These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Give with one hand, take away with the other

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bronden Neopatus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2011-10-22 09:25:30 UTC
I've been reading the fears that the new BCs will be used as the perfect suicide gankers due to their pew-pew... so that should be countered in some way.

Also lately PvP have been handed a treat that will ruin many people's living... namely implants in killmails, which mean that now there will be a serious reason to pod everyone, with or without a ransom. Good-bye piracy, btw.

That makes +2 for PvP, so I am going to suggest CCP to give a -1 to PvP to keep the fair play.

My suggestion is:

Remove insurance for concordokken ships.

That will effectively raise the cost of every ship used for suicide ganking, shiny new BCs included, and will fulfill a venerable old demand of many players who feel outraged by such a ludicrous thing as rewarding criminals for their crimes.

If someone has got the "galls" (cough, cough) to be a ganker, there is no point rewarding him for so. If being a ganker is not rewarding enough, he should stop being a ganker.

So that's it. Give PvP their shiny new ganker BCs and the implant killmails, BUT remove insurances when they are killed by the law.

Give with one hand and take away with the other, CCP.

BE FAIR.

She strutted into my office wearing a dress that clung to her like Saran Wrap to a sloppily butchered pork knuckle, bone and sinew jutting and lurching asymmetrically beneath its folds, the tightness exaggerating the granularity of the suet and causing what little palatable meat there was to sweat, its transparency the thief of imagination.
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
#2 - 2011-10-22 09:31:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tres Farmer
Needs better/different arguments - not the silly and often heard "proliferation of crime is unfair" thing you got going there. Cause you know, you're talking about Eve here, right?
Khazarn Areth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2011-10-22 09:34:05 UTC
I dont think thats going to happen any time soon

Bloody Omir's coming back Monsters from the endless black Wading through a crimson flood Omir's come to drink your blood

Bronden Neopatus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2011-10-22 09:37:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronden Neopatus
Tres Farmer wrote:
Needs better/different arguments - not the silly and often heard "proliferation of crime is unfair" thing you got going there. Cause you know, you're talking about Eve here, right?


I wasn't there to tell, but maybe insurance was introduced as a universal feature to prevent PvP from complaining that PvE got it when they were killed by NPCs.

Today insurance is a feature old enough and PvPers have got many free rides and it's time to remove some of their privileges.

CCP should do something for PvE each now and then, aside from spoiling their fun with scannable mission sites and removing Lvl5 from hisec, or keep them replaying the same old Lvl4 for years.

She strutted into my office wearing a dress that clung to her like Saran Wrap to a sloppily butchered pork knuckle, bone and sinew jutting and lurching asymmetrically beneath its folds, the tightness exaggerating the granularity of the suet and causing what little palatable meat there was to sweat, its transparency the thief of imagination.
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
#5 - 2011-10-22 09:46:54 UTC
I see, still no arguments..
Mag's
Azn Empire
#6 - 2011-10-22 09:48:17 UTC
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Tres Farmer wrote:
Needs better/different arguments - not the silly and often heard "proliferation of crime is unfair" thing you got going there. Cause you know, you're talking about Eve here, right?


I wasn't there to tell, but maybe insurance was introduced as a universal feature to prevent PvP from complaining that PvE got it when they were killed by NPCs.

Today insurance is a feature old enough and PvPers have got many free rides and it's time to remove some of their privileges.

CCP should do something for PvE each now and then, aside from spoiling their fun with scannable mission sites and removing Lvl5 from hisec, or keep them replaying the same old Lvl4 for years.

Unlike all the free rides industrials have gotten?

Tres is correct, you don't have an argument other than, 'it's not fair'.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Bronden Neopatus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2011-10-22 09:50:25 UTC
Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship.

She strutted into my office wearing a dress that clung to her like Saran Wrap to a sloppily butchered pork knuckle, bone and sinew jutting and lurching asymmetrically beneath its folds, the tightness exaggerating the granularity of the suet and causing what little palatable meat there was to sweat, its transparency the thief of imagination.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#8 - 2011-10-22 09:52:19 UTC
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship.
You want the change, so therefore you need to supply a reason why they shouldn't.

But I'll bite, it facilitates ship loss which is a good thing.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Bronden Neopatus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2011-10-22 09:58:17 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship.
You want the change, so therefore you need to supply a reason why they shouldn't.

But I'll bite, it facilitates ship loss which is a good thing.


Then why not give Concord a 0 sec answer time? That also would facilitate ship loses and would be good, too.

And yes, my whole point is about CCP being fair with their paying customers by not handling endless privileges to some and endlessly abusing the patience of some others. It kinda is implicit in "give with one hand, take away with the other", you know.

She strutted into my office wearing a dress that clung to her like Saran Wrap to a sloppily butchered pork knuckle, bone and sinew jutting and lurching asymmetrically beneath its folds, the tightness exaggerating the granularity of the suet and causing what little palatable meat there was to sweat, its transparency the thief of imagination.
DarkAegix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2011-10-22 09:58:36 UTC
Insurance for suicide gankers is a bit silly, yet removal of insurance for them destroys an entire "profession".
Perhaps some other solution is in order?

Instead of removing insurance for suicide-gankers completely, introduce one of the following options:
-Pirate faction standings requirement for insurance payout in a suicide gank
-CONCORD standing reduction whenever insurance is paid out on suicide gank
-20% less payout for suicide ganks, automatically
-Instead of ISK, receive some raw minerals in the next NPC station you dock in. Inconvenient, but it's still valuable!
-Only 20% chance you will receive the payout. Introduce a skill which increases 10% per level
-Other stuff
Bronden Neopatus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2011-10-22 10:01:30 UTC
Tres Farmer wrote:
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Tres Farmer wrote:
I see, still no arguments..

Butthurt ganker #2

..and you're the butthurt gankee or what?

That you revert to light name calling tells any reader of your topic one simple thing: Bronden can't think of arguments to support his case and thus any discussion(*) with him is moot. You managed to put yourself into the corner of whiners. Congratulation.

(*) with opposing view on the topic


My argument is pretty simple, CCP is favoring PvP in detriment of PvE so they must do something detrimental to PvP and to favor PvE.

I just picked an old reivindication as payback, rather than suggest new stuff.

She strutted into my office wearing a dress that clung to her like Saran Wrap to a sloppily butchered pork knuckle, bone and sinew jutting and lurching asymmetrically beneath its folds, the tightness exaggerating the granularity of the suet and causing what little palatable meat there was to sweat, its transparency the thief of imagination.
Bischopt
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2011-10-22 10:02:48 UTC
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship.


Because everyone else does as well. If gankers stop getting insurance so should everyone else. They paid for it, they got it.
And if you're gonna start a thread try to have some arguments ready, not just some hate because someone blew you up paired with insults at everyone who disagrees with you. Nobody's taking this thread seriously anymore.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#13 - 2011-10-22 10:03:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship.
You want the change, so therefore you need to supply a reason why they shouldn't.

But I'll bite, it facilitates ship loss which is a good thing.


Then why not give Concord a 0 sec answer time? That also would facilitate ship loses and would be good, too.

And yes, my whole point is about CCP being fair with their paying customers by not handling endless privileges to some and endlessly abusing the patience of some others. It kinda is implicit in "give with one hand, take away with the other", you know.
Concord is already omnipotent, I would agree with insurance removal if there was a chance of escaping concord. You're not asking for balance in that regard.

As far as endless privileges are concerned, suicide ganking has actually gotten harder than it used to be. Not only that, but industrialist have gain ships to avoid ganks. So your take on this is not factual.


Edit: You're also missing one vital part with your suggestions. Eve is PvP centric.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Bronden Neopatus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2011-10-22 10:04:13 UTC
DarkAegix wrote:
Insurance for suicide gankers is a bit silly, yet removal of insurance for them destroys an entire "profession".
Perhaps some other solution is in order?

Instead of removing insurance for suicide-gankers completely, introduce one of the following options:
-Pirate faction standings requirement for insurance payout in a suicide gank
-CONCORD standing reduction whenever insurance is paid out on suicide gank
-20% less payout for suicide ganks, automatically
-Instead of ISK, receive some raw minerals in the next NPC station you dock in. Inconvenient, but it's still valuable!
-Only 20% chance you will receive the payout. Introduce a skill which increases 10% per level
-Other stuff


Details could be worked out, but so far there is no reason to make hisec ganking easier. Also that could push some gankers into lowsec for a change, btw.

She strutted into my office wearing a dress that clung to her like Saran Wrap to a sloppily butchered pork knuckle, bone and sinew jutting and lurching asymmetrically beneath its folds, the tightness exaggerating the granularity of the suet and causing what little palatable meat there was to sweat, its transparency the thief of imagination.
Bronden Neopatus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2011-10-22 10:05:23 UTC
Bischopt wrote:
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship.


Because everyone else does as well. If gankers stop getting insurance so should everyone else. They paid for it, they got it.
And if you're gonna start a thread try to have some arguments ready, not just some hate because someone blew you up paired with insults at everyone who disagrees with you. Nobody's taking this thread seriously anymore.


Your argument is about fairness, just like mine.

She strutted into my office wearing a dress that clung to her like Saran Wrap to a sloppily butchered pork knuckle, bone and sinew jutting and lurching asymmetrically beneath its folds, the tightness exaggerating the granularity of the suet and causing what little palatable meat there was to sweat, its transparency the thief of imagination.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#16 - 2011-10-22 10:14:54 UTC
Seems that your only argument is being abusive and avoiding posts that you find uncomfortable to answer.

It's not looking good.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jooce McNasty
Islefive Consulting
#17 - 2011-10-22 10:15:47 UTC
Insurance on combat ships seems stupid from the get go.

I know this is not real life but do you think state farm insures the U.S military tanks? Or any combat vehicle.

I do not see why anyone would pay insurance out to someone who willfully takes their equipment into dangerous situations, and since the entire EVE universe is a dangerous area why would anyone bother paying someone out for this.

I think it's high time CCP gets rid of insurance all together.

Also im not 100% sure but I believe that the insurance payout is lower as you go up in tiers.. This might only be when jumping tech levels tho.
Aquila Draco
#18 - 2011-10-22 10:18:17 UTC
With removal of insurance paying for gankers that lost a ship due concord action if fair because there is no sane logic that would make that happen in real world.
2nd, it would help new players (and CCP) not to be ganked so many times to stop playing.
3rd, it would remove one ISK gain in game (ISK from nothing) and it would help the EVE economy.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#19 - 2011-10-22 10:21:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Aquila Draco wrote:
With removal of insurance paying for gankers that lost a ship due concord action if fair because there is no sane logic that would make that happen in real world.
2nd, it would help new players (and CCP) not to be ganked so many times to stop playing.
3rd, it would remove one ISK gain in game (ISK from nothing) and it would help the EVE economy.

1. RL comparisons are ridiculous.
2. New players are the reason it's being kept.
3. Show me the facts of this.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mashie Saldana
V0LTA
OnlyFleets.
#20 - 2011-10-22 10:29:47 UTC
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Mashie Saldana wrote:
What is this insurance people are talking about?


Play the tutorials, THX.

Actually thinking about it, I might have had an insurance for a Tempest expire back in 2009 or was it maybe 2008. Ah well can't remember.

Once you start flying T2/T3 the insurance button is of no interest, which means you don't even think about its existance when you end up undocking in a Hurricane once in a while.

How to win EVE
123Next pageLast page