Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Mey Alman
Jonferson Space Dynamics Division
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 18:28:00 -
[1]
While reading the endless discussion about ganking and insurance in highsec an hopefully new idea came to my mind.
It is CONCORDs duty to protect the player in highsec (some may say they only carry out revenge, but I think they should be seen as a protection)
So if a player gets killed COCORD failed, and the player should be reimbursed. But since CONCORD doesn't want to pay they use their influence on insurance companies to get the money.
My idea is that the ganker would only recieve 50/60/80% (subject to discussion) of his insurance payout if CONCORD was involved and the player who triggerd CONCORDE with his unfortunate end of life would receive the rest. UNLESS he was flying a ship which 100% Insurance payout would be lower than his 50/40/20% in which case only this would be payed and the ganker would receive the rest. (Inspired by car Insurance that has to pay him if you damage someones car)
This ensures, that people in cruisers who get ganked by BS would be fully reimbursed, but people in BS who had at least a chance to fight back or hold out would only get a partially reimbursement. Ganking would still be profitable, if you pick the right targets and the ganked wouldn't lose that much, unless he foolishly carried valuable goods around.
The percentage by which insurance payout is "divided" would of course be influenced by the victims sec status (CONCORD couldn't care less about -4 ;) ) and sec status of the system you are in (cant blame CONCORD for having to travel all the way from Jita to a remote 0.5 system^^)
This of course does not claim to be a perfect solution but perhaps some ideas aren't that bad. I'm open to any suggestions critics and flames :)
|
masternerdguy
Gallente Caldari Naval Reserve
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 18:34:00 -
[2]
so lets give even more out for insurance fraud, so intead of making a profit of 1 million on ravens costing less than 75m when insured, they can make 10x that!
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=masternerdguy
All someone has to do would be to get themselves concorded by -10s in a fully insured raven. Oh the fun.
Don't think its possible? Well all they have to do is artificially weaken their shields and armor (and structure too) before doing it so they are guaranteed to be ganked by those 2 rifters......
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 18:36:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Mey Alman It is CONCORDs duty to protect the player in highsec (some may say they only carry out revenge, but I think they should be seen as a protection)
You are basing your idea around this wrong assumption. --------
|
Mey Alman
Jonferson Space Dynamics Division
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 18:38:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Mey Alman on 07/03/2010 18:39:02 sure, but thats not the problem of my idea but the broken insurance system
you cant expect something to work if the underlying logic is already broken. Its more of a ling time vision :)
Edit: @Abrazzar then perhaps CONCORD has to change to make a "good" system work
|
masternerdguy
Gallente Caldari Naval Reserve
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 18:40:00 -
[5]
Originally by: masternerdguy so lets give even more out for insurance fraud, so intead of making a profit of 1 million on ravens costing less than 75m when insured, they can make 10x that!
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=masternerdguy
All someone has to do would be to get themselves concorded by -10s in a fully insured raven. Oh the fun.
Don't think its possible? Well all they have to do is artificially weaken their shields and armor (and structure too) before doing it so they are guaranteed to be ganked by those 2 rifters......
Originally by: Mey Alman Edited by: Mey Alman on 07/03/2010 18:39:02 sure, but thats not the problem of my idea but the broken insurance system
you cant expect something to work if the underlying logic is already broken. Its more of a ling time vision :)
Edit: @Abrazzar then perhaps CONCORD has to change to make a "good" system work
You put too much faith in people.
|
Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 18:43:00 -
[6]
CONCORD isn't failing anything, they're obviously colluding with the pirates.
Think about it. It's not in the best interests of CONCORD to stop all piracy, they need the pirates to exist or they'd be out of a job, and the pirates need a way to attack people in hisec.
We're through the looking glass here people.
My deepest sympathies. Prof. Tarantula, Esq. |
Mey Alman
Jonferson Space Dynamics Division
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 18:44:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Professor Tarantula CONCORD isn't failing anything, they're obviously colluding with the pirates.
Think about it. It's not in the best interests of CONCORD to stop all piracy, they need the pirates to exist or they'd be out of a job, and the pirates need a way to attack people in hisec.
We're through the looking glass here people.
Hm perhaps we should consult American Border Patrol how they solve such a dilemma, well apart from not.
|
Liang Nuren
The Aduro Protocol Talon Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 18:59:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Mey Alman
It is CONCORDs duty to protect the player in highsec (some may say they only carry out revenge, but I think they should be seen as a protection)
CCP says that Concord provides consequences - not protection. Regardless of what you think they should provide.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Mey Alman
Jonferson Space Dynamics Division
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 19:12:00 -
[9]
That may be so, but if consequence is provided fast enough it offers protection (wouldn't that be intended concord would always only engage after a player is killed and not attacked)
I'm not saying that a hulk without defensive mods and meta 14 modules should be payed for by the ganker. The idea is to make it unworthy to gank radom players without interesting freight, you could salvage in order to cover your expenses and more.
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 19:15:00 -
[10]
Why? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
|
DXYOC
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 19:16:00 -
[11]
Oh its a Suicide Gank tread very original! Concord its for punishment not protection.
|
Ben Alman
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 19:18:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Ben Alman on 07/03/2010 19:18:08
Originally by: Tippia Why?
Because I think you should have to work for your money like us hard sweating miners, mission runners, and carebears and not just watching yourself die (caution may contain traces of irony)
Edit: yeay my alt agrees...
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 19:27:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Ben Alman Because I think you should have to work for your money
How would your suggestion accomplish this? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
masternerdguy
Gallente Caldari Naval Reserve
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 19:39:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Ben Alman Because I think you should have to work for your money
How would your suggestion accomplish this?
you dont think pirates work for money....ROFL
|
Mey Alman
Jonferson Space Dynamics Division
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 19:55:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Mey Alman on 07/03/2010 19:59:32
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Ben Alman Because I think you should have to work for your money
How would your suggestion accomplish this?
I'm hoping (however I admit that I don't have enough pvp experience to back up this claim, so correct me if I'm wrong) that such a system would make it more important to scout your targets. Do they carry valuables, etc. The current suicide ganking seems much like, "oh let's kill him insurance will cover it and perhaps I make a profit if I'm lucky but who cares it's fun to see others suffer anyway", but I want something like"hey we scouted out a potential target, but it is in high sec. However it has it said to have enough cargo to make a good profit"
Perhaps I should add that it isn't my goal to punish suicide gankers who do this for a living, which is perfectly fine in my opinion. I want to punish those who do it just to make others miserable.
Should my proposed "solution" accomplish something else, than it would have to be adjusted
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 20:04:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Mey Alman
It is CONCORDs duty to protect the player in highsec
No it isn't.
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 20:08:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Mey Alman The current suicide ganking seems much like, "oh let's kill him insurance will cover it and perhaps I make a profit if I'm lucky but who cares it's fun to see others suffer anyway"
Maybe. But if that's the case, wouldn't it be better to go after the actual cause: the wrecked minerals market?
The kind of change you're asking for – one that requires planning to see returns – has already happened, and the effect of that change was an increase in for-fun ganking. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Banana Torres
The Green Banana Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 20:31:00 -
[18]
There are so many stupid ideas that don't fix the real problem, but in trying to do something about the problem will only make the problem worse.
The problem that Mey Alman has it getting killed in high sec. If you agree with her that this is a problem then the obvious fix is to prevent the killing. If not then you just have tell her to gb2wow.
|
Mey Alman
Jonferson Space Dynamics Division
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 20:32:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Mey Alman on 07/03/2010 20:33:55
Originally by: Tippia Maybe. But if that's the case, wouldn't it be better to go after the actual cause: the wrecked minerals market?
That's definitely another source of the overall problem, but nothing I personally have no idea how to fix it without hurting many many players. I'd love to see the mineral prices going up again but I also think that the current suicide mechanism is without much consequences (even with higher mineral prices losses of some millions re nothing for advanced player.) My primary aim is to save "first-year-players" from loosing everything to a multi billion player who wants to have some fun wrecking his BS. Of course never fly what you cant afford to lose applies to them too, but I could imagine loosing your first BS you saved months for (even if you are able to buy exactly one new one) being quite an "oh screw this game" experience. However I think high sec ganking is a valid part of the gameplay and therefor do not support ideas like no payout for CONCORD kills. This is why I would like to save players from the ultimate failure and at least reimburse them partially. (And to prevent further pumping of ISK into the game this money has to come from somewhere)
@Banana Torres (great name btw :) ) You may check the Killboards to see that I wasn't killed in hs. I simply think that there is a problem from observing the situation.
|
Darth Iamnothappy
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 20:34:00 -
[20]
Should have the actual empires respond to such events. Makes me laugh how the big tough empires are so pathetic and weak. They should roll through low sec blasting everyone red to them in site and any docking/logout should result in total lose of ship and pod for red. The empires also should roll big into 0.0 wrecking up different alliances and corps for the lulz. Oh wait that would not be fun for those getting stomped flat.
All for the lulz of course. No harm done really it is just a game. etc etc etc. |
|
Suicidal Hamster
Hamster Holding Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 20:35:00 -
[21]
Concord is not for protection. Concord just punish. That's all. Happy hunting. :)
|
Mey Alman
Jonferson Space Dynamics Division
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 20:54:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Suicidal Hamster Concord is not for protection. Concord just punish. That's all. Happy hunting. :)
Well I expressed my opinion to this before, but I slowly get the impression that CONCORD receives money from some pirate godfathers to let them do their business relatively unharmed
|
masternerdguy
Gallente Caldari Naval Reserve
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 20:55:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Mey Alman
Originally by: Suicidal Hamster Concord is not for protection. Concord just punish. That's all. Happy hunting. :)
Well I expressed my opinion to this before, but I slowly get the impression that CONCORD receives money from some pirate godfathers to let them do their business relatively unharmed
dying is relatively unharmed?
|
Mey Alman
Jonferson Space Dynamics Division
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 21:01:00 -
[24]
Originally by: masternerdguy
Originally by: Mey Alman
Originally by: Suicidal Hamster Concord is not for protection. Concord just punish. That's all. Happy hunting. :)
Well I expressed my opinion to this before, but I slowly get the impression that CONCORD receives money from some pirate godfathers to let them do their business relatively unharmed
dying is relatively unharmed?
Well afaik you only lose your ship, but even if you should die: Considering the fact that according to lore the worst result is a slight headache, yes. The financial side is covered anyway
|
Boomershoot
Caldari Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 21:03:00 -
[25]
Oh look
The parrot vortex signature had to go. No hypnotic graphics in signatures please. Shadow. World Domination With Hypnotic Parrots Status: FOILED! |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 21:07:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Mey Alman My primary aim is to save "first-year-players" from loosing everything to a multi billion player who wants to have some fun wrecking his BS. Of course never fly what you cant afford to lose applies to them too, but I could imagine loosing your first BS you saved months for (even if you are able to buy exactly one new one) being quite an "oh screw this game" experience.
And yet, that's probably one of the defining moments of the game. If it's something you can survive (as in not be too fussed with), then this is the game for you. If it's not, then it's not. Why take away this lesson and trick the players into thinking that the game is something it's not? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Mey Alman
Jonferson Space Dynamics Division
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 21:34:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Tippia And yet, that's probably one of the defining moments of the game. If it's something you can survive (as in not be too fussed with), then this is the game for you. If it's not, then it's not. Why take away this lesson and trick the players into thinking that the game is something it's not?
Because I personally (and I will repeat this for everybody that wants to create a discussion about the creation of the universe: "PERSONALLY") think this lesson is too harsh for some players that would enjoy the game , even if they lose very expensive things in lowsec or in highsec due to sheer stupidity. I think that you can lose nearly everything in early game is something you need to take care of. (Perhaps I should create an Corp for the support of "civilian" casualties^^)
The problem is that this is nearly a religious discussion. Every side has its own opinions and I think everyone in somewhat right, but unless CCP decides something all we can do is to try to make our point and hope for the best. The amount of nerf suicide gank and nerf Lvl 4 are quite balanced so ever side has to struggle with something. But I honestly don't think that there will ever be an solution everybody can 100% approve (which is sadly the nature of a compromise)
|
yourdoingitwrong
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 21:45:00 -
[28]
Originally by: CSM Summit Minutes
The CSM brought up the issue of suicide ganking and feels it is too easy. The main problem is that this is in effect subsidized by insurance. CCP is aware of the issue and has discussed it at great length in-house. CCP feels it absolutely needs to compensate newbies that attack players by mistake in high-sec. This may get changed in the future but not in the summer expansion. It was made clear that suicide ganking is an accepted game mechanic.
Theres no compromise here. Its an accepted mechanic and as usual empire players are too lazy to find ways to deal with/get around it other than cry for a nerf. Concord is their to punish not to protect. Period.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 21:53:00 -
[29]
If you PERSONALLY feel that the game is too harsh then you should PERSONALLY go back to WoW.
CCP has stated numerous times in numerous places and in numerous ways that high sec suicide ganking is working as intended and a part of the game that will never be removed. Maybe a nice cup of HTFU will help you see the light.
Originally by: Jim Raynor EVE needs danger, EVE needs risks, EVE needs combat, even piracy, without these things, the game stagnates to a trivial game centering around bloating your wallet with no purpose. |
NatteFrost85
Amarr Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2010.03.07 21:57:00 -
[30]
Originally by: yourdoingitwrong It was made clear that suicide ganking is an accepted game mechanic.
i feel the urge to fly to ccp and bust some heads for that comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |