EVE Search - Insurance removed yet for suicide gankers?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Insurance removed yet for suicide gankers?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Carbarius	Posted - 2009.03.10 19:30:00 - [1] Did CCP remove the insurance payout for ships that are destroyed by Concord? If not, why and when will it be done?
brinelan Caldari Victory Not Vengeance	Posted - 2009.03.10 19:31:00 - [2] If it ist in the patch notes it didnt happen (mostly). Let me guess, you put everything you had in a t1 hauler and afk autopiloted and came back to an empty wreck? Some days you're the bug, some days you're the windshield.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.03.10 19:32:00 - [3] Nope, but they'll remove insurance for forum whiners next patch. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Carbarius	Posted - 2009.03.10 19:35:00 - [4] Originally by: brinelan If it ist in the patch notes it didnt happen (mostly). Let me guess, you put everything you had in a t1 hauler and afk autopiloted and came back to an empty wreck? No, I don't fly haulers, but it is ridiculous to pay insurance to someone who intentionally does something that will get their ship destroyed by Concord.
rubico1337	Posted - 2009.03.10 19:36:00 - [5] Originally by: Carbarius Did CCP remove the insurance payout for ships that are destroyed by Concord? If not, why and when will it be done? stupid people afking in haulers like you deserve to get ganked
Misaki Yuuko	Posted - 2009.03.10 19:38:00 - [6] Remove it, but nerf Concord, deal? p.s: I'm not a suicide ganker
Chssmius Capital Support House of Mercury	Posted - 2009.03.10 19:47:00 - [7] Originally by: Suicide Ganker You suck noob, learn to play. Seriously, they really should get around to modifying insurance to not work when Concord pops you. On the other hand, I know people who have been Concorded by accident(Smart Bomb something, or assign shield rep drones to the wrong target). Take The EvE Personality Test today!
Hopey Gallente L.O.S.T. Industries	Posted - 2009.03.10 19:50:00 - [8] Originally by: Misaki Yuuko Remove it, but nerf Concord, deal? p.s: I'm not a suicide ganker Why is that a deal? Leave Concord as it is and just have insurance payouts nerfed for gankers. It makes no sense that you'd get reimbursed for deliberately causing your own ship to be destroyed by the police for committing and "illegal act" p.s: Don't care if you are not (and no, I haven't been suicide-ganked either) \|~~~~~~~~~~~\| Hopey CEO & Founder, L.O.S.T. Industries \|~~~~\|
Strak Yogorn Amarr Farmer Killers	Posted - 2009.03.10 19:53:00 - [9] its a game, and therefore dont need to make sense ... quit whining already.
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2009.03.10 20:06:00 - [10] Originally by: Hopey Originally by: Misaki Yuuko Remove it, but nerf Concord, deal? p.s: I'm not a suicide ganker Why is that a deal? Leave Concord as it is and just have insurance payouts nerfed for gankers. It makes no sense that you'd get reimbursed for deliberately causing your own ship to be destroyed by the police for committing and "illegal act" p.s: Don't care if you are not (and no, I haven't been suicide-ganked either) I agree with her. They made suicide ganking too hard, when it was fine as far as difficulty goes. The main problem was that there wasn't enough of a punishment for doing it, so everyone and their dog was out there suiciding with practically no penalty. The penalty is kind of irrelevant when it's so hard to do that nobody even bothers. But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started.
Inertial The Carebear Stare	Posted - 2009.03.10 20:23:00 - [11] Originally by: Hopey It makes no sense that you'd get reimbursed for deliberately causing your own ship to be destroyed by the police for committing and "illegal act" It makes no sense that you get reimbursed when you fly your CNR straight into a fleet of Angel pirates who destroy it because you attacked them solo. It makes no sense that you get reimbursed when you transport goods worth billions in a untanked badger through null and low-sec. It makes no sense that you get reimbursed when you loose your battleship to a doomsday in null-sec. It makes no sense that you get reimbursed when you undock!
Sissy Fuzz Amarr Sissy Fuzz Communications	Posted - 2009.03.10 20:32:00 - [12] Originally by: Wet Ferret Originally by: Hopey Originally by: Misaki Yuuko Remove it, but nerf Concord, deal? p.s: I'm not a suicide ganker Why is that a deal? Leave Concord as it is and just have insurance payouts nerfed for gankers. It makes no sense that you'd get reimbursed for deliberately causing your own ship to be destroyed by the police for committing and "illegal act" p.s: Don't care if you are not (and no, I haven't been suicide-ganked either) I agree with her. They made suicide ganking too hard, when it was fine as far as difficulty goes. The main problem was that there wasn't enough of a punishment for doing it, so everyone and their dog was out there suiciding with practically no penalty. The penalty is kind of irrelevant when it's so hard to do that nobody even bothers. Go play some WoW or CS. Sissy Fuzz The cutest n00b evarh
Sun Clausewitz	Posted - 2009.03.10 20:46:00 - [13] Edited by: Sun Clausewitz on 10/03/2009 20:46:47 Originally by: Inertial Originally by: Hopey It makes no sense that you'd get reimbursed for deliberately causing your own ship to be destroyed by the police for committing and "illegal act" It makes no sense that you get reimbursed when you loose your battleship to a doomsday in null-sec. Stupid battleship coming unloose from the mooring again... someone tie that know the proper way next time
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.03.10 20:49:00 - [14] Originally by: Carbarius Did CCP remove the insurance payout for ships that are destroyed by Concord? If not, why and when will it be done? No, CCP have not yet further nerfed the sole remaining source of risk to empire. As to why: to give players some small advantage over macros. You're smarter than a macro, right?
Mouji AlMefel	Posted - 2009.03.10 20:55:00 - [15] It is nice to see the game moving more and more toward a game designed for exploiters and Griefers. It seems there are more than a few people who are not very good at low sec pvp or don't like having a chance of lossing so they use exploits to attack and prey on high sec players who mistakenly believe the CCP promise of being able to play the game through pvp or pve as you desire. Obviously Concord has become a meaningless deterent that players eager to capitalize on it's weakness. CCP is trying to expand the player base. Or so they seem to have suggested but I don't think they will be able to do it by implimenting harsh penalties or by allowing players eager to grief other players to do it safely. funny how a player who willingly exploits the system blames his victem. I guess it's lag when you they loose too. No big I suppose. How many pvers still play anyway?
Holy Lowlander Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:00:00 - [16] you actually tried ganking something lol ? if you can't get one-volleyd your prety much safe ....
Qui Shon	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:02:00 - [17] Originally by: Misaki Yuuko Remove it, but nerf Concord, deal? p.s: I'm not a suicide ganker DEAL!
TimMc Gallente The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:06:00 - [18] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Carbarius Did CCP remove the insurance payout for ships that are destroyed by Concord? If not, why and when will it be done? No, CCP have not yet further nerfed the sole remaining source of risk to empire. As to why: to give players some small advantage over macros. You're smarter than a macro, right? Oh don't ask too much of the carebears.
Olga Chukarin	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:11:00 - [19] Edited by: Olga Chukarin on 10/03/2009 21:12:42 You would ruin the game for everyone that got 'concordokkened' just to help the 1% of concord kills which are suicide ganks? 99% of concord kills are accidental. Examples are: Accidently attacking stations/wrecks, having turned off your concord warning by using smartbombs in missions. Accidently clicking on a weapon instead of a salvager, having turned off your concord warning by using smartbombs in missions. Misreading your sec status after a chase through lowsec and firing at someone in highsec, having turned off your concord warning by using smartbombs in missions. Thinking you can assist a friend who is under attack in highsec, having turned off your concord warning by using smartbombs in missions. Having your jet can stolen and firing on the wrong aggressor, having turned off your concord warning by using smartbombs in missions. Stealing someones jet can to gain agression, then shooting the wrong person, having turned off your concord warning by using smartbombs in missions. Thinking because there are navy ships around it is them that will attack you and not concord (navy ships are tankable, concord arnt) Bieng a nub and thinking you can tank concord. Also, what is wrong with suicide ganking? Ive never tried it myself, but if you are wasting an 80 mill battleship and 4mill worth of smartbombs what you are killing must be really worth it. Most ganks are against a certain ship, a ship designed for low/null sec mineral mining, but by the nature of the mining system the same ship becomes unbelievably overpowered at mining veldspar in high sec. So its death in highsec is only justice. Or against macroers, which most people would say deserve to be ganked in highsec and thier pod cracked open.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:12:00 - [20] Originally by: Mouji AlMefel It is nice to see the game moving more and more toward a game designed for exploiters and Griefers. It seems there are more than a few people who are not very good at low sec pvp or don't like having a chance of lossing so they use exploits to attack and prey on high sec players who mistakenly believe the CCP promise of being able to play the game through pvp or pve as you desire. Obviously Concord has become a meaningless deterent that players eager to capitalize on it's weakness. CCP is trying to expand the player base. Or so they seem to have suggested but I don't think they will be able to do it by implimenting harsh penalties or by allowing players eager to grief other players to do it safely. funny how a player who willingly exploits the system blames his victem. I guess it's lag when you they loose too. No big I suppose. How many pvers still play anyway? Hahahah ... Sorry to tell you, buddy, but attacking another player ain't being a griefer. Other games may deem it as such, but NEVER has EvE declared that attacking someone is griefing. Going out of your way to kill the same poor person 12 times in a row? You might have an argument. But pirate, theft, scamming, and simply murder are actual GAME DESIGN PRINCIPLES. Concord was added after the fact, fully implemented as a meaningless deterrent. It helps enforce a sense of crime, that is all. Concord doesn't protect you from you're own lack of preparation. CCP won't protect you from you're own lack of preparation. Only YOU can protect yourself. You might want to get to know the rules of the game you play first. Before Wormholes
Agent Unknown Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:15:00 - [21] Heh, I like insurance because I can self-destruct a ship that I can't carry with me...and get 100% back ----------------------------------- "What can go wrong, will go wrong."
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:17:00 - [22] Security needs a revamp. CONCORD needs to lose a lot of power and omnipresence. They should even be something you can escape from, though beating them should be another matter. BUT, on the other end, I would provide more permanent punishments for those who break the law in secure space. Specifically, if you're caught in a violent act against another player, you would not get insurance for the destruction that you cause, and may even get BILLED for who you killed. As well, the offender would be detained at the scene of the crime for an undetermined period of time, the sentence unavoidable through logouts or recycling. Last but not least, players would generate permanent records in the regions they are criminals, raising the repercussions if you are caught. In short: Criminals would still exist. Good criminals would be able to avoid the law for a long time, but after a while would face tougher and quicker reactions by Concord. Bad criminals ... well, they'd get punished far harder than they are now. Before Wormholes
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:18:00 - [23] Originally by: Mouji AlMefel It is nice to see the game moving more and more toward a game designed for exploiters and Griefers. You don't play EVE do you? How does "staying the same" translate into "move towards" (or, more accurately, how does nerfing ganks translate into a move towards promoting griefers)? Quote: they use exploits to attack and prey on high sec players You don't know what "exploit" means, do you? Quote: players who mistakenly believe the CCP promise of being able to play the game through pvp or pve as you desire Yes, players who believe CCP has ever made any such promise are indeed mistaken. Quote: Obviously Concord has become a meaningless deterent Yes, that's why we're seeing less ganks than ever. Quote: I don't think they will be able to do it by implimenting harsh penalties or by allowing players eager to grief other players to do it safely Eh? So they can't do it by punishing the griefers, and they can't do it by making it easier on them either… So what can they do, according to you? Quote: funny how a player who willingly exploits the system blames his victem What are these exploits you're talking about? This thread is about high-sec ganking, not about exploits. Quote: How many pvers still play anyway? Why would PvE:ers play a game that's 100% PvP? ——— “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
Hariya	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:19:00 - [24] Originally by: Mouji AlMefel It is nice to see the game moving more and more toward a game designed for exploiters and Griefers. Griefing is something that repeats and is targeted (ie. personal). One kill can never be griefing. If I however use locator agents to hunt you for 2 months and force you to either stay inside station for that time or die by suicide run instantly when you come out, that might perhaps constitute griefing. You apparently have never been griefed, sheesh... Kids using words without having slightest clue about their meaning
Thronde Valiant Research Associates Vendetta Alliance.	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:22:00 - [25] Originally by: Abrazzar Nope, but they'll remove insurance for forum whiners next patch. And there will be much rejoicing!
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:23:00 - [26] Originally by: Hariya Originally by: Mouji AlMefel It is nice to see the game moving more and more toward a game designed for exploiters and Griefers. Griefing is something that repeats and is targeted (ie. personal). One kill can never be griefing. If I however use locator agents to hunt you for 2 months and force you to either stay inside station for that time or die by suicide run instantly when you come out, that might perhaps constitute griefing. You apparently have never been griefed, sheesh... Kids using words without having slightest clue about their meaning In other video games (coughWoWcough), greifing is often anything you want to complain about Somebody killed you while you were doing a quest? Griefing. Someone stole your kill? Griefing. Someone looted the corpse you wanted? Griefing. Someone outselling you on the market? Griefing (yep, I've actually seen this one). Cursing? PvP? Running away? All griefing. EvE is a breath of fresh air. The list of what is griefing is really kinda short. Hahahah ... Before Wormholes
Ms Delerium	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:25:00 - [27] another chinese farmer or more likely one of their BOSS try gold-farming in WOW, there is a lot less "griefers" there.
Hariya	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:29:00 - [28] Originally by: Ruze The list of what is griefing is really kinda short. Hahahah ... Well, if it doesn't make the other party to jump from a bridge or at least cry a little bit for real, it is not griefing. Smashing keyboard, mouse, or other piece of hardware into thousands of small pieces with a nice cry of agony and frustration will do as well.
Arkhan Bayne	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:31:00 - [29] Originally by: Carbarius Originally by: brinelan If it ist in the patch notes it didnt happen (mostly). Let me guess, you put everything you had in a t1 hauler and afk autopiloted and came back to an empty wreck? No, I don't fly haulers, but it is ridiculous to pay insurance to someone who intentionally does something that will get their ship destroyed by Concord. how do you measure intent? how does an automated system tell that someone was trying to kill you rather than accidentally opening fire on the wrong target or making some other silly mistake? A computer can't judge intent, so what you're asking is for the removal of insurance payouts. it won't happen.
Misaki Yuuko	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:31:00 - [30] Originally by: Ruze Security needs a revamp. CONCORD needs to lose a lot of power and omnipresence. They should even be something you can escape from, though beating them should be another matter. BUT, on the other end, I would provide more permanent punishments for those who break the law in secure space. Specifically, if you're caught in a violent act against another player, you would not get insurance for the destruction that you cause, and may even get BILLED for who you killed. As well, the offender would be detained at the scene of the crime for an undetermined period of time, the sentence unavoidable through logouts or recycling. Last but not least, players would generate permanent records in the regions they are criminals, raising the repercussions if you are caught. In short: Criminals would still exist. Good criminals would be able to avoid the law for a long time, but after a while would face tougher and quicker reactions by Concord. Bad criminals ... well, they'd get punished far harder than they are now. /signed The concept of hisec protection and (real) criminal punishment has to be totally redone for a better gameplay. Suicide ganking or whatever has to exist and be possible but with real cosnequences, neither of these two things are happening now (suicide ganking unless you'e a moron or a noobs is very difficult and the consequences are "none"). Stop asking EVE to be 100% SAFE, you don't get EVE do you?
Junko Togawa	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:33:00 - [31] Old troll is old. Find something new to troll about, plzkkthxbai. Originally by: Dreximus Originally by: Alowishus These things make the game more exciting overall for people who enjoy risk and the ability to take responsibility for their own safety. At the risk of being cliche, th
Jacob Mei	Posted - 2009.03.10 21:44:00 - [32] CCP did indeed say they were going to do this shortly after they changed the way sec status acted for hostile acts between non warring corporationplan but since then I suspect it is a case of "boy, we shouldnt have said that last night, lets pretend it never happened." As much as I would like to see insurance revamped so that random ganking wasnt as lucrative I think its fairly clear that it would do more harm than good. For one it would practically elimate a method of play for those who do this activity and for another it would all but eliminate a method that goods exit the game. -------------------------------- To borrow a phrase: Players who post are like stars, there are bright ones and those who are dim.
Callista Sincera	Posted - 2009.03.10 22:03:00 - [33] Originally by: CCP Fear But what for the future? We have a taskforce (Named TaskForce Doughnut!) which is dedicated to looking over these changes and proposing plans for the future. We have already started work on the above, but the future holds more changes. In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future. The CONCORD changes and Security penalty will be hitting TQ this fall, with Empyrean Age 1.1. Be safe out there! CCP Fear http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577 2008.08.06 02:58:31 Apparently everybody has a different understanding of "near future".
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.03.10 22:04:00 - [34] Originally by: Callista Sincera Originally by: CCP Fear But what for the future? We have a taskforce (Named TaskForce Doughnut!) which is dedicated to looking over these changes and proposing plans for the future. We have already started work on the above, but the future holds more changes. In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future. The CONCORD changes and Security penalty will be hitting TQ this fall, with Empyrean Age 1.1. Be safe out there! CCP Fear http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577 2008.08.06 02:58:31 Apparently everybody has a different understanding of "near future". Game design is always a matter of months, not days or weeks. Before Wormholes
Panzram GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.10 22:04:00 - [35] Before the changes, you could use a fully t1 fit Armageddon to blow away a macro mining hulk in an icebelt before concord popped ya. After insurance and flying in a neutral industrial alt to loot both wrecks it was anywhere from a new loss of 20m to a net gain of 20m, mostly depending on what the hulk had fit/dropped. That was fun. You should probably play WoW Carebearius.
Amarr Citizen20090214	Posted - 2009.03.10 22:58:00 - [36] Originally by: Ms Delerium another chinese farmer or more likely one of their BOSS try gold-farming in WOW, there is a lot less "griefers" there. Do you know that generalization is ever prefered by the dim witted, since it doesn't require much brain cell and convenient enough that any $hit spawn from you sound convincing. BTW, I am Chinese and i am not a isk/gold farmer, and along with all the other Chinese players out there who just partly ended up in your pejorative remark "Chinese farmer" ops! Are you feeling stupid now? Are you even capable of thinking? who knows he could be a 'insert random country' farmer painting on an easy target.
Guillame Herschel Gallente Buffalo Soldiers	Posted - 2009.03.10 23:02:00 - [37] Originally by: Carbarius No, I don't fly haulers, but it is ridiculous to pay insurance to someone who intentionally does something that will get their ship destroyed by Concord. Yes it is, but it's not changing, so intentionally ***ing about it anyway is also ridiculous. -- The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then --**
Sissy Fuzz Amarr Sissy Fuzz Communications	Posted - 2009.03.10 23:08:00 - [38] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Carbarius Did CCP remove the insurance payout for ships that are destroyed by Concord? If not, why and when will it be done? No, CCP have not yet further nerfed the sole remaining source of risk to empire. As to why: to give angry schoolboys some small advantage over other players. Fixed. Look how primitive you are, angry little schoolboy. And in your anger you happen to get the premise wrong. There doesn't have to be risk. And you are not entitled to having an advantage everywhere. Or anywhere for that matter. Do you understand that? You know, EVE is a science fiction simulation. And Empire happens to be much like a modern well-ordered society. Virtually no risk. I know you are provoked by this. Because you need to vent. The compensation for your sorry life in your mother's basement. But this is just how things are. And now we need to address the insurance fraud problem. You know what? Get a girlfriend. If you are having trouble with girls, convo me. We can have a little chat. Sissy Fuzz The cutest n00b evarh
Sissy Fuzz Amarr Sissy Fuzz Communications	Posted - 2009.03.10 23:21:00 - [39] Originally by: Olga Chukarin Edited by: Olga Chukarin on 10/03/2009 21:12:42 Most ganks are against a certain ship, a ship designed for low/null sec mineral mining, but by the nature of the mining system the same ship becomes unbelievably overpowered at mining veldspar in high sec. So its death in highsec is only justice. Logic meltdown. "Overpowered"? How? "Justice"? Why? Who's the victim? Sissy Fuzz The cutest n00b evarh
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.03.10 23:29:00 - [40] Originally by: Sissy Fuzz Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Carbarius Did CCP remove the insurance payout for ships that are destroyed by Concord? If not, why and when will it be done? No, CCP have not yet further nerfed the sole remaining source of risk to empire. As to why: to give angry schoolboys some small advantage over other players. Fixed. Look how primitive you are, angry little schoolboy. And in your anger you happen to get the premise wrong. There doesn't have to be risk. And you are not entitled to having an advantage everywhere. Or anywhere for that matter. Do you understand that? You know, EVE is a science fiction simulation. And Empire happens to be much like a modern well-ordered society. Virtually no risk. I know you are provoked by this. Because you need to vent. The compensation for your sorry life in your mother's basement. But this is just how things are. And now we need to address the insurance fraud problem. You know what? Get a girlfriend. If you are having trouble with girls, convo me. We can have a little chat. Have you read the backstory? At all? Crime is RAMPANT. Every empire is striken with murders and killings. That being said, what kind of fool has to believe that every motivation in this imaginary universe has to be centered on reality? That same type of thinking is just as dumb as the dorks who wear their stormtrooper costumes to wedding ceremonies. If you can't accept that there is CRIME and the ability to MURDER innocents (or near innocents) in this science fiction simulation, without having to attach every action with some mental deficit or issue? Maybe you are the one having the problem, and not the other way around? It doesn't take an insane person to act like a criminal in a video game that specifically allows you to roleplay being a criminal. Nor a child. All it takes is being mature enough to separate fantasy from reality. I'm glad CCP has the gumption to include crime and viciousness in their sci fi simulation. Why? Because this exists in real life, and what good is a simulation if it doesn't simulate the good as well as the bad? On another note ... the only advantage pirates and criminals have, is the ignorance and naivety of normal folks. Works in real life, works in game. If you take no measure to defend yourself, if you take no precautions to keep yourself safe, then you are barely any better than the person who attacks you. Maybe not evil, but definitely stupid. Before Wormholes
Sissy Fuzz Amarr Sissy Fuzz Communications	Posted - 2009.03.11 01:20:00 - [41] Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Sissy Fuzz Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Carbarius Did CCP remove the insurance payout for ships that are destroyed by Concord? If not, why and when will it be done? No, CCP have not yet further nerfed the sole remaining source of risk to empire. As to why: to give angry schoolboys some small advantage over other players. Fixed. Look how primitive you are, angry little schoolboy. And in your anger you happen to get the premise wrong. There doesn't have to be risk. And you are not entitled to having an advantage everywhere. Or anywhere for that matter. Do you understand that? You know, EVE is a science fiction simulation. And Empire happens to be much like a modern well-ordered society. Virtually no risk. I know you are provoked by this. Because you need to vent. The compensation for your sorry life in your mother's basement. But this is just how things are. And now we need to address the insurance fraud problem. You know what? Get a girlfriend. If you are having trouble with girls, convo me. We can have a little chat. Have you read the backstory? At all? Crime is RAMPANT. Every empire is striken with murders and killings. That being said, what kind of fool has to believe that every motivation in this imaginary universe has to be centered on reality? That same type of thinking is just as dumb as the dorks who wear their stormtrooper costumes to wedding ceremonies. If you can't accept that there is CRIME and the ability to MURDER innocents (or near innocents) in this science fiction simulation, without having to attach every action with some mental deficit or issue? Maybe you are the one having the problem, and not the other way around? It doesn't take an insane person to act like a criminal in a video game that specifically allows you to roleplay being a criminal. Nor a child. All it takes is being mature enough to separate fantasy from reality. I'm glad CCP has the gumption to include crime and viciousness in their sci fi simulation. Why? Because this exists in real life, and what good is a simulation if it doesn't simulate the good as well as the bad? On another note ... the only advantage pirates and criminals have, is the ignorance and naivety of normal folks. Works in real life, works in game. If you take no measure to defend yourself, if you take no precautions to keep yourself safe, then you are barely any better than the person who attacks you. Maybe not evil, but definitely stupid. I would NEVER EVER wear a stormtrooper outfit to a wedding. Princess Leia, maybe. Yes, "Crime is RAMPANT. Every empire is striken with murders and killings." The killers just don't get insurance money afterwards. Game mechanics that automatically compensate the planned destruction of property is fundamentally out of line with the risk/gain balance in place for most player activities. CCP has gone to great length to build a rich, coherent environment. And they have succeeded to a degree where you can begin to talk about a simulation. With the unrealistic sci-fi elements to make the synopsis work, of course. I think it is completely reasonable to expect at least an ingame insurance company to display some sort of realistically motivated behaviour. Instead of this Mickey Mouse mechanism. I have no problem with EVE. I am not even an Empire dveller. But I do have a problem with pirate whiners. I want them to cry, the little pirates, because I don't buy the roleplaying crap. 90% of the pirates are playing to cause as much grief as possible for their buck. Hence the angry little schoolboy angle. I think it is bad game design and frankly bad business from CCP's point of view to facilitate griefing via ingame mechanics. Pirating is ok. It should just be treated as such. Sissy Fuzz The cutest n00b evarh
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.03.11 01:33:00 - [42] Originally by: Sissy Fuzz I would NEVER EVER wear a stormtrooper outfit to a wedding. Princess Leia, maybe. Yes, "Crime is RAMPANT. Every empire is striken with murders and killings." The killers just don't get insurance money afterwards. Game mechanics that automatically compensate the planned destruction of property is fundamentally out of line with the risk/gain balance in place for most player activities. CCP has gone to great length to build a rich, coherent environment. And they have succeeded to a degree where you can begin to talk about a simulation. With the unrealistic sci-fi elements to make the synopsis work, of course. I think it is completely reasonable to expect at least an ingame insurance company to display some sort of realistically motivated behaviour. Instead of this Mickey Mouse mechanism. I have no problem with EVE. I am not even an Empire dveller. But I do have a problem with pirate whiners. I want them to cry, the little pirates, because I don't buy the roleplaying crap. 90% of the pirates are playing to cause as much grief as possible for their buck. Hence the angry little schoolboy angle. I think it is bad game design and frankly bad business from CCP's point of view to facilitate griefing via ingame mechanics. Pirating is ok. It should just be treated as such. With the part about Concord and insurance, I agree. In this same post, you see my position. But the part about pirates being angry little schoolboys? I don't get. Even though I'm not a pirate, I have had friends who were pirates or took up pirating. By and large from my own experiences, they are pretty respectful. They just tend to take 'do what you want' to the extreme. The forum pirates? Yeah, schoolkids. But the forum characters are usually far more ret*rded than the guys in-game. Probably the dumbest class of gamer, if we're generalizing, is the scammer type. But idiots run in all circles. I'm simply cautioning against trying to throw real-life reasonings into in-character actions. It don't always fit. Before Wormholes
Microsoft Sam The Nexus Project	Posted - 2009.03.11 01:47:00 - [43] God this games turning into hello kitty online.. Gone are the funtimes.. to keep the wowesque nubhats happy..
Junko Togawa	Posted - 2009.03.11 06:57:00 - [44] Lulz, sensitive much, folks? Or is the threadcount of 'nerf insurance' reaching the OVER NINE THOUSAND?!?!? point it needs to be considered yet? GG OP, you're trolling folks into maudlin displays. +1 Internets for you. Originally by: Dreximus Originally by: Alowishus These things make the game more exciting overall for people who enjoy risk and the ability to take responsibility for their own safety. At the risk of being cliche, th
Ralavina	Posted - 2009.03.11 07:45:00 - [45] Originally by: Carbarius Originally by: brinelan If it ist in the patch notes it didnt happen (mostly). Let me guess, you put everything you had in a t1 hauler and afk autopiloted and came back to an empty wreck? No, I don't fly haulers, but it is ridiculous to pay insurance to someone who intentionally does something that will get their ship destroyed by Concord. Simple fix: remove Concord.
Irida Mershkov Gallente Noir.	Posted - 2009.03.11 08:36:00 - [46] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Carbarius Did CCP remove the insurance payout for ships that are destroyed by Concord? If not, why and when will it be done? No, CCP have not yet further nerfed the sole remaining source of risk to empire. As to why: to give players some small advantage over macros. You're smarter than a macro, right? Probably not.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.03.11 08:39:00 - [47] Originally by: Callista Sincera Originally by: CCP Fear But what for the future? We have a taskforce (Named TaskForce Doughnut!) which is dedicated to looking over these changes and proposing plans for the future. We have already started work on the above, but the future holds more changes. In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future. The CONCORD changes and Security penalty will be hitting TQ this fall, with Empyrean Age 1.1. Be safe out there! CCP Fear http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577 2008.08.06 02:58:31 Apparently everybody has a different understanding of "near future". They meant "soon" with respect to the sun going in to it's red giant phase
Junko Togawa	Posted - 2009.03.11 08:44:00 - [48] Originally by: Ralavina Simple fix: remove Concord. Simple fix: remove PvP. Originally by: Dreximus Originally by: Alowishus These things make the game more exciting overall for people who enjoy risk and the ability to take responsibility for their own safety. At the risk of being cliche, th
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.03.11 08:47:00 - [49] Originally by: Sissy Fuzz There doesn't have to be risk. Yes there does. Otherwise, the gameplay quickly becomes unbalanced and breaks down. Risk of — or, actually, certainty of — ship destruction is what drives the entire game. If you remove that, the game dies because nothing in it has any purpose any more. Quote: And you are not entitled to having an advantage everywhere. They don't. Carebears have very advantage they need in highsec and don't need any more. Quote: You know, EVE is a science fiction simulation. And Empire happens to be much like a modern well-ordered society. Virtually no risk. There is virtually no risk right now. Nerfing high-sec piracy even more makes it actually no risk, which is a very very bad thing. ——— “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
Zebler Space Chimps	Posted - 2009.03.11 09:02:00 - [50] Suicide ganking is currently very easy to do. I have done it myself in the past to exact revenge on certain people It does not make much sense to get your insurance paid out when you do this. The loss you experience from suiciding a bs is only around 10-20m. The loss you will inflict on your opponent is much much greater, even if they have no cargo (ship, pod, implants). I can understand some concern about the removal of insurance payout due to concord intervention as a lot of people do make silly accidental mistakes. It should be simple to implement a check. If you destroyed someone's ship when you get concordokened then no payout. If your target lived then you are paid out. This will make sure that ppl who fire on station and kill nothing will still get some isk back. While the gankers do not get a free ship to continue their plans.
wickedpheonix	Posted - 2009.03.11 09:12:00 - [51] Originally by: Carbarius Did CCP remove the insurance payout for ships that are destroyed by Concord? If not, why and when will it be done? It may not make sense that pirates get a payout when concordokkened, but keep in mind that piracy is a profession in EVE, just like missioning and others - if players get insurance payouts after shooting up pirate NPC's in missions, and players get insurance payouts after shooting each other up in normal PvP (thinking of wardecs here), then players should get insurance payouts when engaged in pirate PvP.
Primnproper	Posted - 2009.03.11 13:37:00 - [52] Originally by: Sissy Fuzz I have no problem with EVE. I am not even an Empire dveller. But I do have a problem with pirate whiners. I want them to cry, the little pirates, because I don't buy the roleplaying crap. 90% of the pirates are playing to cause as much grief as possible for their buck. Hence the angry little schoolboy angle. I think it is bad game design and frankly bad business from CCP's point of view to facilitate griefing via ingame mechanics. Pirating is ok. It should just be treated as such. Ahh resorting to calling people names the last bastion of those who know they're wrong and have already lost. ... Originally by: Graveyard Tan I call bull**** and troll. If you are deaf, how are you even able to read this or type replies?
Sissy Fuzz Amarr Sissy Fuzz Communications	Posted - 2009.03.11 13:41:00 - [53] Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 11/03/2009 08:49:22 Originally by: Sissy Fuzz There doesn't have to be risk. Yes there does. Otherwise, the gameplay quickly becomes unbalanced and breaks down. Risk of ù or, actually, certainty of ù ship destruction is what drives the entire game. If you remove that, the game dies because nothing in it has any purpose any more. Quote: And you are not entitled to having an advantage everywhere. They don't. Carebears have very advantage they need in highsec and don't need any more. Quote: Or anywhere for that matter. Quite true, but that works both ways: the advantages carebears have in highsec should probably be toned down to be on the same level as the pirates. Quote: You know, EVE is a science fiction simulation. And Empire happens to be much like a modern well-ordered society. Virtually no risk. There is virtually no risk right now. Nerfing high-sec piracy even more makes it actually no risk, which is a very very bad thing. Sure. I get all that - including the fact that the inherent risk throughout EVE is an important quality of the game. But I am not talking about removing risk. Of course the Empire gank should be possible. But no insurance for ships in that case. Simple as that. Sissy Fuzz The cutest n00b evarh
Primnproper	Posted - 2009.03.11 13:46:00 - [54] But there is plenty of risk in suiciding a ship... First off they might be tanked, meaning you explode but they don't Secondly there is no gaurentee that the cargo will survive, so you might pop them and not recover enough to play for your insurance premium. Thirdly my alt might be there waiting to scoop the can of the hauler you just popped meaning i get all the loot and the ganker gets none. Forthly you could take a mate along and he can pop the can before the gankers hauler gets it. Fifthly, sec status loss. Sixthly, getting suicide ganked by someone else. Need I list anymore. ... Originally by: Graveyard Tan I call bull**** and troll. If you are deaf, how are you even able to read this or type replies?

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.