| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Amadeus Figaro
   |
Posted - 2009.05.01 21:50:00 -
[1]
My industrial ship was blown into itty-bitty pieces today in a suicide gank attack in hi-sec space. I understand why the pirates did it, but donÆt understand why CCP encourages this kind of activity. The attack was economical solely because insurance covered the loss of the hostileÆs ship. In the real world you canÆt burn down your own house and collect insurance. You canÆt kill someone and then collect on their insurance. Somali pirates canÆt collect insurance if the navy blows up their ship. So why can criminals collect insurance in EVE. It makes a mockery of the CONCORD mechanic, if there is no real loss and no real risk (pirates seem to laugh at the security hit.) I know some will argue that sometimes people ôaccidentallyö trigger CONCORD, but I am not buying that argument, so donÆt even try.
My question for the CSM candidates is: Do you support the elimination of insurance payouts on CONCORD kills?
Also, I would like to know your thoughts on life insurance to cover the loss of implants when podded.
|
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Ammatar Free Corps
|
Posted - 2009.05.01 21:54:00 -
[2]
Suicide ganking is a valid tactic in EVE, but there should be consequences for the gankers.
If you put a cargo-expanded hauler full with goodies on autopilot, you are asking for trouble. There isn't much that can be done about that, as even with removing insurance it will remain lucrative to gank careless players.
---
|
Xavier Hayes
|
Posted - 2009.05.01 22:19:00 -
[3]
If you haul around expensive items in gankable ships, then gankers will hit you. If you don't learn the lesson the first time (ie, don't haul expensive stuff in gankable ships on autopilot), and take risky routes as shortcuts, you'll continue to get ganked.
CCP have clearly changed the sec hit to balance this activity somewhat (ie, characters and have to get sec back before they can enter higher security systems again after a few ganks). This is the penalty a ganker pays.
No insurance for implants!
Xavier
|
Les Bains
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 00:02:00 -
[4]
Implants are a luxury for those who can afford it so i don't think there should be insurance for it.
Suicide ganking well i enjoy it sometimes.
|
Weazy Z
Viper Squad
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 00:18:00 -
[5]
Sometimes you die... its a part of this game. If you think that concord should protect you 24/7, maybe you should try to find something else to play.
Suicide ganking is fine. Infact, its more than fine-- its good. You think that grinding plexes to get faction loot is any more taxing or difficult than finding a good target to gank? No, and you need to realize that everyone in EvE wants a piece of the lewt pie.
|
Garthran
Gallente
CINDER INDUSTRIALS
United Outworlders
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 00:58:00 -
[6]
I would first like to ask why Ankh replies to posts asking questions of the CSM candidates?
</snark>
I think that the insurance system is inherently flawed. It needs work. This is something I'd like to explore and expand upon as a CSM. However, if you say that CONCORD kills should not be viable for payouts, then what about kills by empire NPCs in missions? If I take the Enemies Abound mission versus Gallente, and get killed, should I get a payout even though I was technically engaging empire NPCs? What about Faction Warfare fighters destroyed by enemy Police NPCs?
I agree with Les Brains that implants are a luxury, not a necessity to Eve. I think that if module insurance comes about (I haven't decided how I feel about this yet) implant insurance will certainly follow, but I feel that the premiums should be higher. If you're taking a risk with a head full of Snakes, you should pay good money to protect that investment. Of course, establishing insurance values on many implants will require an overhaul of the ship insurance system, insuring based on market averages rather than NPC build costs.
tl;dr- For now, CONCORD kills should still get payouts. No implant insurance.
|
Shatana Fulfairas
Gallente
Celestial Horizon Corp.
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 15:11:00 -
[7]
i think when it is an act of piracy for money gain on a ship concord should cofiscate the insuranse payout as a fine for "Crimes Against the Empire" it wouldnt cut down on piracy altogether as there are some people ingame who like to play that role but insurance fraud ingame should be the same as real life
|
Larkonis TrassIer
Neo Spartans
Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.05.05 01:40:00 -
[8]
Prior to the last suicide gank nerf suspension of insurance payouts was one of the other options in addition to boosting response times... CCP chose to boost response times, thus making all but the easiest of ganks more player (or shipsize) intensive. The reasons? I don't know, but I'm guessing it's more to do with the numbers of noobs going around concording their first bs accidently. Suicide ganking is NOT a big problem. If you play smart and at your keyboard then it won't affect you. As much as I hate to make RL analogies I wouldn't go cutting around even the most affluent parts of London in a drunken daze with an i-pod blaring in my ears and my pockets overflowing with cash.
The current system is fine.
Ref Implants... with the addition on jumpclones (standings are no issue, many people offer them either through joining corps for a day, saying hello to their Rorquals and making happy time etc) implant loss shouldn't be an issue. Plus you have to be pretty brain dead to lose your pod outside of 0.0. In the past 13 months or so I've had 154 losses. 5 of which have been pods. Of those... 3 were in 0.0 (bubbled) and two were in lowsec (1 I was AFK and got decloaked at a hostile pos, the other, well, i was in stiches laughing at something else which I was observing in my pod). But I digress... Treat implants like rigs for your head. You kid's don't know your born, back in the day when Isk was harder to come by implants were 4-5x more expensive. It's quite affordable to pop in a pair of +3s to a jumpclone and go and have a blast.
|
Eva Cic
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 10:11:00 -
[9]
IN fact in RL you have a higher chance to be robed if you dont pay attention for your assets. In eve, if you haul expensive stuff afk you asume the risk of being blown up in pieces. Moreover, if you haul that in a tech I hauler with nothing else then cargo expanders even you dont need much isk to fill out your empty slots with tech I mods, you dont deserve your cargo. And there are repercusions, ship loss, most of the time someone else take the wreck's loot, you are flashing red to all players around and they can shoot you without to get a killright, and beside that you need to do lots of dmg in very short time before concord to shoot, web, scram, neutralize and jamm you.
Reward? sec status loss and most of the time good things are destroyed and the remained loot do not worthit. Anyway is a matter of luck.
In fact concord is overpowered,only the "wise" players that haul expensive things afk in a unfitted tech I frig or industrial should be blaimed for high sec ganking.
|
Bunyip
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 15:52:00 -
[10]
Hello all,
No, I'm not a candidate in this election. I did feel like posting a reply about this though.
Recently, I lost nearly all of my possessions (well over 2b ISK worth) in a high-sec gank while I was tending to my kids. It hurt, but that's Eve, and I recovered. Eve is a dog-eat-dog world, and if you act like the lame gazelle in the bunch, expect the lions of the Serengeti to feast on your remains.
Eliminating insurance payouts is a good idea, and it won't do a thing to stop high-security piracy, considering the profit margin is usually much more than the loss of a sacrificial vessel. Implants should never be insurable....it's like asking CCP to pay for your clone if you die in faction warfare. Rigs, modules, implants, buying insurance, T2 discrepancies, etc are all prices one must consider the cost of when engaging in any sort of PvP, whether high-sec or low-sec.
Just my 2 ISK.
"May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table. |
|
|
Skallebank
Minmatar
Deralicts
|
Posted - 2009.06.02 12:38:00 -
[11]
unless you man ur ship at all times with a pricey cargo we will get u yarr.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, WHATS THAT ? |
Mordi Erman
|
Posted - 2009.06.03 20:02:00 -
[12]
Suicide ganking is popular and approved in rl. Hell they get 77 virgins for it.
|
mazzilliu
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 00:22:00 -
[13]
Edited by: mazzilliu on 04/06/2009 00:22:56
nice necro. also the virgins are a lie, you only get 77 raisins. ten million units of 77 raisins that you can resell for a fortune.
Suicide ganking is awesome and the tears are well worth it. carry less crap in your ships if you dont want to get shot. i got shot in a hauler once, and it cost them their ship because i fit shield extenders and passive hardeners.
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Zastrow J
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 04:03:00 -
[14]
risk v. reward for highsec is WAY off. As lucrative as highsec is, it's no wonder such a small percentage of the playerbase joins the "endgame" of 0.0. Suicide ganking provides a small amount of risk to space life highsec. I love it. Go hog wild
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 10:27:00 -
[15]
 Originally by: Xavier Hayes
If you haul around expensive items in gankable ships, then gankers will hit you. If you don't learn the lesson the first time (ie, don't haul expensive stuff in gankable ships on autopilot), and take risky routes as shortcuts, you'll continue to get ganked.
The point the OP is trying to make is not against being suicide ganked when hauling a larger value of goods, but against the fact that it is possible to gank at random, without even scanning the target ship and still keep ahead isk wise.
As the ship loss is covered by insurance the ganker need a few millions for BS sized guns, even less if he want to gank small ships, and he will get that back even if the ganked ship drop some million unit of tritanium.
So long as the pirate scan for a juicy target and prepare a well organized ambush, more power to him, the limit is when his activity is subsidized and made economically feasible by insurance.
Note that I am fully aware that if the insurance payout for Concord kill is removed CCP will almost certainly give Concord a longer reaction time, making suicide ganking of juicy targets more easy.
|
Hariya
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 16:56:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Amadeus Figaro
My question for the CSM candidates is: Do you support the elimination of insurance payouts on CONCORD kills?
I agree that the gank targets should not get any insurance payout.
|
Uronksur Suth
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 07:23:00 -
[17]
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that committing suicide should void your insurance contract.
|
Larkonis TrassIer
Neo Spartans
Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 22:48:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Uronksur Suth
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that committing suicide should void your insurance contract.
CCP doesn't seem to think so. It was one of the proposed solutions before the last suicide gank nerf. CCP instead chose to increase response time and lethality. |
Desdoria
Minmatar
Butterfly Effect Corp.
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 09:11:00 -
[19]
Who said you have to:
a) fly a ship that can get ganked
b) fly with implants
c) insure a ship before you go highsec ganking.
A lot of people i know dont buy insurance. I lost a Faction Fitted Fleet Issue Tempest through ganking... life sucks. Its taken em awhile to build back up.
Insurance is there, They have to pay for it and it gives a little back. Ganking sucks if you are being ganked but it is part of the Game. The mailing list i am part offers courier jobs, and within that they aks for Collateral. If it goes pop then you pay. Its a risk but lucrative if it works.
-Des
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari
Endemic Aggression
Exalted.
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 22:40:00 -
[20]
If there was some reason to haul your crap in low sec and 0.0 through gates there would be no reason at all to do suicide ganks in hi sec.
However only way to get your hands on expensive loot is to get in hi sec and "exploit" game mechanics and gank poorly fitted haulers/overly expensive mission running ships etc.
Whole carebearing system needs overhauling imho. NOBODY wants their stuff stolen, that's for sure, but there should be some reasonable risk with everything. It doesn't make much sense either that "everyone" (and/or their alts) is just happily slowboating in 1.0 and making isk.
It doesn't sound right to me that "pve" people claim that they've more right to make isk without interruption than "pvp" people.
|
|
|
Ariane VoxDei
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 15:22:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Laechyd Eldgorn
It doesn't make much sense either that "everyone" (and/or their alts) is just happily slowboating in 1.0 and making isk.
"oh noes, some people are actually making a effort and contributing to the economy, whatever shall we do, it's like you know, *work*, and ima pirate and pirates never work, work is for idiots, amirite? Oo oo, i know, lets blow their **** up and take what is left."
Of course there is sense in it you ****, it is profitable, unlike getting blown up in lowsec.
It doesn't make sense either that people keep distorting things this way - until you realize they have interests in being decidedly unreasonable and against fair principles.
I'll recap from the OP:
If concord is involved in blowing you up, you should not collect insurance.
That you do get insurance paid for that just artificially lowers the cost of suicide ganking.
Much has already been said about this many times over.
You actually *should* have to incur the cost of the ship sacrificed, not just the the fittings.
The current way means the ganker is at a cost advantage equivalent to his ship cost, vs the target. Obviously this is hugely disproportional and in favour of the ganker.
Cost of his modules vs cost of targets cargo and targets modules.
Instead of
cost of his ship+modules vs cost of targets cargo and modules.
You can not put the blame on the target that the pirate bum is incapable of making himself do some honest work.
It is part of what highsec is for. Not for forcing others to be victims of their degenerate "playstyle".
There will be no budging on this, they'll keep demanding until there is no hisec, no gate guns, no faction/custom police, no consequence for being negative sec status. Until, in fact, highsec is effectively like lowsec.
As lawless and as dead.
Face it, nobody wants to be mugger-**** victims. It's not fun and it's not profitable. Loss-loss deal.
Quote:
However only way to get your hands on expensive loot is to get in hi sec and "exploit" game mechanics and gank poorly fitted haulers/overly expensive mission running ships etc.
No. There are different ways. Exploration, contracts, 0.0 ratting. Aw, damn, you got me again, that's work too, amirite? And even in lowsec where you should feel at home and have "friendly competition".
Quote:
NOBODY wants their stuff stolen, that's for sure, but there should be some reasonable risk with everything.
Oh, wait, risk is full-insurance-guaranteed hisec gank, amirite?
Not, you know, like real risk, where you can actually loose a lot and someone takes the (surviving) fruits of your labour, like that nice a-type you finally got after lots of dud exploration sites.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 22:37:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Ariane VoxDei
Stuff
I dont usually do this but,
Are you Trolling or is that what you really think is the case? |
Anke Eissmann
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 11:59:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Zastrow J
risk v. reward for highsec is WAY off. As lucrative as highsec is, it's no wonder such a small percentage of the playerbase joins the "endgame" of 0.0. Suicide ganking provides a small amount of risk to space life highsec. I love it. Go hog wild
Originally by: mazzilliu
Edited by: mazzilliu on 04/06/2009 00:22:56
nice necro. also the virgins are a lie, you only get 77 raisins. ten million units of 77 raisins that you can resell for a fortune.
Suicide ganking is awesome and the tears are well worth it. carry less crap in your ships if you dont want to get shot. i got shot in a hauler once, and it cost them their ship because i fit shield extenders and passive hardeners.
I think you're missing the point. I think what he is saying is why are illegal activities covered by the insurer, at least that's how I read it. If you take out insurance on your house and burn it down on purpose the insurer will not pay you out. If you do something illegal in your car, the insurer will not pay you out. The same should apply to suicide attacks in high sec, not because it is high sec, but because according to concord it is an illegal act. I say suicide gank away, but there should be no insuring ships against illegal activities which concord respond to.
|
Uronksur Suth
Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 08:11:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Anke Eissmann
I say suicide gank away, but there should be no insuring ships against illegal activities which concord respond to.
+1
|
Ticarus Hellbrandt
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 12:24:00 -
[25]
In the real world security firms don't use shopping trolleys to move wads of cash.
|
RedSplat
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 12:31:00 -
[26]
Griefers blew up my Hulk in Highsec when i refused to pay them protection ISK. I want them banned and activating guns in Highsec made illegal.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
it does get progressively longer.
|
Magnus Orin
Minmatar
Heavy Influence
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 20:30:00 -
[27]
The last thing that needs to happen in EVE is to make it more carebear friendly.
Suicide ganking is fine how it is.
Play smart. Don't fly what you cannot afford to lose.
|
Goxxy Woxxy
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 02:01:00 -
[28]
Originally by: RedSplat
Griefers blew up my Hulk in Highsec when i refused to pay them protection ISK. I want them banned and activating guns in Highsec made illegal.
TEHY NEED TO MAEK IT ULLEGAL TO FIT GUNS IN HIGHSEC UNLESS YOUR INA MISHION HUB |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |