EVE Search - Pushing the Insurance Issue

Check My IP Information

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)
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.03 15:33:00 - [1] Edited by: De''Veldrin on 03/07/2009 15:33:57 From http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577 Originally by: CCP Fear In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future. That was from almost a year ago. August 2008, to be more precise, and we still don't have this implemented. Why are criminals (as defined by the fact that CONCORD jumped on you) still being paid insurance payouts when CONCORD WTFOMGBBQPWNs them? I would like the CSM to push this issue with CCP and try and determine why this hasn't already been implemented. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
De'Veldrin Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.03 15:33:00 - [2] Supporting myself. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.07.03 17:42:00 - [3] No. Highsec isnt risk free, it isnt intended to be. Your proposal is motivated by a desire to see Highsec become safer, riskless gameplay strikes at the heart of what makes EVE unique. No. You want to nerf an entire profession without providing ample recompense or alternatives to gankers. Further, Suicide Ganking is the only way to engage in pvp with people in NPC corps abusing the fact they cant be wardec'd. Remove insurance payouts and NPC corps will be totally unassailable by nature of suicide ganking being economically impossible to support. No. You already have the tools as a player to defend yourselves and more, strike back at gankers; stop whining, start doing something about it in game. You may gather i dont support removing insurance from CONCORD shiploss. Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
Oam Mkoll The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.03 18:03:00 - [4] Supported. AGAIN. We were promised a fix to this and I'd like to see it happen. Paying insurance for CONCORDOKKEN is beyond moronic. It's so stupid it would be out of place in a ridiculous fantasy My Little Pony MMO, much less the logical, economy-driven world of New Eden. ---
Warped Pestilence	Posted - 2009.07.03 18:04:00 - [5] Please pardon any percieved attempt at cross-posting. This issue used to be of much more concern to alot more people. And for some reason seems to have fallen to the wayside. I believe the first CSM was influential in getting CCP to admit there was an issue with, and promised to fix insurance from CONCORD actions. And now it is clearly back in the forefront again and I humbly ask the current CSM to at least please keep this as a top issue of discussion. Thank you, ~wp
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.07.03 18:31:00 - [6] Insurance should be removed from all ships more expensive than t1 battlecruiser In the old days when making money was tough and owning a t1 bs actually meant something, insurance was justifiable. But in today's age when a month old noob is already flying Raven, where real battleship cost is 3-5 mil, where isk is being printed in record numbers, we really don't need the insurance crutch. This game is supposed to be tough and losses are supposed to mean something. We are losing that.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.03 18:40:00 - [7] Originally by: RedSplat No. Highsec isnt risk free, it isnt intended to be. Your proposal is motivated by a desire to see Highsec become safer, riskless gameplay strikes at the heart of what makes EVE unique. Wrong. Highsec will never be risk free, and this proposal in no way prevents gankers from doing what it is they do. This in no way prevents them from locking my ship in a high sec system and pushing the fire button. Originally by: Redsplat No. You want to nerf an entire profession without providing ample recompense or alternatives to gankers. Further, Suicide Ganking is the only way to engage in pvp with people in NPC corps abusing the fact they cant be wardec'd. Remove insurance payouts and NPC corps will be totally unassailable by nature of suicide ganking being economically impossible to support. Wrong. Once again, this proposal in no way prevents suicide ganking from occurring. If you want to fly into Noob space, lock some guy in a noob frigate, and blast him to hell and back, I have absolutely no problem with you doing that. Please tell me how removing insurance payouts turns off your ability to press F1-F8. It does however mean that you may have to choose your targets more intelligently instead of ganking everything that crosses your path. But please don't presume that I am stupid enough to believe that everyone in an NPC corp is flying an Ibis with civilian fittings. mmkay? Originally by: Redsplat No. You already have the tools as a player to defend yourselves and more, strike back at gankers; stop whining, start doing something about it in game. I know I have the tools to defend myself, and I use them. My hulk is tanked, and I have combat drones loaded. My corp uses cov-ops scouts and escorts for high value merchandise. As for striking back at the gankers, it's kinda pointless to shoot at them once CONCORD has asploded them all over the asteroid field. However, what the gankers are doing is defined, by the game mechanics, as a crime. Please name one other criminal profession that offers insurance payouts to cover lost material. I'll wait while you come up with one. Take your time, I have all year. And please stop misconstruing my arguments. I'm not telling you you can't suicide gank. By all means, feel free. I'm just don't want it to be free (or nearly free). Talk about risk vs reward. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Venkul Mul	Posted - 2009.07.03 18:56:00 - [8] Originally by: RedSplat whining Suicide ganking for isk will not be touched as it serach for good targets worth the attack even if there is no insurance subsiding. Suicide gank for lulz and "any target is good as my ship cost nothing" will be hit hard. I (and I think most of the carebears) have noting against people suicide ganking against a worthy target to gain more than you spend. But I have a lot against people doing suicide attack only because the cost is 0, counting on insurance to make the 1 attack on 100 against a target with good stuff worth doing it. Look the call for the new jihadswarm. It suggest suiciding one or more meghatron with faction ammo to get 1 tanked hulk. At best the drop will be some millions in modules. Where is the economic logic in that? Only insurance make it possible. There is no good quality target, no gain. If all you want is the killmail you should pay it. If insurance on CONCORD kills is removed CCP can even roll back the last increase in CONCORD reaction time, as that will help well thought suicide ganking attempts while insurance help the "kill all you see, maybe something will drop" people.
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.07.03 19:10:00 - [9] Originally by: De'Veldrin Wrong. Highsec will never be risk free, and this proposal in no way prevents gankers from doing what it is they do. This in no way prevents them from locking my ship in a high sec system and pushing the fire button. Risk free, no. But a climate so adverse to risk as to make it a hugs n' rainbows carbear teaparty that might as well for all intents and purposes be called risk free- decidedly, yes. Removing insurance payouts for concorded ships makes suicide ganking VASTLY less profitable. This translates directly to fewer ganks occurring and a safer highsec. Originally by: De'Veldrin Wrong. Please tell me how removing insurance payouts turns off your ability to press F1-F8. It doesnt. It just anihilates the economic incentive to do so in 90% of cases. Please leave the strawman alone. Originally by: De'Veldrin It does however mean that you may have to choose your targets more intelligently instead of ganking everything that crosses your path. But please don't presume that I am stupid enough to believe that everyone in an NPC corp is flying an Ibis with civilian fittings. mmkay? I dont think you are stupid, just that you are a carebear with an agenda that will change EVE for the worse- completely different. mmkay? Originally by: De'Veldrin I know I have the tools to defend myself, and I use them. My hulk is tanked, and I have combat drones loaded. My corp uses cov-ops scouts and escorts for high value merchandise. As for striking back at the gankers, it's kinda pointless to shoot at them once CONCORD has asploded them all over the asteroid field. You know what killrights are, right? What Merc. corps are? Hint: -10 players live in Lowsec. You can go there. You even get sentry guns to help you! Originally by: De'Veldrin However, what the gankers are doing is defined, by the game mechanics, as a crime. Please name one other criminal profession that offers insurance payouts to cover lost material. I'll wait while you come up with one. Take your time, I have all year. Lets see...Piracy. Or do you consider piracy griefing and not a 'profession' Originally by: De'Veldrin Talk about risk vs reward. Yep, you want to nerf the reward for the risk- We lose our ships, isk (Yes, even after insurance its significant) and sec status. Meanwhile you are merrily mining away making 10+ p/h mining Veld in an essentially risk free enviroment; frankly if you get suicide ganked you are probably taking the shortbus, or too greedy to take precautions, or wound up the wrong people by whining on the forums. Talk about risk vs reward. Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.07.03 19:14:00 - [10] Originally by: Venkul Mul If insurance on CONCORD kills is removed CCP can even roll back the last ~~increase~~ decrease in CONCORD reaction time I'll be truly shocked if that happens. IF it does, then the change would be balanced; if CONCORD reaction times were increased above the previous prior to nerf times in order to make ganking specific targets more profitable; more time = less isk invested. BUT OP suggests nothing of the sort. Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.

Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.03 19:27:00 - [11] Originally by: RedSplat Removing insurance payouts for concorded ships makes suicide ganking VASTLY less profitable. This translates directly to fewer ganks occurring and a safer highsec. And you don't see being subsidized to destroy ships by the same insurance that pay the destroyed ships as wrong? Or needing to get paid by the insurance as you don't care to search for a isk worthy target? Is, as it appear you are doing it the wrong way, caring only to kill something as you don't select your targets it is only right that you pay for the privilege of getting the killmail.
Velvet Sinner	Posted - 2009.07.03 19:32:00 - [12] Edited by: Velvet Sinner on 03/07/2009 19:34:18 My four paying accounts support this unimplemented, promised action by CCP. There should be NO payments of insurance to gankers in high-sec. A common argument is that to eliminate this payment to those who profess that it's a "profession" is ludicrous, and clearly evidenced by the fact that CONCORD spanks the actor. The majority of space in EVE is not patrolled by CONCORD, but these "professionals" choose to prey upon folks that rarely need to protect themselves from criminals? Yes. It's a criminal activity in high-sec; go to low sec or null sec and your profession can roam free with no risk of CONCORD death and with, as many will undoubtedly declare, much HIGHER payout and enjoyment. Yes. You know you stalk high-sec ONLY because you can't survive with your "profession" in low sec or null sec. The real reasons why you choose to stay our of low sec is known only to you guys, but I think we all know the answer.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.03 19:33:00 - [13] By all means let's make "insurance" more 'realistic'. As long as it's balanced by making CONCORD more 'realistic' too.
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.07.03 19:42:00 - [14] Originally by: Velvet Sinner Yes. You know you stalk high-sec ONLY because you can't survive with your "profession" in low sec or null sec. The real reasons why you choose to stay our of low sec is known only to you guys, but I think we all know the answer. Everyone knows i dont actually play this game, i only like o post about it on the forums. Everyone also knows that i'm in no way a Lowsec pirate with a -10 sec status in a corp that lives in Amamake; when they arent being **s in 0.0 Originally by:** CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
Furb Killer	Posted - 2009.07.03 19:44:00 - [15] Edited by: Furb Killer on 03/07/2009 19:44:38 Yep, concord should be more realistic. They should bubble your pod and take you to prison for rest of your eve career for mass murder. Quote: You know what killrights are, right? What Merc. corps are? Yeah because having killrights or mercs attacking alts is really usefull and definately not a waste of time. And they will care so much when you kill one of their fully insured ships. Suicide gankign should be done only when there is decent economic profit to be made, removing insurance wont change that much about that. You might use some other ships. But it does help against the: Hey it moved lets gank it idea.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.03 21:08:00 - [16] Originally by: Furb Killer Edited by: Furb Killer on 03/07/2009 19:44:38 Yep, concord should be more realistic. They should bubble your pod and take you to prison for rest of your eve career for mass murder. They should take 4-24 hours to turn up to the crime scene, ask you a lot of questions, make you feel like it's you that did something wrong, arrest you if you did anything like eg: shoot back, then take the nearest minmatar pilot back to the CONCORD station and beat a confession out of him. All empire income will be taxed at 30% to pay for this service. Now that would be realistic...
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.03 21:10:00 - [17] Originally by: Furb Killer Suicide gankign should be done only when there is decent economic profit to be made. Yes indeed. Just shooting spaceships for fun has NO PLACE in a PvP spaceship game.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.03 21:27:00 - [18] Originally by: RedSplat Risk free, no. But a climate so adverse to risk as to make it a hugs n' rainbows carbear teaparty that might as well for all intents and purposes be called risk free- decidedly, yes. Removing insurance payouts for concorded ships makes suicide ganking VASTLY less profitable. This translates directly to fewer ganks occurring and a safer highsec. And the solution to that, as the pirates are so quick to point out to us, is to move out of High Security space. Originally by: RedSplat It doesnt. It just anihilates the economic incentive to do so in 90% of cases. Please leave the strawman alone. It's not a strawman. Your argument is it stops you from doing it. But you've just pointed out yourself that it doesn't - it just makes you have to be smarter about doing it. I thought that was what EVE was all about? Deciding if the risk is actually worth the reward. Why should suicide gankers be the only profession that don't have to care about the risk, because it's subsidized? Originally by: RedSplat I dont think you are stupid, just that you are a carebear with an agenda that will change EVE for the worse- completely different. mmkay? You say carebear like it's a bad thing. Originally by: RedSplat You know what killrights are, right? What Merc. corps are? Hint: -10 players live in Lowsec. You can go there. You even get sentry guns to help you! Originally by: RedSplat Originally by: De'Veldrin However, what the gankers are doing is defined, by the game mechanics, as a crime. Please name one other criminal profession that offers insurance payouts to cover lost material. I'll wait while you come up with one. Take your time, I have all year. Lets see...Piracy. Or do you consider piracy griefing and not a 'profession' Piracy, in and of itself, is not considered a crime by the game mechanics. CONCORD does not jump out of the shadows and blast you into metal scrap if you lock someone in low sec, web them, point them, and then try and ransom their ship - or even if you destroy their ship. Good try, but wrong. Care to try again? Originally by: RedSplat Yep, you want to nerf the reward for the risk- We lose our ships, isk (Yes, even after insurance its significant) and sec status. Let's talk about this for a minute. You didn't "lose your ship". You made a conscious decision to throw it away. And that, frankly, makes all the difference in the world. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Dirk Mortice	Posted - 2009.07.03 23:05:00 - [19] Remove insurance full stop. Insurance breaks the risk-reward of suicide ganking, there's nearly nothing to lose, but also breaks the risk-reward of every other thing which involves flying a T1 ship. As such it should go completely. Either that or overhaul with a more realistic system, which isn't just a blatant isk faucet to create isk from thin air
steave435 Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.07.03 23:11:00 - [20] Sure, the ganker doesn't loose much isk when his ship gets blown up by concord, but he do loose sec status, which is a pain to rat back up again. Gankers still need to consider if the profit is worth the 15 minutes of sitting in a station, possibly missing The Motherload, waiting for gcc to expire and the sec hit that will take hours to recover. Getting insurance after comitting a crime might be unrealistic by RL standards, but so is a society that encourage scamming and stuff like that.

Yaay The Players Club	Posted - 2009.07.03 23:47:00 - [21] Edited by: Yaay on 03/07/2009 23:47:39 Originally by: steave435 Sure, the ganker doesn't loose much isk when his ship gets blown up by concord, but he do loose sec status, which is a pain to rat back up again. Gankers still need to consider if the profit is worth the 15 minutes of sitting in a station, possibly missing The Motherload, waiting for gcc to expire and the sec hit that will take hours to recover. Getting insurance after committing a crime might be unrealistic by RL standards, but so is a society that encourage scamming and stuff like that. Insurance should not be a justification for crime, which it is at the moment. Nobody gives a crap about sec status because there's so many ways to neutralize any hit you might take. Nobody gives a crap about 15 minutes in a station because almost everyone has an alt. The real life argument is always the weakest one... it's the common sense argument that holds. Don't pay people for being ****s to newbs. DD changes Docking PVP games
Fille Balle Dissolution Of Eternity Event Horizon.	Posted - 2009.07.04 00:10:00 - [22] Originally by: RedSplat Highsec isnt risk free, it isnt intended to be. Spot on. That's why you should support this topic.
Pajama Sam Copia-WarRages Armaments	Posted - 2009.07.04 00:44:00 - [23] Originally by: Fille Balle Spot on. That's why you should support this topic. First, that makes no sense. Second, if you're going to do this, just remove insurance completely, not just for ships that get CONCORDOKKEND.
Tortugan Internal Anarchy	Posted - 2009.07.04 01:16:00 - [24] Edited by: Tortugan on 04/07/2009 01:16:05 Originally by: Malcanis By all means let's make "insurance" more 'realistic'. As long as it's balanced by making CONCORD more 'realistic' too. QFT. Let's remove insurance from CONCORD deaths and increase CONCORD's response time to 5-10 minutes :) ---- Need Mercenaries? Contact me in-game to hire Internal Anarchy. Killboard
Xenon Barinade Caldari Helix Protocol	Posted - 2009.07.04 01:30:00 - [25] Edited by: Xenon Barinade on 04/07/2009 01:31:31 Wheres the fun in this, gankers make the game fun and you will just kill it if you do this, gankers help the market and also makes couriering deadly and mining interesting. I really am against this idea and like the way gankers work atm. Ofc in regards to topic, they would be less gankers, the insurance companies are different to concorde (I think) so I guess it is fine :D, insurance to all that die (except mission runners)
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.04 02:31:00 - [26] Originally by: Xenon Barinade Edited by: Xenon Barinade on 04/07/2009 01:31:31 Wheres the fun in this, gankers make the game fun and you will just kill it if you do this, gankers help the market and also makes couriering deadly and mining interesting. I really am against this idea and like the way gankers work atm. Ofc in regards to topic, they would be less gankers, the insurance companies are different to concorde (I think) so I guess it is fine :D, insurance to all that die (except mission runners) Your definition of fun differs vastly from mine, apparently. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Laechyd Eldgorn Endemic Aggression Exalted.	Posted - 2009.07.04 06:48:00 - [27] Edited by: Laechyd Eldgorn on 04/07/2009 06:48:02 All NPC insurances should be removed and new contract type: insurance made. -> you can issue insurance contract which reserves certain amount of isk for certain ship type lost and put a price on it. You could also define time period from 1 day to whole year. This could be issued to corp, alliance, private, public etc.
Izo Alabaster Friendly Neighbourhood Extortion Company	Posted - 2009.07.04 07:01:00 - [28] No.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.04 10:34:00 - [29] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Furb Killer Suicide gankign should be done only when there is decent economic profit to be made. Yes indeed. Just shooting spaceships for fun has NO PLACE in a PvP spaceship game. What has no place is being subsidized by the game when doing that. And yes, I am fully aware that could and would include ship replacement losses in missions. As things stand today I would not be excessively troubled if insurance was removed for older characters or larger ships and not only for CONCORD kills.
Nico Minoru Weird Cat Research	Posted - 2009.07.04 14:45:00 - [30] Errrr, sorry. This current insurance "scam" is simply and logically wrong. What book of logic states that any criminal behavior is rewarded and paid for by the same society (hisec empires) that give other penalties for such behavior (sec standing loss)?

Mahai Ano Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.07.04 15:52:00 - [31] Thumbs up, even if there are quite some whiny yarrs here.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.04 21:13:00 - [32] Edited by: Malcanis on 04/07/2009 21:16:27 Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Furb Killer Suicide gankign should be done only when there is decent economic profit to be made. Yes indeed. Just shooting spaceships for fun has NO PLACE in a PvP spaceship game. What has no place is being subsidized by the game when doing that. But you're fine with empire carebears getting a massive free protection subsidy. Or do you think should CONCORD protection be paid for? That would be an excellent idea IMO - instead of basing the concord response time on system sec, base it on the level of the contract you have with them. That gives the gankers their risk level - they cant be sure if they're shooting someone with platimum protection (CONCORD turn up in 5 seconds) or just basic (faction police arrive after 1 minute)
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.04 21:45:00 - [33] Originally by: Malcanis But you're fine with empire carebears getting a massive free protection subsidy. Oddly enough, most civilized societies consider it a good practice to protect their law abiding citizens. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.04 22:01:00 - [34] Originally by: De'Veldrin Originally by: Malcanis But you're fine with empire carebears getting a massive free protection subsidy. Oddly enough, most civilized societies consider it a good practice to protect their law abiding citizens. Oddly enough, pod pilots aren't considered citizens. Oddly enough, policemen normally need paying. Which way do you want it: are you a citizen with rights - and obligations? Or are you an independent pod pilot with the freedom to do as you please - but with no right to expect protection you contribute nothing towards?
Hesod Adee Dark-Rising	Posted - 2009.07.04 22:15:00 - [35]
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.04 22:25:00 - [36] Originally by: Malcanis Oddly enough, pod pilots aren't considered citizens. I'd be curious to know why you think this. I wasn't aware that we handed in our citizenship when we left orbit. Originally by: Malcanis Oddly enough, policemen normally need paying. Which way do you want it: are you a citizen with rights - and obligations? Or are you an independent pod pilot with the freedom to do as you please - but with no right to expect protection you contribute nothing towards? Taxes are what normally support public services like crime prevention, not direct payment from citizens. And oddly enough, the EVE empires collect taxes in the form of sales taxes. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Solo Player	Posted - 2009.07.05 01:14:00 - [37] Agreed, plus raise insurance costs for frequent victims, too.
Ms Murda	Posted - 2009.07.05 02:50:00 - [38] Originally by: RedSplat No. Highsec isnt risk free, it isnt intended to be. Your proposal is motivated by a desire to see Highsec become safer, riskless gameplay strikes at the heart of what makes EVE unique. No. You want to nerf an entire profession without providing ample recompense or alternatives to gankers. Further, Suicide Ganking is the only way to engage in pvp with people in NPC corps abusing the fact they cant be wardec'd. Remove insurance payouts and NPC corps will be totally unassailable by nature of suicide ganking being economically impossible to support. No. You already have the tools as a player to defend yourselves and more, strike back at gankers; stop whining, start doing something about it in game. You may gather i dont support removing insurance from CONCORD shiploss. Hey moron, ccp tried to gimp empire ganking afew times now, so you argument is a fail, think before you blog nub. /agreed, dont live in empire but pussies who try to pvp in empire without a wardec should be nerfed as mouch as posible
Victor Michaelle	Posted - 2009.07.05 05:25:00 - [39] I support this mainly because the current system really don't make any sense. How powerful Concord is doesn't really make any sense either though. I would certainly prefer it if Concord ships were possible to beat in a direct confrontation, and possible and not considered an exploit to evade.
Uronksur Suth Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.07.05 07:12:00 - [40] Originally by: RedSplat No. Highsec isnt risk free, it isnt intended to be. Your proposal is motivated by a desire to see Highsec become safer, riskless gameplay strikes at the heart of what makes EVE unique. No. You want to nerf an entire profession without providing ample recompense or alternatives to gankers. Further, Suicide Ganking is the only way to engage in pvp with people in NPC corps abusing the fact they cant be wardec'd. Remove insurance payouts and NPC corps will be totally unassailable by nature of suicide ganking being economically impossible to support. No. You already have the tools as a player to defend yourselves and more, strike back at gankers; stop whining, start doing something about it in game. You may gather i dont support removing insurance from CONCORD shiploss. Supported. And the above post doesn't bother addressing why criminals would receive insurance payouts for their destroyed ships, and for "Suicide ganking" Since when should blowing up your own vessel, or going kamikaze, or self-destructing yield insurance payouts? The same principle applies to this issue.

NereSky The Good old Days	Posted - 2009.07.05 07:27:00 - [41] 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?
Uronksur Suth Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.07.05 07:29:00 - [42] 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? admits to having done it so he wouldn't have to move his Mining Barge through 0.0 No one would, but every time its proposed, and I've seen it proposed several times, the pirate community, especially those who go suicide ganking, go absolutely ballistic
NereSky Gallente The Good old Days	Posted - 2009.07.05 08:48:00 - [43] Originally by: Uronksur Suth 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? admits to having done it so he wouldn't have to move his Mining Barge through 0.0 No one would, but every time its proposed, and I've seen it proposed several times, the pirate community, especially those who go suicide ganking, go absolutely ballistic Yep they would wouldnt they
Gone'Postal Void Engineers Mass - Effect	Posted - 2009.07.05 09:24:00 - [44] Supported. Originally by: masternerdguy Officer mods arent spread out because the bpos are innacesible to 99% of eve.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.05 11:42:00 - [45] Originally by: De'Veldrin Originally by: Malcanis Oddly enough, pod pilots aren't considered citizens. I'd be curious to know why you think this. I wasn't aware that we handed in our citizenship when we left orbit. In what meaningful way are pod pilots citizens?
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.05 11:51:00 - [46] 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.
Tsumei Meyren Creative Cookie Procuring	Posted - 2009.07.05 13:08:00 - [47] One of the silliest proposals ever. This isn't an issue. I'm sorry, but you're saying criminals should be treated differently from how "legal citizens" are when it comes to finances. Personal property is personal property, and insurance is not the same as the police, You may notice that you get paid from an insurance company, and not from concord? no? This is because you are insured by the -COMPANY- Not by the police. The contract is simply that when the ship blows up, insurance will be paid out. It's a non-issue.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.05 16:59:00 - [48] Originally by: Tsumei Meyren One of the silliest proposals ever. <snip> It's a non-issue. For a "silly...non-issue" it sure seems to be generating a lot of support. Doncha think? --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.05 17:05:00 - [49] Edited by: De''Veldrin on 05/07/2009 17:05:47 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: De'Veldrin I'd be curious to know why you think this. I wasn't aware that we handed in our citizenship when we left orbit. In what meaningful way are pod pilots citizens? In the same meaningful way that an infant is. You seem to be laboring under the Heinlein-esque notion of citizenship through service. Of course, by that definition, anyone with a positive faction standing towards one of the empires could be considered a de facto citizen, since they have obviously rendered a service to that empire (they don't just hand out faction standing at the door, now do they?) --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Oam Mkoll Caldari The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.05 18:12:00 - [50] Fact: the current ******ed system is making highsec ganking a zero-risk issue. Stupid pirates can mis-gank worthless targets because their ships cost zero. ---

Jinx Barker GFB Scientific	Posted - 2009.07.05 18:16:00 - [51] Removing Insurance for CONCORD Sanctionable actions makes perfect sense. CCP and Devs always said that this game has consequences. So, Consequences for a carebear who hauls really good stuff is that he will be suicide ganked. Consequences to a ganker is that the carebear's cargo better be worth more than his ship and mods combined w/o insurance.
Al'hayat Wolflord	Posted - 2009.07.05 20:06:00 - [52] Originally by: Jinx Barker Removing Insurance for CONCORD Sanctionable actions makes perfect sense. CCP and Devs always said that this game has consequences. So, Consequences for a carebear who hauls really good stuff is that he will be suicide ganked. Consequences to a ganker is that the carebear's cargo better be worth more than his ship and mods combined w/o insurance. This really does sound like a no brainer. Oh wait, because it is! CCP, fix it like you promised!
Cor Aidan Imperium Forces Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.07.05 20:42:00 - [53] I won't support removing insurance payouts for some arbitrary criteria like "CONCORD Involvement" (because just what constitutes "involvement" in the first place?). A better solution which would solve this and many other issues that I've been tossing around: The SCC decides that it needs to be profitable so changes premiums so that the total premiums it takes in are always some percentage higher than what it pays out. This could be based on ship class or globally; I've not spent much time on it other than the initial idea. The other alternative is to remove insurance completely (though this would not solve one of the other issues with insurance that having variable premiums would solve). (I don't even like the idea "keep insurance for ships sized A and B" as that's arbitrary). After all, when you've basically got a 100% chance of having a ship destroyed, what company would insure it and hope to make a profit?
Hesod Adee Dark-Rising	Posted - 2009.07.05 20:56:00 - [54] Originally by: Tsumei Meyren One of the silliest proposals ever. This isn't an issue. I'm sorry, but you're saying criminals should be treated differently from how "legal citizens" are when it comes to finances. Personal property is personal property, and insurance is not the same as the police, You may notice that you get paid from an insurance company, and not from concord? no? This is because you are insured by the -COMPANY- Not by the police. The contract is simply that when the ship blows up, insurance will be paid out. It's a non-issue. Don't most insurance companies refuse to payout on damage you intentionally caused to your own stuff ? Wouldn't triggering CONCORD count as intentional damage ? Originally by: Cor Aidan I won't support removing insurance payouts for some arbitrary criteria like "CONCORD Involvement" (because just what constitutes "involvement" in the first place?). CONCORD involvement: You did something that makes CONCORD want to blow your ship up. In this case you attacked an unaggressed target in high sec. Sure PvP is going to be very high risk. But only triggering CONCORD is guaranteed to destroy your ship.
Uronksur Suth Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.07.05 22:06:00 - [55] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: De'Veldrin Originally by: Malcanis Oddly enough, pod pilots aren't considered citizens. I'd be curious to know why you think this. I wasn't aware that we handed in our citizenship when we left orbit. In what meaningful way are pod pilots citizens? We pay taxes. We join militias. We run missions for empire corporations.
tartan pixie Minmatar Connoisseurs Of Hallucination	Posted - 2009.07.06 00:04:00 - [56] While i agree that suicide ganking is currently risk free, high sec mining is pretty much risk free too. In this thread some pirates claim that killing 168 hulks is a good bragging number yet it must only be a tiny fraction of all the hulks in empire so the issue has been blown out of all proportion by paranoid idiots. Even as a manufacturer and trader who routinely moves high value goods in empire i believe high sec is too safe and each time the whiners succeed in getting another nerf applied to high sec piracy the game gets a bit more sterile. Would only support the proposal if greater risk vs reward was applied to both sides of the equation, eg by increasing concord response times in 0.4 and 0.5 and moving the best ores to these systems or some other means to make your proposal balanced. Without balance this is just another step on the road to this. sig--------------------------------------------- No your honour my defence is that the pixies did it in the middle of the night. Prove me wrong.
Theodore Kaczynski Minmatar	Posted - 2009.07.06 07:26:00 - [57] Not supported. Insurance doesn't make suicide ganking risk free, and suicide ganking has already been nerfed. This thread is full of whiners who want highsec mining to be 100% safe - and it shouldn't be, not in a game like EVE. Otherwise EVE loses that which makes it unique in the first place. And no, suicide ganking isn't risk free, like some in this thread are claiming. Insurance might make it profitable if done right, but one runs into the risk of trying to gank a pilot who has basic fitting knowledge. In such a case, the ganker loses his ship, gets a criminal countdown, and loses sec status (which takes a very long time to recover). "Realism" is an idiotic reason to change such a game mechanic. Unless those who want "realism" also want a 15 or so minute response delay on CONCORD intervention.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.06 08:35:00 - [58] Originally by: Oam Mkoll Fact: the current ******ed system is making highsec ganking a zero-risk issue. Stupid pirates can mis-gank worthless targets because their ships cost zero. They dont cost zero. The ships themselves cost marginally above zero; then they must be fitted. And there is a significant non-zero time factor, plus the sec hit. God we had all this last year. CCP increased the penalties for ganking already, AND improved CONORD response time quite a bit as well. I said then that it was futile to do so because however much they increased the sec hit, carebears like you would never be satisfied until they were perfectly safe. Whatever you get, you always demand more safety, more NPC protection. Tell you what: let's be fair. Let's just remove insurance altogether.
Nidhiesk	Posted - 2009.07.06 11:44:00 - [59] Quote: EVE loses that which makes it unique in the first place I hear this alot in this thread. This means what ? that ganking is highsec is very unique to Eve ? Don't make me laugh...its a pathetic reason. First and foremost, think of the insurance company thats in Eve. Would you as a CEO (that tries to make ISK) would want to "give" an insurance service to a ganker or someone that goes to low or zero sec when you know yourself that theres a high risk of losing that ship...hell no. No company or no agent would give a service to a person considered dangerous like that. Your company would go bankrupt. Ok, I used the story and logic behind eve to get this argument which makes sense by me. This proposal wont make ganker disappear...just more selective p.s: I also hear lots of pirates go beserk when they hear the word carebear and hates them to their bones..well wake up, its because of them your flying that shiny ship.. lmao.. dumb a**
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.06 11:54:00 - [60] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Oam Mkoll Fact: the current ****ed system is making highsec ganking a zero-risk issue. Stupid pirates can mis-gank worthless targets because their ships cost zero. They dont cost zero. The ships themselves cost marginally above zero; then they must be fitted. And there is a significant non-zero time factor, plus the sec hit. The sec hit is laughable, and frankly a non-issue, since you can roll up an alt to do your shopping, and if worse comes to worse, you can roll up another gank alt in under a week. Let's face it, all it has to be able to do is fly a destroyer and fit moderate weapons, as long as you can run in a pack. Hell you can eve go ratting and get your security hit back. So don't feed me this "we lose security status" like it actually means anything to you. If it meant something, you wouldn't be ganking people, amirite? As for the rest of it - no, I don't want to be completely safe. I do, however, demand that people suffer the consequences for their choices. I chose to undock my ship, so yes, that means I chose to be available for non-consenual PvP - absolutely. Nothing I can about that, except fit the best tank I can, and hope it's enough. However, you chose to throw your ship away - you chose to lose that ship, it's fittings, and the related sec status for attacking a neutral target in High Security space. So come down off your "save the gankers" high horse like you're some kind of a martyr for suffering those things. You nailed yourself to that cross. --Vel Experience** is what you get right after you need it.

Lagruna Zegata	Posted - 2009.07.06 12:24:00 - [61] I am neutral on this topic. But...how about a 3-7 day cooldown period on insurance (just pick a reasonable timeframe) where basic insurance is refused and better packages cannot even be bought if you have recently lost your ship within this period for whatever reason? Maybe just exclude T1 frigates from this rule... So many things are time-based in EvE, why not insurance? ~Lagruna Zegata
Dibsi Dei Salamyhkaisten kilta	Posted - 2009.07.06 15:11:00 - [62] Originally by: Ephemeron Insurance should be removed from all ships more expensive than t1 battlecruiser In the old days when making money was tough and owning a t1 bs actually meant something, insurance was justifiable. But in today's age when a month old noob is already flying Raven, where real battleship cost is 3-5 mil, where isk is being printed in record numbers, we really don't need the insurance crutch. This game is supposed to be tough and losses are supposed to mean something. We are losing that. This.
Ehranavaar	Posted - 2009.07.06 17:25:00 - [63] Originally by: Malcanis By all means let's make "insurance" more 'realistic'. As long as it's balanced by making CONCORD more 'realistic' too. as in forbidding certain players docking privileges in empire space or destroying their pods in empire space etc? got to admit i like the way you think guy.
Ehranavaar	Posted - 2009.07.06 17:27:00 - [64] banning insurance payouts to people killed by concord is long overdue. was promised several expansions back and patience is running short.
Velvet Sinner	Posted - 2009.07.07 01:29:00 - [65] There needs to be an internal mechanic that links different alts to the same human being (ie, payment device). Your toon isn't deciding to gank a Hulk; it's the warped brain of the human behind the keyboard. You gank in hi-sec, all accounts associated with the ganking toon are banned immediately. The only way around it would be those that pay for their account(s) with isk; even GTC buyers can be tracked thru payment mechanism. Also make trial accounts unable to fire on non-NPC ships in high-sec.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.07 11:47:00 - [66] Originally by: Velvet Sinner There needs to be an internal mechanic that links different alts to the same human being (ie, payment device). Your toon isn't deciding to gank a Hulk; it's the warped brain of the human behind the keyboard. You gank in hi-sec, all accounts associated with the ganking toon are banned immediately. The only way around it would be those that pay for their account(s) with isk; even GTC buyers can be tracked thru payment mechanism. Also make trial accounts unable to fire on non-NPC ships in high-sec. And while we're at it, why don't replace all our ships with cuddly bunny rabbits in tea cozies? If you want to play Hello Kitty Online, you're at the wrong website. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Vaerah Vahrokha Dark-Rising	Posted - 2009.07.08 12:46:00 - [67] Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 08/07/2009 12:47:04 Premise, my sec status floats between -1 and -7. Quote: No. Highsec isnt risk free, it isnt intended to be While high sec suicide attacks with no expense are intended to be? Why shouldn't suicide ganking be like everything else in EvE, that is a tradeoff between good and bad sides? With the current trend, you risk and lose ZERO because the insurance pays back the hull in full and the drops (expecially miners') more than cover for the T1 turrets loss. Quote: Removing insurance payouts for concorded ships makes suicide ganking VASTLY less profitable. This translates directly to fewer ganks occurring and a safer highsec. FALSE. Suicide gank an indy carrying 200M in modules with a destroyer and you lose like 10M and still earn 190M / 2. Freigthers could be reverted to "killable status" again so that it's still profitable to kill the 2B afk ferry boat with a loss of 1B on your part. Have people have to think before they push the trigger. Quote: Oddly enough, pod pilots aren't considered citizens. Oddly enough, policemen normally need paying. Which way do you want it: are you a citizen with rights - and obligations I pay quite expensive starbase charters to the empire faction and regular fees to the owners of the stations hosting my corp offices. So? Quote: In what meaningful way are pod pilots citizens? I can access the Gallente and Minmatar loyality points (odd name, it's like they want to prize you somehow) and I can even fly Factional vessels. I feel more citizen in EvE than in real life, where I have yet to get a State limousine handed in for my own perusal. Quote: Personal property is personal property, and insurance is not the same as the police, You may notice that you get paid from an insurance company, and not from concord? no? Could you please point me the name of the insurance company paying for you to destroying your car every day? Quote: They dont cost zero. The ships themselves cost marginally above zero; then they must be fitted. So, you spend 2M to T1 fit a gallente cruiser and kill an hulk dropping 1.6-1.9M tech I mining lasers (more if tech 2) and possibly T2 MLUs and T2 shields / gist shield repper @40M value a piece. It's CLEARLY a bad deal! Quote: And there is a significant non-zero time factor, plus the sec hit - Attack miners with usual drones out on aggressive (for rats), targetting the drones first => no sec hit. - Use -10 sec pilots boarding a ship dropped nearby off an Orca => sec hit does not matter. Quote: Originally by: Ephemeron -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Insurance should be removed from all ships more expensive than t1 battlecruiser This. No, insurance should be removed off ALL the ships if anything. Because the suicide boats would almost all be covered and insured by the above statement. Quote: There needs to be an internal mechanic that links different alts to the same human being (ie, payment device). Your toon isn't deciding to gank a Hulk; it's the warped brain of the human behind the keyboard. I'd be fine with the idea of making a guy blinky for all the characters of my account. So I could warp in my proper PvP ship and see who is the man. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Larkonis TrassIer Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate	Posted - 2009.07.08 13:48:00 - [68] No. CCP looked into this and buffed response time instead. You can take away our insurance if you reset the response time changes. Cost isn't really an issue with suicide gankings. Sec is, considering the grind to recover it after a successful gank. Example 1 When I was out suicide ganking I would rarely go after anything with a cargo value of less than 200 mil. Assuming one has a 50% drop rate and assuming you are using a tier 2 battlecruiser (what are they now, 35 mil) that's still a minimum 65mil profit if insurance is voided. Still worth doing. Example 2 Pirate corp X is using destroyers to kill Hulks mining in Hisec. It takes 4-5 dessies to be able to reliably kill 1 Hulk. Total cost: 4-5 mil. Well worth it to destroy some carebears. All that will happen if insurance is voided for Concord actions is the alienation of carebears who accidently set off a smartbomb in a plex or turn their guns on a fleet member. This hysterical whining about suicide gankers has got to stop. Carebears have had too many concessions over the years. Pay attention, play smart and you won't get killed, simple as. Fighting for justice
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.08 13:54:00 - [69] Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer Cost isn't really an issue with suicide gankings. Sec is, considering the grind to recover it after a successful gank. My father had an expression that went something like "You made your bed, now lie in it". Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer Example 1 When I was out suicide ganking I would rarely go after anything with a cargo value of less than 200 mil. Assuming one has a 50% drop rate and assuming you are using a tier 2 battlecruiser (what are they now, 35 mil) that's still a minimum 65mil profit if insurance is voided. Still worth doing. Example 2 Pirate corp X is using destroyers to kill Hulks mining in Hisec. It takes 4-5 dessies to be able to reliably kill 1 Hulk. Total cost: 4-5 mil. Well worth it to destroy some carebears. All that will happen if insurance is voided for Concord actions is the alienation of carebears who accidently set off a smartbomb in a plex or turn their guns on a fleet member. This hysterical whining about suicide gankers has got to stop. Carebears have had too many concessions over the years. Pay attention, play smart and you won't get killed, simple as. I'm not proposing that we allow people to play less intelligently, Lark. If anything, this will encourage more thought in the game, since you won't be able to gank anything that happens across your path with a reasonable expectation of at least breaking even economically. You'll have to actually pick your targets selectively and balance the costs versus the potential rewards. I thought that was sort of the point of EVE? --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.07.08 15:38:00 - [70] Originally by: Malcanis But you're fine with empire carebears getting a massive free protection subsidy. Or do you think should CONCORD protection be paid for? That would be an excellent idea IMO - instead of basing the concord response time on system sec, base it on the level of the contract you have with them. That gives the gankers their risk level - they cant be sure if they're shooting someone with platimum protection (CONCORD turn up in 5 seconds) or just basic (faction police arrive after 1 minute) This is the only good idea in this thread fyi

De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.08 15:41:00 - [71] Originally by: Scatim Helicon Originally by: Malcanis But you're fine with empire carebears getting a massive free protection subsidy. Or do you think should CONCORD protection be paid for? That would be an excellent idea IMO - instead of basing the concord response time on system sec, base it on the level of the contract you have with them. That gives the gankers their risk level - they cant be sure if they're shooting someone with platimum protection (CONCORD turn up in 5 seconds) or just basic (faction police arrive after 1 minute) This is the only good idea in this thread fyi I'd support this as long as my contract is applicable *everywhere* in EVE, including nullsec and WH space. After all, if I'm paying for protection, I expect my body guard to be nearby. That really is a good idea, thanks! --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Drizzt Zoloff	Posted - 2009.07.08 17:34:00 - [72] I support this. On the grounds that Insurance companies aren't going to pay you to destroy your own vehicle. Just because a mechanic is in a game doesn't mean it needs balanced if something changes. Sure if there is a glaring issue. But basically you have people whining because they're going to make ONE of the ways to have non-consensual PVP involve a bit of thinking other than cheap fitting a ship.
Delilah Wild	Posted - 2009.07.08 17:51:00 - [73] De'Veldrin is spot on with this.
Master Chaz	Posted - 2009.07.08 18:37:00 - [74] hmmmm, where do you start. 1. ganking in high sec is griefing...period 2. has a pvper i resent being tossed into this lot with these so-called pvpers ( gankers) 3. you should lose your insurance if you choose " this profession" 4. high sec should be safe . we must assume that when CCP made the empires they were pretty sure that said leaders of these empires would not allow a bunch of clowns going around attacking the taxpayers ( has any state or country would) 5. high sec was created to give breathing room to folks in game ,l low sec was for the wild wild west.. so take your "profession" to low sec where it is intended. to stop all this just make anybody who commits a crime ( again CCP idea of a crime) a target for all in high sec, and any other toon they have on the account if your yellow players can kill you .Concord leaves you alone.. if your red your dead and not allowed into high sec ( even in a pod).that would truly make it risk and reward, tho i suspect the bad%ss pvpers in high sec will go away and to some other game. for it is they who are ruining eve with all this stuff not the carebears you so often whine about.
Syringe R.E.C.O.N. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.07.08 18:45:00 - [75] no - do you realize how boring C&P would get? --------- War isn't the answer. However, the objective isn't to provide answers rather than eliminate the question.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.08 18:49:00 - [76] Originally by: Syringe no - do you realize how boring C&P would get? I was under the impression that certain overzealous individuals had already more or less killed that area of the forum? --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Nykky Syxx	Posted - 2009.07.08 19:16:00 - [77] Fine....as soon as L4's are moved to low sec. I see that as a good compromise.
Deanna Colare	Posted - 2009.07.08 19:16:00 - [78] Edited by: Deanna Colare on 08/07/2009 19:16:15 Full support. Insurance payouts for CONCORD kills makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. Make the suicide gankers WORK for a living for a change. You whiners can still suicide gank, but you'll have to smartly pick your targets instead of just hitting every Tom, Richard, and Harry who happens to be passing through a 0.5 system in an industrial or mining there. Boo hoo, you might have to work.
Sarkadji	Posted - 2009.07.08 19:39:00 - [79] Now someone please wake up the CSM and make them ask CCP about something that was PROMISED as a specific fix long time ago?
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.08 20:04:00 - [80] Originally by: Ehranavaar Originally by: Malcanis By all means let's make "insurance" more 'realistic'. As long as it's balanced by making CONCORD more 'realistic' too. as in forbidding certain players docking privileges in empire space or destroying their pods in empire space etc? got to admit i like the way you think guy. Sure they can try. "Realistic" concord being about as effective as faction police. When they turn up. If they turn up. If you have kept up on your payments.

Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.08 20:05:00 - [81] Originally by: De'Veldrin Originally by: Scatim Helicon Originally by: Malcanis But you're fine with empire carebears getting a massive free protection subsidy. Or do you think should CONCORD protection be paid for? That would be an excellent idea IMO - instead of basing the concord response time on system sec, base it on the level of the contract you have with them. That gives the gankers their risk level - they cant be sure if they're shooting someone with platimum protection (CONCORD turn up in 5 seconds) or just basic (faction police arrive after 1 minute) This is the only good idea in this thread fyi I'd support this as long as my contract is applicable *everywhere* in EVE, including nullsec and WH space. After all, if I'm paying for protection, I expect my body guard to be nearby. That really is a good idea, thanks! Why on earth would CONCORD protect you in 0.0 or lo-sec? They dont operate there.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.08 22:29:00 - [82] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: De'Veldrin Originally by: Scatim Helicon Originally by: Malcanis But you're fine with empire carebears getting a massive free protection subsidy. Or do you think should CONCORD protection be paid for? That would be an excellent idea IMO - instead of basing the concord response time on system sec, base it on the level of the contract you have with them. That gives the gankers their risk level - they cant be sure if they're shooting someone with platimum protection (CONCORD turn up in 5 seconds) or just basic (faction police arrive after 1 minute) This is the only good idea in this thread fyi I'd support this as long as my contract is applicable *everywhere* in EVE, including nullsec and WH space. After all, if I'm paying for protection, I expect my body guard to be nearby. That really is a good idea, thanks! Why on earth would CONCORD protect you in 0.0 or lo-sec? They dont operate there. You're the one that suggested making them a pay for use service. If I am paying them to show up when I'm in trouble, they'd better bloody well show up regardless of where I am. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Zlake Deus Imperiosus Acies	Posted - 2009.07.08 22:39:00 - [83] No support.
Orthaen	Posted - 2009.07.09 00:11:00 - [84] Edited by: Orthaen on 09/07/2009 00:11:44 Originally by: Tsumei Meyren One of the silliest proposals ever. This isn't an issue. I'm sorry, but you're saying criminals should be treated differently from how "legal citizens" are when it comes to finances. Personal property is personal property, and insurance is not the same as the police, You may notice that you get paid from an insurance company, and not from concord? no? This is because you are insured by the -COMPANY- Not by the police. The contract is simply that when the ship blows up, insurance will be paid out. It's a non-issue. Damn forum ate my actual reply.... Check again. You ARE insured by CONCORD. They are the ones that shell out 100 million ISK to you after they blow up your ship. Why they give you money, no one knows. Because CCP hasn't gotten around to changing it, I suppose. All this talk about "carebears are dumdum headz that need to adapt and try harder!" is bull**. Thanks to massive insurance payouts, EVERY ship in the game is able to be ganked into the ground before CONCORD kills the ganker, regardless of any protection they might have. You aren't just ganking untanked retrievers, you're hitting tanked hulks, top of the line industrials, and freighters. As soon as you die, you're fully reimbursed for your trouble(If you're losing more then 5-10 million on a gank you're a **ing idiot, and doin it wrong), and then you get to pick up the booty and do a little dance. Yeah, suicide ganking takes a little bit of work, and I don't care if you all do it until your face turns blue. You should not be paid insurance for your ships destruction, because you very actively chose suicide, and your "career" is free of this risk you speak of. Profits aren't high enough in high sec without insurance? Try low sec, I hear you can make better money there where you risk getting killed. PS. Miners in hi sec sucking down veldspar all day for superior profit to low sec is also borked.
Rip Minner Freewind Ventures	Posted - 2009.07.09 04:14:00 - [85] Right on lets fix this :)
Uronksur Suth Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.07.09 06:45:00 - [86] Originally by: Velvet Sinner There needs to be an internal mechanic that links different alts to the same human being (ie, payment device). Your toon isn't deciding to gank a Hulk; it's the warped brain of the human behind the keyboard. You gank in hi-sec, all accounts associated with the ganking toon are banned immediately. The only way around it would be those that pay for their account(s) with isk; even GTC buyers can be tracked thru payment mechanism. Also make trial accounts unable to fire on non-NPC ships in high-sec. Are you joking, or are you really that insane? Like, I support the proposed alteration to insurance, but your taking it way too far.
Blasphemour	Posted - 2009.07.09 09:14:00 - [87] I fully support this. Come on, gankers get a cheap T1 ship, gank a fully loaded and equipped hulk which are hardly insurable and get the money for their ship back? The insurance company basically pays you for commiting a crime? It is not just the hulk that you lose, also all the fitting and the ore that you have been mining. It is not as if hulks are cheap ships or anything. If it weren't for the loads of miners you 'tough' pirates wouldn't be able to get a cheap ship since the ore would get too expensive. And that said, stop trash talking about carebears and eve is built on PVP. If you want to PVP and shoot people up, find a ship that can actually defend itself. This is not player versus player, this is player versus certain victim. PVP is based on fighting people, not shooting neutral industrialists who cannot defend themselves since the ship does not allow you to fit all kind of guns along with the strip miners. As soon as we get a big exhumer that can fit loads of guns and missile launchers you can come and shoot us up all you want, but untill that happens you should bare the consequences for your actions, just as it would be in real life. Piracy is fine for me, it gives another dimension to the game. It shouldn't however be subsidized and insurable. Want to gank someone? Good for you. You get killed by Concord, you go back and get the loot left behind, make sure it is worth it. It's like a bankrobber insuring his guns and getting paid when the police takes them away.
Aastarius	Posted - 2009.07.09 11:17:00 - [88] Edited by: Aastarius on 09/07/2009 11:17:17 Supported. You cause "sanctioned" by CONCORD then you shouldn't be "rewarded" and while you're at it how about removing insurance on self-destructs too.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.09 14:35:00 - [89] Originally by: Aastarius Edited by: Aastarius on 09/07/2009 11:17:17 Supported. You cause "sanctioned" by CONCORD then you shouldn't be "rewarded" and while you're at it how about removing insurance on self-destructs too. I'd be fine with removing insurance on self-destructed ships. Again, you're making a conscious choice to destroy said property. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
DanorexicD	Posted - 2009.07.10 04:11:00 - [90] I'm not going to lean towards or against removing insurance for suicide ganking, but I would like to say that people need to step away from the idea that they're making things anymore 'realistic'. The entire insurance system in EVE is BEYOND unrealistic. Let's compare EVE ship insurance to car insurance. Have so many of you not even thought about how insurance companies work in real life? Insurance companies in real life work by using mathematics figures and statistics to determine how much of a risk each insured person is and how much their premiums are. Levels of coverage, deductible amounts, past incidents, vehicle type, and a range of other variables are taken into account when an insurance company issues a policy. They also issue the policies knowing that every customer will use their policy to the fullest extent [ie, replacing the entire vehicle, or in EVE's case, ship]. EVE is vastly different from the real world. In EVE, insurance isn't used to cover the cost of fixing minor damages caused to a ship, nor is it used to pay for damage done to other people's ships. In EVE, it is almost GUARANTEED that the user's ship will be lost. If such an occurrence was true in real life, only a mad man would attempt to run an insurance business. There is also the matter of CONCORD being realistic, but I'm sure you get where I'm going.

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."

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!

Drake Draconis Shadow Cadre	Posted - 2009.07.21 14:18:00 - [151] Edited by: Drake Draconis on 21/07/2009 14:19:33 Edited by: Drake Draconis on 21/07/2009 14:19:11 I cant help but laugh.... all those folk who are ranting raving about this being an idea... when it really gets right down to it... they are just whining like a bunch of carebears.... they being the gankers and pirates who like to exploit insurance only to get CONCORD'd CONCORD governs the laws... the Insurance is handed out by a corporation of the CONCORD Assembly. In all reality... all this crap about the Insurance company not answer to the law... is a load of bull. Supported. If you get CONCORDed... or you Self Destruct... you should not get any insurance back. This has nothing to do with why... or how... or war-dec's. It's just that simple. You really think my insurance company would really be thrilled to find out I drove my car into a wall for the expressed purposes of getting a new car? Yeah right. Too long you people have had it made in the shade.... for consequences there should be penalties. This doesn't take away your right to suicide gank or greif... just makes it a little more... costly. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= Dependable, Honorable, Intelligent, No-nonsense Vote Herschel Yamamoto for CSM!
Gaven's Bihotch	Posted - 2009.07.22 04:39:00 - [152] Insurance does not cover the whole ship. you get what you pay for. If you don't want risk, Why are you playing a multiplayer game?
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.22 04:54:00 - [153] Originally by: Gaven's Bihotch Insurance does not cover the whole ship. you get what you pay for. If you don't want risk, Why are you playing a multiplayer game? I don't mind risk. I do mind people not receiving the full consequences of their choices - good and bad. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Aria Selenis Minmatar Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2009.07.22 09:34:00 - [154] For the infinitely and repeatedly unanswered question (as usual, most arguments are ignored, with a straw man focused on something foolish someone said.): For everyone who is whining about how insurance doesn't operate like a real insurance company, why aren't you whining about how CONCORD doesn't operate like a real police force? Show me a police force that responds in a matter of seconds and never fails, and then get back to me on why insurance has to be realistic, as opposed to a game mechanic.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.07.22 09:58:00 - [155] Why are people who fly warships into warzones still receiving insurance payouts?
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.22 10:05:00 - [156] Originally by: De'Veldrin Originally by: Gaven's Bihotch Insurance does not cover the whole ship. you get what you pay for. If you don't want risk, Why are you playing a multiplayer game? I don't mind risk. I do mind people not receiving the full consequences of their choices - good and bad. You mean like choosing to make ISK while AFK for 5-10 minutes at a time? What consequence should this choice have?
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.22 12:24:00 - [157] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: De'Veldrin Originally by: Gaven's Bihotch Insurance does not cover the whole ship. you get what you pay for. If you don't want risk, Why are you playing a multiplayer game? I don't mind risk. I do mind people not receiving the full consequences of their choices - good and bad. You mean like choosing to make ISK while AFK for 5-10 minutes at a time? What consequence should this choice have? It already has the consequence of being far more susceptible to being suicide ganked. If I lose my ship because I'm not paying attention, that's my fault, now isn't it? --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Dev Rom Extreme Solutions	Posted - 2009.07.22 13:07:00 - [158] Originally by: Aria Selenis Show me a police force that responds in a matter of seconds and never fails, and then get back to me on why insurance has to be realistic, as opposed to a game mechanic. It is as realistic as your character immortality and the capacitor tecnology that produce energy from nothing. Come on. If you could open a in-eve insurance company, you will REALLY pay insurance to ganker and to character that loose ships in nullsec wars?? How could you make money from that??? I want to build a insurance corporation, but I cannot do that because the actual insurance mechanics are so unbalanced that i cannot compete. Anctual npc insurance corp cannot loose money, they always win!! What about that? So I support that.
Hoo Is	Posted - 2009.07.22 15:50:00 - [159] Only time insurance should be paid out is if a killright is granted. No insurance payouts to CONCORD deaths, war deaths, NPC deaths, or any thing where you were blinky red on anyone elses screen (can flipping or looting).
Gaven's Bihotch	Posted - 2009.07.22 19:14:00 - [160] Originally by: Aria Selenis For the infinitely and repeatedly unanswered question (as usual, most arguments are ignored, with a straw man focused on something foolish someone said.): For everyone who is whining about how insurance doesn't operate like a real insurance company, why aren't you whining about how CONCORD doesn't operate like a real police force? Show me a police force that responds in a matter of seconds and never fails, and then get back to me on why insurance has to be realistic, as opposed to a game mechanic. This times infinity You guys beg for realism? What if you get it? Concord is not by any means going to be able to save the day anymore, think about those ships, their cost and what it would take to put them in every high sec system. And say goodbye to sentry guns up the wazoo. I mean seriously, the way the ships themselves is rather far fetched in terms of no upkeep over time, and no fuel costs. You want this to be more realistic? it's going to be even worse for you

