EVE Search - Pushing the Insurance Issue

All Channels

Assembly Hall

Pushing the Insurance Issue

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dav Varan	Posted - 2009.07.10 14:26:00 - [91] Supported. No to "isk support for suicide gankage". Criminal should sholder the cost of the loss. Payouts for criminal actions is utterly ridiculous.
Zenethalos Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2009.07.10 15:55:00 - [92] Originally by: Dav Varan Supported. No to "isk support for suicide gankage". Criminal should sholder the cost of the loss. Payouts for criminal actions is utterly ridiculous. Tru dat.
Liquelity	Posted - 2009.07.10 20:37:00 - [93] Supported
Space Pinata Amarr Discount Napkin Industries	Posted - 2009.07.11 03:47:00 - [94] 1) The insurance company is not CONCORD. Not all corporations abide by the law in EVE. The insurance company is clearly a neutral entity who doesn't care who is paying them, so long as they get paid. (And they most likely make a profit, since an insured carebear ship is very unlikely to die.) 2) Making a real life to EVE comparison is silly. "Law Abiding Citizen" and all. Are you pretending to be a guy who wakes up and goes to work and makes money then comes home and watches tv and goes to sleep and does it again.. but in space? Do you want the life of a pod pilot to be comparable to the life of an average citizen in real life? It's a silly thing. Furthermore, real insurance companies: Would they insure you for hunting pirates? (Player or NPC.) No, no they would not. You may think of NPC pirates as 'resources', but by your logic, you're taking far too much risk. Intentionally fighting dozens of battleships is about as bad as intentionally getting CONCORD on you. The silly, nonrealistic EVE mechanic of invincible NPCs that kill anyone who shoots is the only thing that changes this. So, if you want realism? 1) No insurance for anything except highsec mining or hauling. Any combat is non-insurable, pvp or pve. 2) Higher taxes for empire protection. No NPC pirates of any kind in highsec. (How can CONCORD / Faction Police destroy any player, yet ignore the massive fields of farmable NPCs? Unrealistic, nerf it!) 3) Slower CONCORD response. CONCORD could not instantly warp in and save the day, and would not be invincible. It would be possible to escape CONCORD. It would be possible to kill CONCORD. (Although you'd, of course, be wanted and pursued. The life of a criminal, realistic, and not a one shot 'you die instantly'.) 4) All ships would be slowed down exponentially; faster than light travel? Nonsense! It should take hours to cross a solar systems, because FTL travel is unrealistic. The same for communication; it should take hours to send someone a message. 5) You should actually have to spend time reading long boring manuals to learn skills; autotraining is unrealistic. 6) You should have a 99.99% chance of never becoming a pod pilot, and instead being a mindless npc on a planet somewhere who probably works at a burger king. ...See where I'm going with this? EVE is unrealistic. Intentionally so. Unrealistic things make the game fun; insurance is a game mechanic, not a real insurance company. If it was real, you'd have to spend months arguing in court that you deserve the payment you're guaranteed by contract, only to get half as much as you deserve. CONCORD would not be instant. You'd probably not be a pod pilot. You'd spend years to move from one system to the next. There would be no highsec PVE, and highsec mining would require you to get government approval to harvest the resources... But EVE is not life on earth. It's silly to think space inhabited by immortal pod pilots is going to function like a 20th century western suburb...
Ex Mudder Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.07.11 03:52:00 - [95] Supported. Insurance sucks. What's the point of PvP when there is little to no ISK risk to doing it? POS Monkey / Nullsec Carebear
Zenethalos Minmatar Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2009.07.11 05:30:00 - [96] Originally by: Ex Mudder Supported. Insurance sucks. What's the point of PvP when there is little to no ISK risk to doing it? I agree. I can honestly lose about 4bs a day for a week and still really not feel the wallet pain because of insurance. As it stands I fly faction fit and that is still pretty cheap. Current claymore setup costs 700m, I went from 45m to 700m in a week of mission running (was sick from work :P). A normal schedual of isk whoring for me would take about 2-2.5 weeks of slack mission running to fit a 700m isk ship. The risk is just not there any more. The only risk is really in t2 ships, and that said making 150m on a sunday afternoon is not that hard.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2009.07.11 11:10:00 - [97] nerf concord about 5 times over, and then sure. after the last concord boost not a chance.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2009.07.11 11:48:00 - [98] Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton nerf concord about 5 times over, and then sure. after the last concord boost not a chance. This. So, no. Regards Mag's
Aria Selenis Minmatar Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2009.07.11 15:30:00 - [99] Edited by: Aria Selenis on 11/07/2009 15:31:51 Not to support suicide ganking, but from a logical standpoint.. The insurance company =/= CONCORD. Not all factions and corporations work together just because they're NPCs. So, really, the only question is how much risk a pilot is to insure. And if we're going to go that route.. Any PVPers will have insurance voided for engaging in combat. PVE mission runners? Same thing. Anyone who jumps into lowsec or 0.0? Yep. A miner who kills a few rat frigates in a belt? Risked his ship, no insurance. If you try to compare a pod pilot to a normal person, you'd have to assume they'd be in prison for life. (They'd kill thousands of crew by killing a single battleship.) But, really, pod pilots are above the law. Only CONCORD polices them effectively. And since CONCORD isn't the insurance company, and CONCORD jurisdiction only covers pod pilots (IE, they can't arrest corporations who indirectly support criminals)... Well, you get the idea. Basically, imagine you're insuring your car. Except you're an immortal who is above the law and you're insuring a spaceship that could wipe out a moderately sized city on a whim. Also, you can probably afford to buy your own city and blow it up. Just because you can. Do you really think a 'mundane car insurance' company is going to have the same policy as a company that insures spaceships to be used in combat with other spaceships? And, again, low sec status means CONCORD and faction police don't like you. If you'll check the mails 'Pend Insurance Company' is the name; not "CONCORD Insurance".
NereSky Gallente The Good old Days	Posted - 2009.07.11 15:51:00 - [100] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: NereSky Both self destruct and Ship loss through Concorde should invalidate the insurance on the ship -- i totally agree, what insurance company in their right mind would insure ships lost in these circs? In what circumstances of ship loss would an insurance company pay? 0.0 - never lo-sec - never ratting - never mining in a 0.8 or lower - never missioning - never pirating - never anti-pirating - never war-dec (either side) - never paying 40% above market value for a single 30% premium? - never "Insurance" in EvE has nothing to do with RL concepts of insurance. Just as RL concepts of law enforcement have nothing to do with a situation where immortal pilots who are allowed to fly battleships with nuclear weapon around "safe" areas. And where we can pay off the police to ignore huge battles directly outside public ports. You're trying to apply the rules and mores of 21st century western suburban civilization to a a game set in a hypertechnological far future with radically different cultures. Mmmmmm wasnt comparing Insurance in RL with every scenario Eve has to offer ffs, as far as Insurance gos anyway you would be wrong as insurance is based on Risk and if the element of risk is sooooo great the co wont insure ie self destruct and loss of a ship through criminal acts
Space Pinata Amarr Discount Napkin Industries	Posted - 2009.07.12 00:12:00 - [101] Originally by: NereSky Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: NereSky Both self destruct and Ship loss through Concorde should invalidate the insurance on the ship -- i totally agree, what insurance company in their right mind would insure ships lost in these circs? In what circumstances of ship loss would an insurance company pay? 0.0 - never lo-sec - never ratting - never mining in a 0.8 or lower - never missioning - never pirating - never anti-pirating - never war-dec (either side) - never paying 40% above market value for a single 30% premium? - never "Insurance" in EvE has nothing to do with RL concepts of insurance. Just as RL concepts of law enforcement have nothing to do with a situation where immortal pilots who are allowed to fly battleships with nuclear weapon around "safe" areas. And where we can pay off the police to ignore huge battles directly outside public ports. You're trying to apply the rules and mores of 21st century western suburban civilization to a a game set in a hypertechnological far future with radically different cultures. Mmmmmm wasnt comparing Insurance in RL with every scenario Eve has to offer ffs, as far as Insurance gos anyway you would be wrong as insurance is based on Risk and if the element of risk is sooooo great the co wont insure ie self destruct and loss of a ship through criminal acts Define a criminal act? Something the Amarr Empire declares is illegal? What if the insurance company does not agree with amarrian law? Laws vary from empire to empire. Various items are legal/illegal at different levels. Something that CONCORD declares is illegal? *Not all corporations have good standing with CONCORD. This is not real life. Law will not be universally agreed on.* As for risk.. fighting armed gangs of criminals alone in deadspace seems a bit risky, no? So why should PVE get insurance? And again: EVE is not reality. Insurance is a GAME MECHANIC, not a business. Say that with me. Game mechanic. Game mechanic. Game mechanic. You know, like shooting energy across space with an energy transfer and creating more than you sent, violating the laws of thermodynamics. Or never needing fuel for subcapitals. Or faster than light travel. Or implants which somehow effect the integrity of your ship. Or, oh, invincible NPCs which have a 100% chance to kill whoever attacks you. People treat 'suicide ganking' like it's self destructing ones ship to make a kill.. logically, it should not be this way. It's only suicide because people whine so hard that they need invincible npcs who never fail to protect them. And you HAVE invincible NPCs which kill anyone who shoots you. And yet, you're STILL whining that the other guy (without the army of invincible npcs) is at the advantage. Do you have any idea how pathetic that is? Yeah, yeah, their ship is cheap, etc etc etc. I get it. But if you get killed in a matter of seconds to an insurance fraud fitted tech1 ship, methinks you've done something wrong. Maybe, just maybe, when a gang of thoraxes warps into an asteroid belt, you should warp out? For a real life comparison, lets say you see a group of people screaming and waving guns. Do you.. A) Leave B) Sit there and say "There are laws here, nothing can go wrong. ^^" For all the whines about realism, no one addresses how overpowered the police are when they arrive in seconds and never fail to punish the suspect.. So I'll echo someone else. Remove insurance for CONCORD, but make CONCORD slower, escapable, fallible, destructable, etc. Highsec is not meant to be safe, only a bit safer.
Kasheem Cetanes coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.07.12 07:48:00 - [102] It doesn't matter either way to be honest, because some of us have figured out how to make high sec a very dangerous place for anyone who resides there with current high sec mechanics.
c4 t Directive Enterprises	Posted - 2009.07.12 13:56:00 - [103] no. i only support the complete removal of insurance. leave as is or get rid of it completely, just to shake things up a little. but seriously, no. mostly harmless
Victor Michaelle	Posted - 2009.07.12 19:59:00 - [104] Originally by: Space Pinata 1) The insurance company is not CONCORD. Not all corporations abide by the law in EVE. The insurance company is clearly a neutral entity who doesn't care who is paying them, so long as they get paid. (And they most likely make a profit, since an insured carebear ship is very unlikely to die.) Originally by: Aria Selenis Edited by: Aria Selenis on 11/07/2009 15:31:51 The insurance company =/= CONCORD. Not all factions and corporations work together just because they're NPCs. So, really, the only question is how much risk a pilot is to insure. I'm sorry, but the statement that "The insurance company =/= CONCORD" is completely untrue. Insurance is payed out by the company called "Secure Commerce Comission", and that corporation is in fact a member of the faction called "CONCORD Assembly". Just right click on an insurance evemail and select show info, and you will see that this is the case.
Ekrund Breach Mining and Exploration The Fifth Syndicate	Posted - 2009.07.13 00:41:00 - [105] Edited by: Ekrund on 13/07/2009 00:42:34 Supported. I have no problem with suicide ganking a ship in high sec, not my cup of tea. But I don't think they should get an insurance payout either.
Daffyd Bowie	Posted - 2009.07.13 00:45:00 - [106]
VanNostrum The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.07.13 14:58:00 - [107]
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.13 20:40:00 - [108] Edited by: De''Veldrin on 13/07/2009 20:40:40 Originally by: Space Pinata Define a criminal act? Criminal act as defined by the game mechanics. Shooting a neutral target in high security space, for example --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2009.07.13 21:31:00 - [109] Just create the mechanics for players/corporations to handle insurance themselves. Just create an item that acts as a policy that represents the object directly and that each person involved holds that automatically transfers a set amount of ISK from the insured to the insurer on a time frame agreed upon by both parties and pays out upon destruction automatically as well. Maybe even create additional values concerning losses in low sec, null sec, WH space, piracy, mining, pve'ing, etc. that effect the rates. The policy will always show the date created, the object insured and it's owner, any special conditions, cost, and payout. If the object is traded, sold, or destroyed an email is generated and sent to both parties describing the event and the policy either pays out and vanishes or just vanishes. The rest of the mechanics are in place to keep track of the insurance records of your clients by simply using the notes section in a players bio. File 13 the current insurance almost entirely. Only keep the current insurance model for players that have the SP boost as to buffer there losses a bit. A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
Neti Keire Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.14 06:01:00 - [110] Supported
Glafri	Posted - 2009.07.14 13:35:00 - [111] Got my vote
Warishell	Posted - 2009.07.15 18:15:00 - [112] Supported!
Aelsa	Posted - 2009.07.15 21:38:00 - [113] Supported
Grann Thefauto Internal Anarchy	Posted - 2009.07.15 23:23:00 - [114] If insurance was actually removed I would probably start suicide ganking. What you forget is that money is not the reason for the ganks that you guys complain about so much. High sec is not meant to be completely safe and suicide ganks already are rare. I've sat AFK in high sec many a time with very expensive ships with some expensive modules and never gotten ganked. I've also only ever seen suicide ganks happen when I was involved. If this were a systemic threat to high sec commerce and mining it would be a lot more common. As someone who runs plexes and sometimes flies cargo worth 200 mil+ through high sec I really don't even have a problem using autopilot. I'd probably be ganked eventually if I were consistently that careless, but you can still play the law of averages and come out well ahead. Just don't be totally oblivious to whats happening around you. If something weird starts to happen in your belt, leave. Common sense will always be a better protector than concord.
Aelsa	Posted - 2009.07.16 09:39:00 - [115] Originally by: Grann Thefauto If insurance was actually removed I would probably start suicide ganking. What you forget is that money is not the reason for the ganks that you guys complain about so much. Nice straw man. Who's complaining about suicide ganking? Gank all you want, I just don't think you should get an automatic payout for doing it. Either suicide ganking itself is profitable, or it isn't. If it is, then you don't need insurance payouts. If it's not profitable, then it's not profitable and you shouldn't get a CONCORD bailout for doing it.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.16 16:51:00 - [116] Originally by: Aelsa Originally by: Grann Thefauto If insurance was actually removed I would probably start suicide ganking. What you forget is that money is not the reason for the ganks that you guys complain about so much. Nice straw man. Who's complaining about suicide ganking? Gank all you want, I just don't think you should get an automatic payout for doing it. Either suicide ganking itself is profitable, or it isn't. If it is, then you don't need insurance payouts. If it's not profitable, then it's not profitable and you shouldn't get a CONCORD bailout for doing it. This, tbh. Suicide ganks are a part of the game, and I don't expect that to change. But those performing the ganks should bear the weight of that choice, instead of having it subsidized by the very agency thatis going to punish them for it. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Grann Thefauto Internal Anarchy	Posted - 2009.07.16 16:55:00 - [117] Originally by: Aelsa Originally by: Grann Thefauto If insurance was actually removed I would probably start suicide ganking. What you forget is that money is not the reason for the ganks that you guys complain about so much. Nice straw man. Who's complaining about suicide ganking? Gank all you want, I just don't think you should get an automatic payout for doing it. Either suicide ganking itself is profitable, or it isn't. If it is, then you don't need insurance payouts. If it's not profitable, then it's not profitable and you shouldn't get a CONCORD bailout for doing it. Theres no straw man here, the reason this is being suggested is to reduce the number of suicide gankings is it not? You may want to pay more attention to C&P happenings so you understand why this specific issue has popped up at this time. Also, had you read the thread you would see that the argument is against mindless ganks not necessarily ones for profit. All I'm saying is that the ganks people are aiming to combat with this change don't have a profit motive.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.16 17:03:00 - [118] Originally by: Grann Thefauto Originally by: Aelsa Originally by: Grann Thefauto If insurance was actually removed I would probably start suicide ganking. What you forget is that money is not the reason for the ganks that you guys complain about so much. Nice straw man. Who's complaining about suicide ganking? Gank all you want, I just don't think you should get an automatic payout for doing it. Either suicide ganking itself is profitable, or it isn't. If it is, then you don't need insurance payouts. If it's not profitable, then it's not profitable and you shouldn't get a CONCORD bailout for doing it. Theres no straw man here, the reason this is being suggested is to reduce the number of suicide gankings is it not? You may want to pay more attention to C&P happenings so you understand why this specific issue has popped up at this time. Also, had you read the thread you would see that the argument is against mindless ganks not necessarily ones for profit. All I'm saying is that the ganks people are aiming to combat with this change don't have a profit motive. actually, I read (and post) in C&P quite frequently. That aside, this thread isn't intentioned to reduce suicide ganks. The only thing that would reduce suicide ganks would be removing guns from high security space. And you're right, removing the insurance payout will not at all limit the suicide ganks that are done strictly for tears. I think you may be under estimating the number of ganks that are done for profit though. Let's face it, if C&P'ers are famous for anything, it's misinformation --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Nur AlHuda Callide Vulpis	Posted - 2009.07.16 18:00:00 - [119] Support
ingenting 20th Legion Sodalitas XX	Posted - 2009.07.16 19:11:00 - [120] i support this _________________ - "Welcome to EVE, remember to insu BAAOOM... Told you, newb."

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.