Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Marik Starsong
Dominion Gaming Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 00:29:00 -
[121]
I am completely in support of removing insurance payouts for concord actions. I think the current mechanic is ridiculous.
|
H0mer
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 11:13:00 -
[122]
Supported |
mazzilliu
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 14:43:00 -
[123]
lets take away insurance for self destructs too and id say its fair
the measure still doesnt stop the use of stealth bombers for suicide ganking too, or really REALLY expensive kills. if implemented, i suspect this will lead to more deaths as carebears think its finally safe to come out of the station and carry even higher values in the freighters.
MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU. |
Humwawa
Marquie-X Corp Atropos.
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 17:01:00 -
[124]
YES YES and YES
Remove insurance and to counterbalance that remove last concord-boost
It should be easier to gank MacroMiners and ganking for tactical or isk-reasons again and also it should discourage ganking just for the lulz.
|
Marik Starsong
Caldari Dominion Gaming Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 17:21:00 -
[125]
Originally by: "mazzilliu" lets take away insurance for self destructs too and id say its fair
I'd agree to that. No insurance payout for self-destructs or CONCORD actions. Neither makes sense.
|
Red Raider
Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 19:08:00 -
[126]
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.
We also have to look at the sheer stupidity of it. Why would your insurance company pay you for your ship loss when you did something illegal and got owned by the police? It's obsurd. It would go a long way towards curbing the LULZ incidents. Hell Saturday there were 30 pirates ganking noobs outside a station in Amarr. That will really expand the player base idiots.
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out. |
Dariah Stardweller
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 19:34:00 -
[127]
Supported, AGAIN!
|
Grann Thefauto
Internal Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 00:09:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Red Raider We also have to look at the sheer stupidity of it. Why would your insurance company pay you for your ship loss when you did something illegal and got owned by the police? It's obsurd. It would go a long way towards curbing the LULZ incidents. Hell Saturday there were 30 pirates ganking noobs outside a station in Amarr. That will really expand the player base idiots.
As was said earlier, why would an insurance company insure a ship in Eve period? Most of the ships in Eve are lost in deliberate PVP or PVE engagements, any insurance company in their right mind would never insure a ship used for combat. Especially if it they only charge a fraction of what they pay out. If you want to make that argument at the least be consistent and say no insurance in wars, missions, or for any explicitly combat capable ship.
Also to a different comment, almost every one of my friends, myself included, has suicide ganked people in high sec on multiple occasions, yet none of them have done it explicitly for profit. Often they didn't even bother picking up the modules. Considering how many pirate and generally naughty corps I've been in, it sounds to me (in a very anecdotal way) to be awfully like its an uncommon occurrence to gank for profit. So... I really don't see what this is aimed at other than simply not liking the lulz aspect (which is perfectly legitimate honestly, but at least you could say that outright).
|
Space Pinata
Amarr Discount Napkin Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 00:31:00 -
[129]
Edited by: Space Pinata on 18/07/2009 00:32:21
Insurance is still a game mechanic, and not a company.
Removing insurance for self destructing a ship would just be annoying; if you've paid the insurance, it's more profitable to destruct an unrigged ship than to sell it.
If insurance doesn't cover self destructs, it just means you accept a mission and fly it naked into the mission and let it die that way. Or belt rats, have a corp mate shoot it, etc. The change is nice from a 'insurance is a real business' RP angle, but does nothing for the game.
Also, please remember that CONCORD is not the insurance company, and does not rule the galaxy. They're just a police force for capsuleers, not the government. In other words, if CONCORD says you're a criminal, the insurance company doesn't necessarily agree.
Again: If insurance needs to be realistic, why shouldn't CONCORD be realistic? Why should they have a 100% success rate and respond in seconds? If the answer is 'because it's a game mechanic', then the same applies to insurance, and no change is needed.
If insurance is illogical and needs to be removed, then CONCORD in it's current state is just as illogical and just as in need of a change. |
Xiao LoPan
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 03:49:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Space Pinata Edited by: Space Pinata on 18/07/2009 00:32:21
if CONCORD says you're a criminal, the insurance company doesn't necessarily agree.
no insurance provider in any realm of reality or unreality will ever disagree with being told not to pay.
|
|
Spacepunk Aerowolf
Gallente Unity Of Legends Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 08:07:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Xiao LoPan
Originally by: Space Pinata Edited by: Space Pinata on 18/07/2009 00:32:21
if CONCORD says you're a criminal, the insurance company doesn't necessarily agree.
no insurance provider in any realm of reality or unreality will ever disagree with being told not to pay.
I'm totally against this change, but I absolutely love this point
Honestly, don't know why I read this thread since most of the people posting in it clearly didn't and made the same 3 or 4 points over and over again.
But! Here I am. I agree with the point that was made (or at least implied) earlier on in the thread, the bigger picture point that high sec is a pretty safe and sterile place to be, and making it even safer is both unnecessary and bad for the game as a whole. I find this pointless dancing back and forth across the line between arguments from mechanics and arguments from story/world consistency, well, I said it already, pointless.
I like that hi-sec is relatively safe, because sometimes I just want to chill out whilst playing around in my internet spaceships. But, it doesn't need to be safer.
And yes, this mechanic would make it safer, by making suicide-ganking less common. Whether or not that is the 'intention' of the shift is completely irrelevant. Drastically increasing the barrier to entry of the activity while decreasing its profitability will cause it to happen less often. Duh.
I think suicide ganking just to grief people is pretty dumb to be honest, and would be unlikely to engage in the activity myself (I'm not counting anything out completely though ). But I believe that the general trend in this game towards making eve a safer, more boring place to live is a bad one.
There are a lot of things about this game that I don't like or agree with, but I understand and respect that most of those things in one way or another contribute to the core design principles that make eve as a whole a game I really enjoy. Hi-sec suicide gankers are poopyface meanyheads. But I respect their right to be poopyface meanyheads, and see no reason to further abridge that right.
Finally I feel it is worth reinforcing the point that eve is anarcho-capitalistic bat-**** crazy land where sure why the hell wouldn't the cops pay out insurance and blow people up. In fact, if insurance were realistic in this game in that it were profitable, they'd be thrilled to do it to sell more insurance. Meaning that the problem is with insurance in the game in general not making sense, not in this particular type of situation.
Well, that was a rambling, meandering post for which I now profusely apologize
|
Space Pinata
Amarr Discount Napkin Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 13:51:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Space Pinata on 18/07/2009 13:52:04
Originally by: Xiao LoPan
Originally by: Space Pinata Edited by: Space Pinata on 18/07/2009 00:32:21
if CONCORD says you're a criminal, the insurance company doesn't necessarily agree.
no insurance provider in any realm of reality or unreality will ever disagree with being told not to pay.
But they WOULD object to no one buying their insurance because they void the payment any time some corporation says 'don't pay'.
Realize the insurance company operates in Lowsec/0.0 as well.
Don't see a lot of CONCORD there.
CONCORD is only the 'most important' corporation to highsec carebears who think CONCORD rules the galaxy. |
Xiao LoPan
|
Posted - 2009.07.18 17:45:00 -
[133]
i think insurance should be brought in line with how real insurance operates, as it is they always pay out more than they collect. insurance should be expensive and tied to the "driving record" of the pilot, you lose a ship every day it should be astronomical, you are a successful pilot, don't lose ships constantly it should be cheaper but not cheap. every time you lose a ship it should really hurt, not be something to laugh off.
|
Space Pinata
Amarr Discount Napkin Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 00:54:00 -
[134]
Edited by: Space Pinata on 19/07/2009 00:56:15
Originally by: Xiao LoPan i think insurance should be brought in line with how real insurance operates, as it is they always pay out more than they collect. insurance should be expensive and tied to the "driving record" of the pilot, you lose a ship every day it should be astronomical, you are a successful pilot, don't lose ships constantly it should be cheaper but not cheap. every time you lose a ship it should really hurt, not be something to laugh off.
If you're actually hurt by a video game loss, I think the game takes it a bit too far.
Losing anywhere from fifty to a couple hundred million is risky enough. Theres no need to expect it to be an emotionally scarring experience to lose your internet spaceship.
If ANYTHING we should be encouraging MORE pvp, rather than LESS pvp. And heres a hint: Take away t1 insurance, and a lot of new players will refuse to pvp altogether. That would make EVE much more fun.
I'd totally rather have less pvp, but the added joy of realistic insurance beaurocracy; beats out good fights with reasonable losses that vastly exceed any other game any day.
While we're at it, we can force players to realistically register their spaceships with the DMV, waiting in line for hours to do so. And to spend an hour a week getting their warp drive inspected.
Woo, reality is more fun than a game ever was! |
Xiao LoPan
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 02:17:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Space Pinata Edited by: Space Pinata on 19/07/2009 00:56:15
Originally by: Xiao LoPan i think insurance should be brought in line with how real insurance operates, as it is they always pay out more than they collect. insurance should be expensive and tied to the "driving record" of the pilot, you lose a ship every day it should be astronomical, you are a successful pilot, don't lose ships constantly it should be cheaper but not cheap. every time you lose a ship it should really hurt, not be something to laugh off.
If you're actually hurt by a video game loss, I think the game takes it a bit too far.
Losing anywhere from fifty to a couple hundred million is risky enough. Theres no need to expect it to be an emotionally scarring experience to lose your internet spaceship.
If ANYTHING we should be encouraging MORE pvp, rather than LESS pvp. And heres a hint: Take away t1 insurance, and a lot of new players will refuse to pvp altogether. That would make EVE much more fun.
I'd totally rather have less pvp, but the added joy of realistic insurance beaurocracy; beats out good fights with reasonable losses that vastly exceed any other game any day.
While we're at it, we can force players to realistically register their spaceships with the DMV, waiting in line for hours to do so. And to spend an hour a week getting their warp drive inspected.
Woo, reality is more fun than a game ever was!
i didn't mean emotionally hurt, what i mean is make the outcome of combat mean something. if you want more people to pvp give pvp a context, a meaning, as it stands you rally forces hunt down your arch enemy, destroy him and....maybe inconvenience him for a couple of minutes, how very epic. I want to see battles of attrition, cunning plans to deprive our enemy of resources and strangle them, not games of freeze tag and dodgeball that change nothing. insurence as it is keeps pvp as meaningless as a match of counterstrike.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 11:54:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Space Pinata Edited by: Space Pinata on 18/07/2009 13:52:04
Originally by: Xiao LoPan
Originally by: Space Pinata Edited by: Space Pinata on 18/07/2009 00:32:21
if CONCORD says you're a criminal, the insurance company doesn't necessarily agree.
no insurance provider in any realm of reality or unreality will ever disagree with being told not to pay.
But they WOULD object to no one buying their insurance because they void the payment any time some corporation says 'don't pay'.
Realize the insurance company operates in Lowsec/0.0 as well.
Don't see a lot of CONCORD there.
CONCORD is only the 'most important' corporation to highsec carebears who think CONCORD rules the galaxy.
The insurance providers would easily find some "nice" politician that will make ship insurance against unespected lossec mandatory in high sec.
|
hired goon
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 14:54:00 -
[137]
! -omg-
|
Uronksur Suth
Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 17:39:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Xiao LoPan
Originally by: Space Pinata Edited by: Space Pinata on 18/07/2009 00:32:21
if CONCORD says you're a criminal, the insurance company doesn't necessarily agree.
no insurance provider in any realm of reality or unreality will ever disagree with being told not to pay.
true, that.
|
Shidhe
Minmatar The Babylon5 Consortuim
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 18:30:00 -
[139]
This is an idea that looks as though it makes obvious sense when it is a tabloid headline. However I am not sure it does if we look at game balance. The already outlined problems of high sec invunerability and NPC corps come to mind.
Now insurance in general... There is an argument for scrapping the whole thing, which I would like to see discussed.What about dropping the insured amount by 10% and monitoring the effects on in-game economics? [I am not sure I would support such a proposal, but discussion would be good.]
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 19:37:00 -
[140]
Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 19/07/2009 19:36:54 I support it. Hi sec suicide ganking is too much risk free.
At least nerf insurance payout.
|
|
sir gankalot
|
Posted - 2009.07.19 22:20:00 -
[141]
Insurance, nerf it, nerf it again and after nerfing it, nerf it some more.
|
Sir SmellyFart
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 10:51:00 -
[142]
Insurance is bad, mkay?
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 16:16:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Shidhe This is an idea that looks as though it makes obvious sense when it is a tabloid headline. However I am not sure it does if we look at game balance. The already outlined problems of high sec invunerability and NPC corps come to mind.
Now insurance in general... There is an argument for scrapping the whole thing, which I would like to see discussed.What about dropping the insured amount by 10% and monitoring the effects on in-game economics? [I am not sure I would support such a proposal, but discussion would be good.]
I'd consider an idea to tie insurance premiums to ship market value and pilot performance. But that really should be a separate topic. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
pc dude
Ghosts of Ragnarok
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 00:00:00 -
[144]
not supported
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 00:29:00 -
[145]
I support removing insurance for both Concord destructions and self destructions. ~ Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic |
Belmarduk
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 05:34:00 -
[146]
Mainchar:
|
Twilight Magester
Caldari Foundation Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 05:49:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri I support removing insurance for both Concord destructions and self destructions.
This, but it also only makes sense if players are not allowed to stay in "invincible" corporations. If they want to talk about adding more "risk" to hi-sec griefers, why not add more "risk" to carebears who sit in State War Acadamy and are unkillable via any other means than a gank?
Why should NPC corporation members be allowed more safety from gankers if they don't have to give up anything?
I'll support this, if you add on "boot players from NPC corps after 14-21 days (trial period)"
If we're talking about "risk vs. reward" why are NPC corps immune to wardecs? I say once a player is passed their "noob" time they gain the full benefits of becoming an EVE player (wardecs and all).
You have to look at the reason some people gank in hi-sec. It's either profit, grief, or because someone is un-wardec'able.
For profit, I agree, remove insurance from CONCORDDOKEN.
For grief, I agree, remove insurance from CONCORDDOKEN.
For un-wardec'able, give players another option to kill them.
Some of you people are talking always about "risk vs. reward" where is the risk in an NPC corp where you cannot be wardecced and killed via normal means?
|
murder one
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 07:23:00 -
[148]
Remove ALL insurance. That's totally fair.
-murder one
[07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2 |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 10:47:00 -
[149]
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 21/07/2009 10:49:13
Originally by: Grann Thefauto
Also to a different comment, almost every one of my friends, myself included, has suicide ganked people in high sec on multiple occasions, yet none of them have done it explicitly for profit. Often they didn't even bother picking up the modules. Considering how many pirate and generally naughty corps I've been in, it sounds to me (in a very anecdotal way) to be awfully like its an uncommon occurrence to gank for profit. So... I really don't see what this is aimed at other than simply not liking the lulz aspect (which is perfectly legitimate honestly, but at least you could say that outright).
Exactly the point. If you do it for lulz you should pay (in game) for the right to get your lulz and killmails.
In low sec/0.0 you pay with the risk of being the target of a preventive attack, in high sec where the target can't do a preventive attack you should pay losing the isk you invested in the ship.
Originally by: murder one Remove ALL insurance. That's totally fair.
Leave it for rookie players in the first few months and maybe non combat ships in high sec.
The problem is what that will do to the mineral market.
|
Hooch Flux
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 13:42:00 -
[150]
Had wondered what happened to this. Agree with self destruct as well!
Supported...
I say prep for dustoff, nuke the site from orbit...
Only way to be sure! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |