Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
THERisingPHOENIX
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 09:04:00 -
[61]
Never suidice gank or been ganked before so I wouldnt know whether to agree OP or not. Though no insurance for doing criminal activites and getting ganked by concord makes sense.
|
Kuronaga
The Drekla Consortium
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 11:40:00 -
[62]
Say WHAT!?
Man, insurance is to protect my investment against hostile entities
Space pigs are a hostile entity.
F$@# the PO-lice, son!
|
Malcanis
Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 11:45:00 -
[63]
Originally by: THERisingPHOENIX makes sense.
Ah, you're new to EVE?
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
My Postman
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 13:52:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 17/02/2011 13:23:09
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire I think insurance should not be reimbursed due to criminal activities. It sends the wrong message out.
Not really. It sends out the message "we like criminal activity", and that's pretty much a spot on message for EVE.
Originally by: My Postman Gankers should¦nt be able to PROFIT from suiciding,
Why not? If they can't profit from it, ganks won't happen to any greater extent, and that would be rather bad for the safety in highsec.
Quote: You can tank an Orca. Up to 100k 300k EHP. OK, it¦s slow about as fast as a battleship, it¦s its aligning time is slow 10 seconds and you will need more time than in your untanked Itty 5. Get over it.
Fixed.
My first point:
What do you want to tell me with this statement? Highsec becoming safer? Unsafer? Are you arguing with me that making PROFIT WITHOUT ANY RISK is eve-like? Please elaborate, or don¦t.
My second point: 100k or 300k, as fast as a battleship or slow, 10 sec or slow, what do you want to tell me with? Some sort of education? Feel free to educate me, or don¦t.
|
Josefius
Gallente JOKAS Industries Apocalypse Now.
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 16:28:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Fritzman Edited by: Fritzman on 16/02/2011 10:21:08
This was a serious question. I've heard and read about a possible change for ages now, but so far I haven't seen any confirmation about the insurance changes from CCP. Even people who have gotten killed because of the cargo they've been carrying shouldn't be butthurt about removing insurance from gankers - it would make you safer in hi sec as long as you used common sense when filling up your indies.
As long as the suicide ganking feeds into making players play more to regain their losses, CCP will not change this.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 16:40:00 -
[66]
Originally by: My Postman My first point: What do you want to tell me with this statement? Highsec becoming safer? Unsafer? Are you arguing with me that making PROFIT WITHOUT ANY RISK is eve-like? Please elaborate, or don¦t.
I'm saying that gankers should be able to profit from suiciding. If they couldn't they wouldn't do it as much, and that would be bad.
Quote: My second point: 100k or 300k, as fast as a battleship or slow, 10 sec or slow, what do you want to tell me with? Some sort of education? Feel free to educate me, or don¦t.
I want to tell you that you're vastly underestimating or understating the Orca's capabilities. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Richard Aiel
Caldari GloboTech Industries
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 16:48:00 -
[67]
Your law is fail... its usually to cater to those new players and to invite more new players in, ****ing off and alienating the older players and making them leave. ----------------------------------------- If you dont learn from the past you are doomed to repeat it http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469262&page=2#51 |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 16:58:00 -
[68]
I'll make you a deal, I can give up insurance from suicide ganks if you give up the right to war dec immunity while in a NPC corp. |
Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 17:07:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Alpheias I'll make you a deal, I can give up insurance from suicide ganks if you give up the right to war dec immunity while in a NPC corp.
Don't trade away our rights Alpheias! We do not negotiate with carebears! _____________________ Look down. Back up. Where are you? You're on a forum, with the alt your alt could post like. |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 17:10:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Chaos Incarnate
Originally by: Alpheias I'll make you a deal, I can give up insurance from suicide ganks if you give up the right to war dec immunity while in a NPC corp.
Don't trade away our rights Alpheias! We do not negotiate with carebears!
... sorry |
|
EglantinFinfleur
The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 17:21:00 -
[71]
Gankers are not after profit as much as they are after some unknown dude's rage. And as someone stated, suicide ganking makes everyone play more to recoup their losses, so CCP is unlikely to tackle this problem.
However, EvE today revolves around time/isk-making sink. Security status is meaningless and the universe feels completely unrealistic law-wise. Empire space, one side we've got highsec dwellers, and the other, gankers. They hate each other with a passion only fueled by the pathetic mechanic that Concord is: doesn't proactively protects non-agressive players, but reactively totally annihilates outlaws. This all-or-nothing response is terrible and sad.
Just remove Concord and gateguns, chaos will ensue and people will actually organize against empire outlaws.
|
Cambarus
Thunderfury Blessed Blade of the Windseeker
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 18:34:00 -
[72]
Originally by: My Postman
My first point:
What do you want to tell me with this statement? Highsec becoming safer? Unsafer? Are you arguing with me that making PROFIT WITHOUT ANY RISK is eve-like? Please elaborate, or don¦t.
My second point: 100k or 300k, as fast as a battleship or slow, 10 sec or slow, what do you want to tell me with? Some sort of education? Feel free to educate me, or don¦t.
Just throwing this out there, but taking a GUARANTEED loss still counts as a risk. A risk of 100%. You DO lose isk, and you DO lose sec status, every time you suicide gank someone. Do it enough and you'll be forced to rat to get your status back up, so there is a setback for the gankers as well.
The only real problem with suicide ganking as it is is that haulers seem to love moving hundreds of millions, if not billions, of isk worth of stuff in an 800k hauler. The people who get ganked just for the lulz, and are only carrying like 20mil worth of stuff, well they only lost 20mil worth of stuff, big deal. The gankers probably lost more than that. The problem is the haulers, not the gankers.
If you know full well that there are people who want to gank your hauling ship, why would you do so little to protect yourself against them? Get a hauler with more than 10k EHP, avoid systems that tend to be full of gankers. Make more than one trip, bringing only a fraction of the stuff with you each time, thereby severely reducing the risk. If you get suicide ganked, odds are pretty damn good that it's because you insist on min/maxing your haulers, because god forbid you should have to make 2 trips to move billions worth of mods. |
Brian Ballsack
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 19:49:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Fritzman Edited by: Fritzman on 16/02/2011 08:35:42
When is insurance going to be removed from deaths by Concord? People in their haulers need to have more faith in the illusion of hi sec being completely safe. By removing the insurance, a lot of recreational gankers would stop popping indies for a minimal financial gain, and in the end their numbers would drop and ganking would become less common. People hauling just a couple of hundred million worth of isk wouldn't be viable targets any longer. Everyone would win in this scenario.
Any timeline on this change?
Take away insurance and people will still suicide gank, it wont solve anything, they already know the value of what you are carrying before they shoot you know.
|
Kwashi
Adhocracy Incorporated
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 19:58:00 -
[74]
Insurance currently makes no sense. Someone steals your insured property? No insurance payout. You deliberately burn down your own insured property? Full payout.
Seems more like some crazy Scrooge McDuck type NPC person who hands out isk on a whim, than an actual insurance company.
|
ZenSun
Total Mayhem. Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 20:10:00 -
[75]
owh, one ov dees freds.
|
KaarBaak
Minmatar The Mighty 13th
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 20:24:00 -
[76]
The question is: why is CCP in the insurance business at all? Why isn't this mechanic player-run as part of the sandbox? Like the banks are.
KB
Circumstances rule men; men do not rule circumstances. --Herodotus, Histories
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 20:26:00 -
[77]
Originally by: KaarBaak The question is: why is CCP in the insurance business at all? Why isn't this mechanic player-run as part of the sandbox? Like the banks are.
KB
Because insurance in EVE is not a business ù it's a game mechanic that is meant to promote ship destruction. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Opertone
Caldari World - of - Empire Cassiopeia.
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 20:33:00 -
[78]
Forget it, let the cargo be insured at certain price... say 10% of the price... but pay out value is under 100%. Fraud impossible, partial compensation is likely.
|
KaarBaak
Minmatar The Mighty 13th
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 21:08:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: KaarBaak The question is: why is CCP in the insurance business at all? Why isn't this mechanic player-run as part of the sandbox? Like the banks are.
KB
Because insurance in EVE is not a business ù it's a game mechanic that is meant to promote ship destruction.
Bah...mechanics change. Learning skills, RR, insurance.
Circumstances rule men; men do not rule circumstances. --Herodotus, Histories
|
Sentient Blade
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 21:16:00 -
[80]
To put a small twist on this, why exactly isn't CONCORD firing torpedos into the side of Jita 4-4?
It seems to me that if assisting a person with a global criminal countdown results in you yourself getting blown up then it naturally follows that the same should go for the NPCs that sell you the insurance.
How is compensating players explicitly for suicide ganking a third party anything but giving direct assistance to someone who, under the game mechanics, is a criminal?
It's just a thought, but perhaps as soon as CONCORD engages a target the insurance on the target ship should drop to either the base insurance, or preferably zero - i.e. before it's destroyed.
I don't see how that could cause any side effects because it would be an event trigger rather than a later calculation.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 21:18:00 -
[81]
Originally by: KaarBaak Bah...mechanics change. Learning skills, RR, insurance.
Sure they do, when they're not serving a good purpose any more.
Right now, too few ships get blown up in EVE, so the chances of a change in the primary mechanic that promotes ships blowing up are rather tiny indeed. Or wellà I suppose they could make insurance pay more, and thus promote it even further, but that's not really the kind of change being proposed here. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Captain Sunnymuffins
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 21:47:00 -
[82]
First off I'm going to say there's far too much obvious rage in this forum. Suicide ganks are easily avoided with a bit of common sense. If you get suicide ganked, learn from it and don't become complacent again.
Second I have to say I agree that paying insurance for someone to go out and be shot down by CONCORD is a bit ridiculous. I wouldn't mind seeing it gone.
|
Brannoncyll
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 22:00:00 -
[83]
The only people who support insurance for CONCORD kills are griefers. I personally agree that if you are caught hauling expensive items in a weak industrial then players should have the ability to take you down. Removing insurance for CONCORD-destroyed ships will not affect these people severely, while it will make life difficult for the scum who get their thrills by making people's lives miserable.
|
Ten Bulls
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 22:01:00 -
[84]
Insurance premiums should increase based on number of claims.
That way the people who exploit this mechanic will end up paying so much they wont bother with it.
CCP, learn from real life please.
|
Kengutsi Akira
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 22:18:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Brian Ballsack
Take away insurance and people will still suicide gank, it wont solve anything, they already know the value of what you are carrying before they shoot you know.
This. Its happens in every game and there isnt a n insurance payout on most of them. Ppl gank TO GANK How long would it take to train up a suicide ganker alt to go bomb Jita 4-4? Jus curious :D
|
KaarBaak
Minmatar The Mighty 13th
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 22:19:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: KaarBaak Bah...mechanics change. Learning skills, RR, insurance.
Sure they do, when they're not serving a good purpose any more.
Right now, too few ships get blown up in EVE, so the chances of a change in the primary mechanic that promotes ships blowing up are rather tiny indeed. Or wellà I suppose they could make insurance pay more, and thus promote it even further, but that's not really the kind of change being proposed here.
Ah, I didn't realize that moving insurance to a player-run mechanic would cause people to stop PvPing. So yeah, if removing/changing insurance would cause PvP to come to an end, then it shouldn't be changed at all.
KB
Circumstances rule men; men do not rule circumstances. --Herodotus, Histories
|
My Postman
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 11:17:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Cambarus
Originally by: My Postman
My first point:
What do you want to tell me with this statement? Highsec becoming safer? Unsafer? Are you arguing with me that making PROFIT WITHOUT ANY RISK is eve-like? Please elaborate, or don¦t.
My second point: 100k or 300k, as fast as a battleship or slow, 10 sec or slow, what do you want to tell me with? Some sort of education? Feel free to educate me, or don¦t.
Just throwing this out there, but taking a GUARANTEED loss still counts as a risk. A risk of 100%. You DO lose isk, and you DO lose sec status, every time you suicide gank someone. Do it enough and you'll be forced to rat to get your status back up, so there is a setback for the gankers as well.
The only real problem with suicide ganking as it is is that haulers seem to love moving hundreds of millions, if not billions, of isk worth of stuff in an 800k hauler. The people who get ganked just for the lulz, and are only carrying like 20mil worth of stuff, well they only lost 20mil worth of stuff, big deal. The gankers probably lost more than that. The problem is the haulers, not the gankers.
If you know full well that there are people who want to gank your hauling ship, why would you do so little to protect yourself against them? Get a hauler with more than 10k EHP, avoid systems that tend to be full of gankers. Make more than one trip, bringing only a fraction of the stuff with you each time, thereby severely reducing the risk. If you get suicide ganked, odds are pretty damn good that it's because you insist on min/maxing your haulers, because god forbid you should have to make 2 trips to move billions worth of mods.
Quoting Tippia you don¦t lose isk, you make profit when doing it right, and thats even a good thing in Tippia¦s mind. Well, it¦s his mind, not mine, but as it is a sandbox, so may it be.
You lose sec status ok. These alts are not ratting their sec status back (at least many), they are biomassed. I know it, you know it, CCP knows it. And please dont go EULA now... Have a close look at Hulkageddon 4 participants, and look how much of them are still existing after 2 months time.
I¦m not complaining about suicide ganking, read my first post about it, i¦m complaining that they make (or can make) profit with it. I adapted, and if someone tries to suicide me, i¦ll give him the hardest time possible.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 11:42:00 -
[88]
How does one make this "profit" when T1 ships cost more than their net insurance value, as they all do now?
With battleships, the shortfall is quite significant.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Cebit
FLA5HY RED The Defenders of Pen Island
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 13:24:00 -
[89]
Removing insurances for concord deaths would deffinately make suicide ganking more of an proffession requiering a bit of thought,good intel and even a pinch of meta-gaming instead of the "i'm bored lets gank something for 40-50 mil.
We do go into higsec now and then and try and kill some haulers for a quick ISK fix when things get to quiet in our lowsec region, but as said.... make it into a proffession instead of the common thing everyone does when boredom sets in
The Rustbucket Outlaw |
Helicity Boson
Amarr The Python Cartel. The Defenders of Pen Island
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 13:43:00 -
[90]
For the record, I've been saying insurance for suicide ganking should be removed since Hulkageddon 1.
Several thousand deaths later, it's still not done.
At least this particular problem is not my fault :P
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |