Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
spiderppig
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 13:19:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Avon Ah, the old insurance circular arguement, it seems like only days since the last one.
A: Remove insurance for concord kills because it makes suiciding risk free.
B: But there is still some loss if they get no loot, and the suicided ship gets insurance too, so they have lost nothing either.
A: But the victim has lost a millionty billion ISK in cargo and modules.
B: Then the suicider would have profited even without insurance.
A: Ah, but they do it without risk, they can gank anything because insurance covers their losses!
B: Most of their losses .. but if the target has no value then surely their insurance covers their loss too?
A: But, but, but, IT'S NOT FAIR!
B: No, it's Eve.
actually i dont care if ccp takes out insurance losses to concord it matters absolutly nothing. I fail too see how the bears feel itll make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
|
spiderppig
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 13:22:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Gil sArne
Originally by: spiderppig Edited by: spiderppig on 09/04/2008 03:35:45 You have a few flaws in most of your arguements with implementing this.
First off there is no protection for newer players that accidently shot someone in hi-sec. Which if implemented ill predict that the EVE General Discussions forum will be filled whith whines of "CONCORD Ganked me in Hi-sec and i dont know why?!?!".
Non issue, They get a free ship it will happen.
Originally by: spiderppig Now i ask the carebears is it worth it to cause less then 20 million in extra cost per gank or to have the added protection just in case you CONCORD yourself.
Yes
you still think im referring to the actual noob ship im talking about there first real ship i know my first BC took me about 2 weeks mining to pay for died 2 hours latter to a curse in low sec. now how it died matters not but the fact it did blow up forcing me to mine another week to get back to the same point if i didnt get the insurance or even the basic insurance i feel thats a huge set back for a newer player.
|
Shintai
Gallente Balad Naran Orbital Shipyards
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 13:31:00 -
[63]
Losing 12million or losing 30million makes alot of difference in the random ganking. The point is people actually have to think on what they shoot at. Right now we have people that even shoot at empty haulers and such. Simply because even then the mods whatever can almost or so make a break even. Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry |
spiderppig
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 13:35:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Shintai Losing 12million or losing 30million makes alot of difference in the random ganking. The point is people actually have to think on what they shoot at. Right now we have people that even shoot at empty haulers and such. Simply because even then the mods whatever can almost or so make a break even.
know of some gankers being harrassed by a falcon waiting to try and jam them when they went for a target. end result they ganked the falcon for the luls was rigged up 2 boot
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 13:40:00 -
[65]
Originally by: spiderppig I fail too see how the bears feel itll make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
It wont.
A 10m thorax will still gank a hauler that’s carrying more than 10m worth of loot, not that 20, 30, 50, or even 80m or loot was ever something worth ganking with or without insurance anyway.
A freighter with a value substantially over 2 to 3 billion will still be ganked, the cost for the gankers will just rise from ~360m to ~1.5b, sure this will cut down on freighter ganks but it will still happen.
A shuttle, frigate, or other small ship hauling BPOs, faction/officer mods and such will still get ganked by thorax, or stealthbomber, people seem to forget that stealthbombers are a common suicide gank ship yet don’t get insurance anyway.
A heavily faction fitted raven/CNR/whatever will still get ganked and with the cost of faction mods what they are, insurance won’t make much difference, weather you have to spend 30m-60m or 130m-260m to get a billion+ isk in loot makes no difference, it just reduces profit margins for the attackers which if anything is probably just going to make the occurrence of such ganks more common as those determined to carry on their methods seek to obtain the same level of profits they enjoyed with insurance.
So pretty much the only thing such a change would have a serious effect on would be freighter ganks, and despite what the forums would have you believe they are not nearly as common as you think they are.
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Saori Rei
Gallente Cruoris Seraphim
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 13:46:00 -
[66]
Pre-empting a middle ground here. We know full well suicide ganking is not going to be removed so I wouldn't be surprised if people (including myself) are just looking for a middle ground which levels the playing field, even if just a little bit.
Warp to zero to avoid ganking doesn't work. I have seen people (including myself) get ganked even though the ships were tanked AND not autopiloting. And since we have a 0.0001% chance of getting suicide ganking removed, we have to settle for making it cost that little bit extra -to- gank.
1) We doubt haulers will be made tougher. 2) We doubt concord will be faster 3) we doubt pirates will get a larger sec hit 4) Being able to exchange kill rights could be a nice extra balance 5) We doubt insurance costs will rise for those who consistently 'illegally' pirate in high sec.
So we take what we can take.
|
spiderppig
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 13:49:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Alski
Originally by: spiderppig I fail too see how the bears feel itll make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
It wont.
A 10m thorax will still gank a hauler thatĘs carrying more than 10m worth of loot, not that 20, 30, 50, or even 80m or loot was ever something worth ganking with or without insurance anyway.
A freighter with a value substantially over 2 to 3 billion will still be ganked, the cost for the gankers will just rise from ~360m to ~1.5b, sure this will cut down on freighter ganks but it will still happen.
A shuttle, frigate, or other small ship hauling BPOs, faction/officer mods and such will still get ganked by thorax, or stealthbomber, people seem to forget that stealthbombers are a common suicide gank ship yet donĘt get insurance anyway.
A heavily faction fitted raven/CNR/whatever will still get ganked and with the cost of faction mods what they are, insurance wonĘt make much difference, weather you have to spend 30m-60m or 130m-260m to get a billion+ isk in loot makes no difference, it just reduces profit margins for the attackers which if anything is probably just going to make the occurrence of such ganks more common as those determined to carry on their methods seek to obtain the same level of profits they enjoyed with insurance.
So pretty much the only thing such a change would have a serious effect on would be freighter ganks, and despite what the forums would have you believe they are not nearly as common as you think they are.
Actually can some of the numbers a while back for freighter ganks 3 brutixs about = 2 hyperions. need about 12 hyperions for the gank. So 18 brutixes at a loss of 30 mill each if u remove insurance is about 540mill in losses i mean thats nothing most freighters r autopiloting with either 2billion isk worth of stuff or a shuttle(just a shuttle is probally the most common)
|
spiderppig
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 13:52:00 -
[68]
i like the ability to sell kill rights (or it would be more of a transfer of it to someone for a fee)
i think it should be implemented i know ppl ive killed in hi sec not a single 1 has come back to try and collect on the kill right.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 13:52:00 -
[69]
Quote: You have a few flaws in most of your arguements with implementing this.
First off there is no protection for newer players that accidently shot someone in hi-sec
What kind of idiot comes up with this reasoning? It's trivially easy to differentiate between these two in the code.
Did you blow up an innocent ship? No insurance for you. Did you just scratch the paint on some guy? Ok, here's your insurance. We assume it was an accident.
|
spiderppig
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 13:58:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Ulstan
Quote: You have a few flaws in most of your arguements with implementing this.
First off there is no protection for newer players that accidently shot someone in hi-sec
What kind of idiot comes up with this reasoning? It's trivially easy to differentiate between these two in the code.
Did you blow up an innocent ship? No insurance for you. Did you just scratch the paint on some guy? Ok, here's your insurance. We assume it was an accident.
Whos to say the ship or player is innocent? i feel there all guilty of something mostly being lazy and want something by doing the least amount of work be it hauling minerals and mods in hi sec or mining.
|
|
Xyn Rhais
Minmatar Tessaract
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 14:13:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Xyn Rhais on 09/04/2008 14:16:27
Originally by: spiderppig Edited by: spiderppig on 09/04/2008 03:35:45 You have a few flaws in most of your arguements with implementing this.
First off there is no protection for newer players that accidently shot someone in hi-sec. Which if implemented ill predict that the EVE General Discussions forum will be filled whith whines of "CONCORD Ganked me in Hi-sec and i dont know why?!?!".
You get a warning for it, the same kind of warning you get for stealing cans, joining gangs, and for jumping into lowsec. I don't see how it would be rougher on the newbies then any of those. Most newbies will not have any insurance on their ship anyway, just the base 40%. And Ibis's are free you know
Anyway all this can be avoided, if people lose their insurance on their current ship if they kill someone without killrights in highsec.
|
spiderppig
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 14:21:00 -
[72]
ok now that im at home ill get u the actual prices
brutix 23.5 million isk 8.1 mil for platinum insurance payout is 27 mill = base loss no mods of 5 mill. so vs remove insurance payout it'll b a 17.5 mill difference compared to insured and voided insurance by all means change it matters absolutely nothing.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 14:32:00 -
[73]
Quote: Whos to say the ship or player is innocent?
Concord
|
spiderppig
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 14:34:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Ulstan
Quote: Whos to say the ship or player is innocent?
Concord
wrong
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 14:37:00 -
[75]
How do you self Concord often enough for it to be a problem?
I mean rly?
You get a warning the first time. After that you should know better. EVE RELATED CONTENT |
Nyabinghi
Minmatar Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 14:39:00 -
[76]
Even if new players were that stupid to be blown up by CONCORD by not paying attention to the player guides, or the in-game tutorial, or the pop up box which informs them of the criminal act, still the improvement to the game by canceling out insurance for CONCORDOKKEN'd ships far outweighs any possible negative. What are newbies gonna loose that they can't earn back in an afternoon anyways?
Side note, perhaps it's time one of the Devs stepped forward with some news...yah think?
***
|
Hori To
NorCorp Security eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 14:40:00 -
[77]
the only thing removing insurance payout for concord kills will do, is up the value of cargo+modules the target needs to have to make it worthwhile. It will also make "bad luck" on item destruction hurt more. Suicide ganking will still occur. From a RP perspective removing concord insurance makes sense. Removing ISK insurance from pvp combat will make piracy more "profitable", in the sense that even t1 fitted t1 ships will want to pay the man to live. Death hurts more. Fidgeting with insurance will move the balance in the game. And introducing no insurance on concord death will make it harder for new pilots.
One way to fix it will be to make insurance payable to people that are in that rookie channel you get forced into for 1 month. When the channel is gone. So is insurance payouts upon death to concord.
|
Alora Venoda
Caldari GalTech Giant Space Amoeba
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 14:42:00 -
[78]
to protect the accidental CONCORDing (shoot wrong wreck, heal wrong target, drunk, etc) and still punish suicide ganks, only void insurance if you are implicated as an illegal attacker on a killmail during that same aggression period.
so for example if you are killing a war taget and accidentally shoot a stargate you WILL get your insurance.
or if you fail to kill the target, then there is no gank and only suicide, so you still get your insurance in that case.
basically it should not be difficult for the system to logically detect an "illegal kill" (not just an "illegal aggro"). and as soon as it does, your insurance is voided. you could even get an eve-mail from SCC saying "we regret to inform you that your insurance on <your ship> has been voided due to criminal implications in the destruction of <victim's ship> owned by <victim>. have a nice day."
of course this would only apply in hi-sec. you can criminally kill others in low-sec with no penalty except sec status loss.
~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ Take away the risk and it would make flying around in space utterly pointless.
Take away the flying around part and you make EVE into a space themed spreadsheet application. |
spiderppig
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 14:55:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Alora Venoda to protect the accidental CONCORDing (shoot wrong wreck, heal wrong target, drunk, etc) and still punish suicide ganks, only void insurance if you are implicated as an illegal attacker on a killmail during that same aggression period.
so for example if you are killing a war taget and accidentally shoot a stargate you WILL get your insurance.
or if you fail to kill the target, then there is no gank and only suicide, so you still get your insurance in that case.
basically it should not be difficult for the system to logically detect an "illegal kill" (not just an "illegal aggro"). and as soon as it does, your insurance is voided. you could even get an eve-mail from SCC saying "we regret to inform you that your insurance on <your ship> has been voided due to criminal implications in the destruction of <victim's ship> owned by <victim>. have a nice day."
of course this would only apply in hi-sec. you can criminally kill others in low-sec with no penalty except sec status loss.
what if you fire on some1 elses war target and die 2 concord but they dont die and in 5 mins his war targets come over and kill him technically ur on his killmail.
|
Gil sArne
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 15:03:00 -
[80]
Originally by: spiderppig you still think im referring to the actual noob ship im talking about there first real ship i know my first BC took me about 2 weeks mining to pay for died 2 hours latter to a curse in low sec. now how it died matters not but the fact it did blow up forcing me to mine another week to get back to the same point if i didnt get the insurance or even the basic insurance i feel thats a huge set back for a newer player.
[/quote
All part of the learning process. I lost many ships when I started none of them to concord. And the beginer ships, not that expensive.
No payout for being Concorded.
|
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 15:10:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Avon Ah, the old insurance circular arguement, it seems like only days since the last one.
A: Remove insurance for concord kills because it makes suiciding risk free.
B: But there is still some loss if they get no loot, and the suicided ship gets insurance too, so they have lost nothing either.
A: But the victim has lost a millionty billion ISK in cargo and modules.
B: Then the suicider would have profited even without insurance.
A: Ah, but they do it without risk, they can gank anything because insurance covers their losses!
B: Most of their losses .. but if the target has no value then surely their insurance covers their loss too?
A: But, but, but, IT'S NOT FAIR!
B: No, it's Eve.
Little differences:
- the ganker will always insured to full, the target can be fully insured or not
- the ganker start an unlawfull act, not the target
- plenty of idiots doing that for fun and killmails as it cost little and being sponsored by the insurance for doing that
So your argument that you should be subsidized for random killing?
If you want to gank in high sec you should select the targets or get a loss in isk.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 15:14:00 -
[82]
Originally by: spiderppig
Originally by: Ulstan
Quote: Whos to say the ship or player is innocent?
Concord
wrong
Lol. Their definition of innocent is the only one that counts.
If you don't like it, go play in 0.0.
|
Alora Venoda
Caldari GalTech Giant Space Amoeba
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 15:16:00 -
[83]
Originally by: spiderppig
Originally by: Alora Venoda to protect the accidental CONCORDing (shoot wrong wreck, heal wrong target, drunk, etc) and still punish suicide ganks, only void insurance if you are implicated as an illegal attacker on a killmail during that same aggression period.
so for example if you are killing a war taget and accidentally shoot a stargate you WILL get your insurance.
or if you fail to kill the target, then there is no gank and only suicide, so you still get your insurance in that case.
basically it should not be difficult for the system to logically detect an "illegal kill" (not just an "illegal aggro"). and as soon as it does, your insurance is voided. you could even get an eve-mail from SCC saying "we regret to inform you that your insurance on <your ship> has been voided due to criminal implications in the destruction of <victim's ship> owned by <victim>. have a nice day."
of course this would only apply in hi-sec. you can criminally kill others in low-sec with no penalty except sec status loss.
what if you fire on some1 elses war target and die 2 concord but they dont die and in 5 mins his war targets come over and kill him technically ur on his killmail.
simple. you still get insurance because CONCORD killed you before you killed the target. by the time the target gets killed by his legit war targets, your insurance is already paid.
~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ Take away the risk and it would make flying around in space utterly pointless.
Take away the flying around part and you make EVE into a space themed spreadsheet application. |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 15:20:00 -
[84]
It would be very easy to simply say "No insurance if you just blew someone up"
Therefore, people accidentally shooting someone would still get insurance. As would *FAILED* suicide gank attempts. But who cares?
Succesful suicide gank attempts wouldn't get insurance, so that would raise the bar for 'what is and is not worth ganking' a small amount. Which is all I think that really needs to be done. Suicide ganking should stay, it's just that ships which really shouldn't be attractive suicide gank targets are.
|
Nielas
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 16:20:00 -
[85]
Suicide ganking for profit is a fairly illogical game mechanic. If Concord is called in to 'put down' someone for an illegal attack then they would obviously impound the wreck of the victim and any loot in it as evidence and would shoot anyone who came in to loot it as accessories after the fact.
As such the only reason why the mechanic still exists is because it serves some internal purpose for the devs. If they want to curtail it then they will remove the insurance on suicided ships. If they want to encourage it they will make it easier to do.
It becomes pointless to argue about it until we know why such a mechanic is still allowed to exist it the game.
|
Hamfast
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 18:00:00 -
[86]
First off, regardless of Concord showing up, concord is still summoned, and at that point all insurance should be void...
This will not stop Suicide ganking, it was never supposed to, it was proposed to stop the subsidized nature of the Criminal Activities...
If one wanted to try to stop suicide ganking, one could suggest that Concord/Gate Guns Pod all Criminals with - security standing and any criminal activity will lower your security rating to 0.0 prior to any negative security adjustments.
Kill rights would not need to be transferable as all criminals could be publicly flagged for 30 days after any criminal activity... any that wish to could attack them without fear of retribution from the authorities...
Or one could just advocate High Sec space be made safe for all of us care-bears... but I have not seen these suggested anywhereą nor would I support them.
--------*****--------
Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter...
So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
|
Rodanine
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 19:20:00 -
[87]
i am a tad confused by this topic a corp mate of mine lost his rigged raven with platinum insurance when he shot at a blinking red target that entered his mission area and he received no insurance payment he was told this was working as intended as he got concorded for an illegal act in hi sec space.
So if your not suppose to receive an insurance payment for being concorded then why do the gankers get an insurance payment?
before you say it must not have been a flashing red we questioned him but could never get a final answer as to what happened and haven't seen him log in sense.
|
AleRiperKilt
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 19:39:00 -
[88]
Edited by: AleRiperKilt on 09/04/2008 19:41:48
Originally by: Drykor Right..
On your first argument: Newbies get a warning before shooting stuff in high-sec
If you try shooting somebody, yes but I am not sure about wrecks. In my first month I was ratting in a belt and fat-fingered a railgun (F2) along with a salvager (F3). I didn't get the pop-up warning (never disabled it), just heard the girl's voice saying something, heard the gun, disabled it but I knew It was too late. 10 seconds later Concord took good care of my Vexor
--- CCP: Galaxy is too crowded, plz add 10X more systems |
Wet Ferret
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 20:20:00 -
[89]
Originally by: AleRiperKilt
If you try shooting somebody, yes but I am not sure about wrecks. In my first month I was ratting in a belt and fat-fingered a railgun (F2) along with a salvager (F3). I didn't get the pop-up warning (never disabled it), just heard the girl's voice saying something, heard the gun, disabled it but I knew It was too late. 10 seconds later Concord took good care of my Vexor
Oh there is definitely a warning for shooting wrecks. But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |