These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why do so many people seem to think they should be immune to ship loss?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
okst666
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2011-10-23 21:42:39 UTC  |  Edited by: okst666
OMG I hate to quote myself, but I just had the greatest Idea of all.

Instead of
okst666 wrote:

if(user.PvP==false)
agressor.damageModifier =0;


have it

if(user.PvP==false)
agressor.damageModifier = agressor.damageModifier * -1;


So they will shoot themselfs in the foot and die... how much fun would that be!!!

[X] < Nail here for new monitor
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#62 - 2011-10-23 21:44:59 UTC
okst666 wrote:
OMG I hate to quote myself, but I just had the greatest Idea of all.

Instead of
okst666 wrote:

if(user.PvP==false)
agressor.damageModifier =0;


have it

if(user.PvP==false)
agressor.damageModifier = agressor.damageModifier * -1;


So they will shoot themselfs in the foot and die... how much fun would that be!!!



Almost as much fun as if I bought something from you and your wallet was deducted instead of mine.

Say, you might be onto something here!

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2011-10-23 21:45:15 UTC
okst666 wrote:
OMG I hate to quote myself, but I just had the greatest Idea of all.

Instead of
okst666 wrote:

if(user.PvP==false)
agressor.damageModifier =0;


have it

if(user.PvP==false)
agressor.damageModifier = agressor.damageModifier * -1;


So they will shoot themselfs in the foot and die... how much fun would that be!!!


No, they'll shoot themselves once, realize that EVE is now a game for pansy carebears, and decide that CCP isn't worth their money.

Of course, since nobody takes you seriously, this will never happen.
Mashie Saldana
V0LTA
OnlyFleets.
#64 - 2011-10-23 21:46:20 UTC
okst666 wrote:
OMG I hate to quote myself, but I just had the greatest Idea of all.

Instead of
okst666 wrote:

if(user.PvP==false)
agressor.damageModifier =0;


have it

if(user.PvP==false)
agressor.damageModifier = agressor.damageModifier * -1;


So they will shoot themselfs in the foot and die... how much fun would that be!!!

About as fun as seeing your mining barge slowly turn into an asteroid when you activate your mining lasers.

How to win EVE
okst666
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2011-10-23 21:51:52 UTC  |  Edited by: okst666
Roosterton wrote:
okst666 wrote:
OMG I hate to quote myself, but I just had the greatest Idea of all.

Instead of
okst666 wrote:

if(user.PvP==false)
agressor.damageModifier =0;


have it

if(user.PvP==false)
agressor.damageModifier = agressor.damageModifier * -1;


So they will shoot themselfs in the foot and die... how much fun would that be!!!


No, they'll shoot themselves once, realize that EVE is now a game for pansy carebears, and decide that CCP isn't worth their money.

Of course, since nobody takes you seriously, this will never happen.


Oh I heard that PvP is a major problem in many MMO's...maybe we will get the players, sick of pvp in their game, to gather all here...CCP will be the top MMO and my 51% of shareholder values + the salary of being CEO will get me megarich..

Of course there will be annual isk-gifts to all of you..

edit: I did not received likes in the last 15 minutes..everyone who did not like me will not receive annual gifts....I've put your names on a list.

[X] < Nail here for new monitor
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2011-10-23 23:10:33 UTC
Quote:
Oh I heard that PvP is a major problem in many MMO's...maybe we will get the players, sick of pvp in their game, to gather all here...


Ok, going to call troll right here. Good job getting this far. Lol
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#67 - 2011-10-23 23:24:11 UTC
Another great way to drive the economy would be if there were actually large scale wars being waged in null sec. Some of the uber alliances could drop the NAPs and actually destroy some stuff, ya' know?

Doesn't the title of the thread apply just as well to null sec holders of sovereignty who don't seem willing to engage in wars?

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#68 - 2011-10-23 23:28:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Jada Maroo
I dunno. Why do suicide gankers continue to ***** and moan whenever someone threatens to take away the teet of Pend insurance? I've never seen a bigger bunch of dependent, hypocrite whiners. HTFU and stop relying on NPC corps to pay for your ships ya welfare queens.
Mortis vonShadow
Balanaz Mining and Development Inc.
#69 - 2011-10-23 23:32:37 UTC
Roosterton wrote:
Quote:
Oh I heard that PvP is a major problem in many MMO's...maybe we will get the players, sick of pvp in their game, to gather all here...


Ok, going to call troll right here. Good job getting this far. Lol


Roosterton, don't engage the crazies. You just encourage them. And the crazy is strong in this one.Lol

Some days you're the bug, and some days your the windscreen.                   And some days, you're just a man with a gun.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#70 - 2011-10-23 23:37:34 UTC
Jada Maroo wrote:
I dunno. Why do suicide gankers continue to ***** and moan whenever someone threatens to take away the teet of Pend insurance?
Do they? Most of them seem to say that it won't make any difference.

The problem is rather that no-one can come up with a good reason why it should be removed.
seany1212
M Y S T
#71 - 2011-10-23 23:52:27 UTC
John Caesse wrote:
okst666 wrote:
I think it is the same reason, why you don't want to buy a car every two days.. You do not want to crash it and lose the money that it had cost.

And, I just do not want to lose ships. That is why I am going for an opting out PvP-Switch as soon as I become the new CSM.

And it is easy to implement for CCP too..

if(user.PvP==false)
agressor.damageModifier =0;

Thats all and it makes myriads of paying members HAPPY and raises willingness to pay for more cool stuff.


The level of idiocy and ignorance displayed in your post is absolutely staggering.


Unfortunately this is how some see eve, they cant wrap there feeble minds around the aim of the game.
The Apostle
Doomheim
#72 - 2011-10-24 00:01:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Jada Maroo wrote:
I dunno. Why do suicide gankers continue to ***** and moan whenever someone threatens to take away the teet of Pend insurance?
Do they? Most of them seem to say that it won't make any difference.

The problem is rather that no-one can come up with a good reason why it should be removed.

Conversely, they can't come up with a good reason why it should remain.

If losing a vessel to a suicide gank is so fn great for the economy what's wrong with an isk sink where a ganker get's to pay full price for his deeds instead of using an artifical prop?

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#73 - 2011-10-24 00:03:42 UTC
look at all of you crying about losing your mackinaws

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#74 - 2011-10-24 00:06:06 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Jada Maroo wrote:
I dunno. Why do suicide gankers continue to ***** and moan whenever someone threatens to take away the teet of Pend insurance?
Do they? Most of them seem to say that it won't make any difference.

The problem is rather that no-one can come up with a good reason why it should be removed.

Conversely, they can't come up with a good reason why it should remain.

If losing a vessel to a suicide gank is so fn great for the economy what's wrong with an isk sink where a ganker get's to pay full price for his deeds instead of using an artifical prop?


Its worked fine for almost a decade now so why mess around with something that is not broken?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#75 - 2011-10-24 00:08:43 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Jada Maroo wrote:
I dunno. Why do suicide gankers continue to ***** and moan whenever someone threatens to take away the teet of Pend insurance?
Do they? Most of them seem to say that it won't make any difference.

The problem is rather that no-one can come up with a good reason why it should be removed.

Conversely, they can't come up with a good reason why it should remain.

If losing a vessel to a suicide gank is so fn great for the economy what's wrong with an isk sink where a ganker get's to pay full price for his deeds instead of using an artifical prop?


ship losses are an ISK faucet, not an ISK sink

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#76 - 2011-10-24 00:17:48 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Conversely, they can't come up with a good reason why it should remain.
Sure they can: because no-one can think of a good reason why it should change. There is no “conversely” at play here. If you want to see a change, you need to explain why it's needed. Unfortunately, no-one seems to be able to do that.

…and that's before dipping into the actual reasons why it should remain (including the ones CCP have posited), which are left handy should a reason ever arise.
Quote:
If losing a vessel to a suicide gank is so fn great for the economy what's wrong with an isk sink where a ganker get's to pay full price for his deeds instead of using an artifical prop?
Because one is not like the other. Because such an ISK sink would disincentivise ganks, which, as mentioned, would be not-great-for-the-economy.
The Apostle
Doomheim
#77 - 2011-10-24 00:18:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Jada Maroo wrote:
I dunno. Why do suicide gankers continue to ***** and moan whenever someone threatens to take away the teet of Pend insurance?
Do they? Most of them seem to say that it won't make any difference.

The problem is rather that no-one can come up with a good reason why it should be removed.

Conversely, they can't come up with a good reason why it should remain.

If losing a vessel to a suicide gank is so fn great for the economy what's wrong with an isk sink where a ganker get's to pay full price for his deeds instead of using an artifical prop?


Its worked fine for almost a decade now so why mess around with something that is not broken?

[cough] Insurance has been modified within that "decade". Remember?

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
The Apostle
Doomheim
#78 - 2011-10-24 00:46:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
Conversely, they can't come up with a good reason why it should remain.
Sure they can: because no-one can think of a good reason why it should change. There is no “conversely” at play here. If you want to see a change, you need to explain why it's needed. Unfortunately, no-one seems to be able to do that.

…and that's before dipping into the actual reasons why it should remain (including the ones CCP have posited), which are left handy should a reason ever arise.
Quote:
If losing a vessel to a suicide gank is so fn great for the economy what's wrong with an isk sink where a ganker get's to pay full price for his deeds instead of using an artifical prop?
Because one is not like the other. Because such an ISK sink would disincentivise ganks, which, as mentioned, would be not-great-for-the-economy.


>> Disincentivising ganking by making it economically non-rewarding is false.

Ganking itself hasn't even "disincentivised" uninsured 200m Hulks and 120m Mackinaws from being purchased and used. If it did, the economy WOULD be impacted by seriously less T2 requirements as people give up on replacing losses.

Of greater long term concern, the threat of being continually ganked - if it is allowed to continue unabated - will eventually force indy pilots to either 1) stop flying T2 indys and revert to insurable T1 vessels or 2) quit.

This is why ganking needs to be reigned in.

Based on that premise, to reign it in requires 1) some arbitrary suicide gank rule or modify slightly by removing some of the gains, i.e. remove insurance and see if it has an effect.

Maybe it's about time "PvPer's" have to actually fight for a "win" to drive the economy. Might make YOU htfu instead of chasing cheap, unarmed vessels for your jollies and daring them to htfu. It's cowardly and judging by some of the responses coming out, it IS starting to have an effect.

Be careful what you wish for Mr. I'm "leet PvP" cos I killed an indy today.

PS: As I write this I can't help thinking that pressure will be put on resources for replacements making said gank ships more expensive. But then I remembered, yes, ofc, but ONLY for the indy player. The "leetPvP" dude gets insurance inflation protection. Lucky him. Yep. Eve is balanced.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#79 - 2011-10-24 00:54:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
The Apostle wrote:
Disincentivising ganking by making it economically non-rewarding is false.
Ok. Then there's definitely no need to remove it — doing so won't have the effect people want it to have.
Quote:
Of greater long term concern, the threat of being continually ganked - if it is allowed to continue unabated - will eventually force indy pilots to either 1) stop flying T2 indys and revert to insurable T1 vessels or 2) quit.

This is why ganking needs to be reigned in.
So how high is that threat? Why does it suddenly need to be reigned in? Has it increased? If so, what are the reasons for the increase? Will the removal of insurance reverse that trend? Per the above comment, no, because it's apparently not a factor.

That said: finally someone presenting some kind of gameplay argument… now all that's left is to show that the claims actually have some basis in (virtual) reality, and showing that the proposal stands a chance of having the desired effect.
Quote:
As I write this I can't help thinking that pressure will be put on resources for replacements making said gank ships more expensive. But then I remembered, yes, ofc, but ONLY for the indy player.
Fun fact: if it becomes more expensive for the indy player, it becomes more expensive for the ganker, unless the indy player is stupid and/or fails to mitigate his risks the same way the ganker does.
Aramatheia
Tiffany and Co.
#80 - 2011-10-24 01:01:52 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Mr Kidd wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Welcome to the world of the high sec carebear.



I know, I just wondered if there was any logical basis to it other than "I'm a special snowflake and shouldn't have to abide by the rules".


Because, some people want to play that way. And if the principled among you were smart you'd say "Yo, CCP, yeah sure, give them something to accommodate them" for the hopes of one day turning them to the darkside to explore what the game is really about. The bottom line is this game needs numbers of players. The more we can accommodate, the more vibrant the game.



I want to play football and only score goals and never concede them. If FIFA were smart, they'd adapt the rules to my "never lose" preferences. This would let football accomodate people who don't like losing; the more people we can accomodate, the more vibrant football will be.


football is a competition, there is no grand final in eve, there is no end result, no pedestal (except those people build for only themselves and someone else can easily blow it up). Just saying