.

WIDot, Best Dot, Even Sans Dot! -Vric
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#39 - 2011-10-21 19:51:26 UTC
Here's a thought: index insurance to the player's security rating. It follows the concept of insurance, where you charge higher risk people higher premiums (or in this case, pay out less). Since repeated suiciding will decrease the sec rating, insurance would provide diminishing return over time if the person is a "serial suicider"...
Anachronic
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2011-10-21 19:54:14 UTC
Vricrolatious wrote:
Anachronic wrote:
RougeOperator wrote:
Fun new tool for carebears.

They wont have to train up BS skills anymore to run level 4 missions.

Imagine how easy they will make level 3 missions.




I would LOVE to see you try and run a Lvl4 in one of these boats...

Without a BS sized tank you will just melt or it will take you forever to run the missions cause of warpouts


Depends really, you can run a fair amount of L4s in a Drake when setup correctly.


Yeah...and the drake isn't the norm. There is a reason that people fly it so much. Stupid tank + really good damage potential. I stand by my statement. Also the potential inability of these to deal with frigates would probably make them a less than optimal choice for missions.