De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.22 20:30:00 - [161] Originally by: Gaven's Bihotch Originally by: Aria Selenis For the infinitely and repeatedly unanswered question (as usual, most arguments are ignored, with a straw man focused on something foolish someone said.): For everyone who is whining about how insurance doesn't operate like a real insurance company, why aren't you whining about how CONCORD doesn't operate like a real police force? Show me a police force that responds in a matter of seconds and never fails, and then get back to me on why insurance has to be realistic, as opposed to a game mechanic. This times infinity You guys beg for realism? What if you get it? Concord is not by any means going to be able to save the day anymore, think about those ships, their cost and what it would take to put them in every high sec system. And say goodbye to sentry guns up the wazoo. I mean seriously, the way the ships themselves is rather far fetched in terms of no upkeep over time, and no fuel costs. You want this to be more realistic? it's going to be even worse for you Actually, I have often argued for fuel costs, maintenance fees, and jump/docking costs to be added to the game. But apparently, people find those ideas offensive. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Brengholl	Posted - 2009.07.23 00:05:00 - [162] Edited by: Brengholl on 23/07/2009 00:06:32 Originally by: RedSplat No. Highsec isnt risk free, it isnt intended to be. Your proposal is motivated by a desire to see Highsec become safer, riskless gameplay strikes at the heart of what makes EVE unique. No. You want to nerf an entire profession without providing ample recompense or alternatives to gankers. Further, Suicide Ganking is the only way to engage in pvp with people in NPC corps abusing the fact they cant be wardec'd. Remove insurance payouts and NPC corps will be totally unassailable by nature of suicide ganking being economically impossible to support. No. You already have the tools as a player to defend yourselves and more, strike back at gankers; stop whining, start doing something about it in game. i think that these arguments are good, and stand out from all the other pirate whining but i dont agree one bit 1. suicide ganking will not stop with the proposed change, it will just make it a bit more difficult, and hisec just a bit safer... safer NOT safe 2. the "profession" needs to be nerfed, and the alternative provided is to pick suicide targets more carefully... what's the difference if you lose 15mil isk or 50mil isk (BC example) if you suicide an indy with 1Bil loot and as for the only argument i find a bit valid: if someone runs from a dec into an NPC corp it means they disbanded they're corp (for the most part) and run away from you to hide under concord's skirt. They have no pos-es, no systems, no nothing, or if they have then those are defensless. All they can do is run missions, so you have won the war. What else do you want. want them to quit the game and die in RL? 3. whell a T1 railgun and a cruiser of a year-old trader or miner arent exactly the tools you need to fight of gankers. ... now if some of those new bounty systems that are proposed all around got implemented then i would agree with you on the last part, but would still support the OP
Gaven's Bihotch	Posted - 2009.07.24 04:38:00 - [163] Originally by: Dev Rom Originally by: Aria Selenis Show me a police force that responds in a matter of seconds and never fails, and then get back to me on why insurance has to be realistic, as opposed to a game mechanic. It is as realistic as your character immortality and the capacitor tecnology that produce energy from nothing. Come on. If you could open a in-eve insurance company, you will REALLY pay insurance to ganker and to character that loose ships in nullsec wars?? How could you make money from that??? I want to build a insurance corporation, but I cannot do that because the actual insurance mechanics are so unbalanced that i cannot compete. Anctual npc insurance corp cannot loose money, they always win!! What about that? So I support that. So first you argue for unbelieveable ideas, then you argue against them? make up your mind
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.24 08:14:00 - [164] Originally by: Gaven's Bihotch Originally by: Aria Selenis For the infinitely and repeatedly unanswered question (as usual, most arguments are ignored, with a straw man focused on something foolish someone said.): For everyone who is whining about how insurance doesn't operate like a real insurance company, why aren't you whining about how CONCORD doesn't operate like a real police force? Show me a police force that responds in a matter of seconds and never fails, and then get back to me on why insurance has to be realistic, as opposed to a game mechanic. This times infinity You guys beg for realism? What if you get it? Concord is not by any means going to be able to save the day anymore, think about those ships, their cost and what it would take to put them in every high sec system. And say goodbye to sentry guns up the wazoo. I mean seriously, the way the ships themselves is rather far fetched in terms of no upkeep over time, and no fuel costs. You want this to be more realistic? it's going to be even worse for you Ok, but then it will follow you in low sec too, give you infinite duration global criminal countdown (at least as long as you aren't caught and get your trial and prison sentence), investigate where you live, seize your assets and all your clones, lock you in a cell if you are caught, kill you if you make resistance. Are you so sure now that you want a realistic CONCORD? A chance of not losing a ship when doing a gank against some day/month (compressed time instead of years/decades as this is a game) of locked character?
Sky Marshal IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.07.24 14:04:00 - [165] Unsupported. Originally by: RedSplat No. Highsec isnt risk free, it isnt intended to be. Your proposal is motivated by a desire to see Highsec become safer, riskless gameplay strikes at the heart of what makes EVE unique. No. You want to nerf an entire profession without providing ample recompense or alternatives to gankers. Further, Suicide Ganking is the only way to engage in pvp with people in NPC corps abusing the fact they cant be wardec'd. Remove insurance payouts and NPC corps will be totally unassailable by nature of suicide ganking being economically impossible to support. No. You already have the tools as a player to defend yourselves and more, strike back at gankers; stop whining, start doing something about it in game. You may gather i dont support removing insurance from CONCORD shiploss. /Thread _______ Local is fine, period.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.24 14:33:00 - [166] Originally by: Sky Marshal Originally by: Red Splat No. Highsec isnt risk free, it isnt intended to be. Your proposal is motivated by a desire to see Highsec become safer, riskless gameplay strikes at the heart of what makes EVE unique. No. You want to nerf an entire profession without providing ample recompense or alternatives to gankers. Further, Suicide Ganking is the only way to engage in pvp with people in NPC corps abusing the fact they cant be wardec'd. Remove insurance payouts and NPC corps will be totally unassailable by nature of suicide ganking being economically impossible to support. No. You already have the tools as a player to defend yourselves and more, strike back at gankers; stop whining, start doing something about it in game. You may gather i dont support removing insurance from CONCORD shiploss. /Thread That made me giggle considering that the thread has gone on for 6 pages after that post. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Drake Draconis Minmatar Shadow Cadre	Posted - 2009.07.24 16:42:00 - [167] Edited by: Drake Draconis on 24/07/2009 16:42:07 You want funny? Every single reason for saying no is utterly stupid. Even in-spite of the fact that this in no way hurts the criminal profession. Other than taking away "free ISK" ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= Dependable, Honorable, Intelligent, No-nonsense Vote Herschel Yamamoto for CSM!
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.24 20:17:00 - [168] Originally by: Drake Draconis Edited by: Drake Draconis on 24/07/2009 16:42:07 You want funny? Every single reason for saying no is utterly stupid. Even in-spite of the fact that this in no way hurts the criminal profession. Other than taking away "free ISK" But Drake, you know everyone likes free ISK. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.07.25 02:44:00 - [169] Originally by: De'Veldrin Originally by: Drake Draconis Edited by: Drake Draconis on 24/07/2009 16:42:07 You want funny? Every single reason for saying no is utterly stupid. Even in-spite of the fact that this in no way hurts the criminal profession. Other than taking away "free ISK" But Drake, you know everyone likes free ISK. And I would like a free ** * but I aint getting one, should I complain because noone wants to give me one? Seriously, suicide gankers are giving miners a good reason not to mine. and then they just mission and hey we all know missions are broken because they give just as much minerals as mining. its a big WTF from me. Spread the love a little <isk to missions, <isk to suicide gankers, >isk to miners and industrialists. Then maybe we are getting close to how it should be.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.25 12:55:00 - [170] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Gaven's Bihotch Originally by: Aria Selenis For the infinitely and repeatedly unanswered question (as usual, most arguments are ignored, with a straw man focused on something foolish someone said.): For everyone who is whining about how insurance doesn't operate like a real insurance company, why aren't you whining about how CONCORD doesn't operate like a real police force? Show me a police force that responds in a matter of seconds and never fails, and then get back to me on why insurance has to be realistic, as opposed to a game mechanic. This times infinity You guys beg for realism? What if you get it? Concord is not by any means going to be able to save the day anymore, think about those ships, their cost and what it would take to put them in every high sec system. And say goodbye to sentry guns up the wazoo. I mean seriously, the way the ships themselves is rather far fetched in terms of no upkeep over time, and no fuel costs. You want this to be more realistic? it's going to be even worse for you Ok, but then it will follow you in low sec too, Since when did CONCORD have jurisdiction in lo-sec?

Arcane Azmadi First Flying Wing Inc Primary.	Posted - 2009.07.27 13:46:00 - [171] For god's sake, just implement the damn update already! The point the OP made was CCP ALREADY said they'd fix this (whether the whining gankers like it or not) so they should just stop procrastinating and DO it!
Miss Understandings	Posted - 2009.07.27 15:28:00 - [172] Originally by: Arcane Azmadi For god's sake, just implement the damn update already! The point the OP made was CCP ALREADY said they'd fix this (whether the whining gankers like it or not) so they should just stop procrastinating and DO it! I love that word and indeed, just implement it CCP. You said it would be dealt with soon, now keep your promise.
Sans Honore Gallente Wirfadam Productions LTD	Posted - 2009.07.27 16:03:00 - [173] Not supported at all, in any way. No.
qwerua	Posted - 2009.07.28 19:59:00 - [174] Dis issue, support it needz!
Keitoshi Yamada MJOCO Botanical Entheogenics Division Mjolnir Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.28 20:22:00 - [175] God, everyone that has anything against this proposal doesn't do a good job at /hiding/ the fact that nerfing this would ruin the one thing that they enjoy doing in the game. EVE is a game about risk/reward. Suicide Ganking has no risk, and lots of reward. In some cases more than L4 missions. I watched a freighter full of capital ship parts get suicide ganked a couple weeks ago, the loot from that would've been wondrous if I was a part of it... If there weren't insurance payouts for illegal activities, then it'd force suicide gankers to pick targets that'd offset their loss. Currently, the /police/ offset your /criminal/ activities.. Doesn't make any sense at all.
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.28 22:15:00 - [176] 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. This man has made the points. Not supported, stop whining about suicide gankers. There's plenty of ways to keep yourself safe. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Keitoshi Yamada Caldari MJOCO Botanical Entheogenics Division Mjolnir Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.28 22:32:00 - [177] Edited by: Keitoshi Yamada on 28/07/2009 22:32:59 Originally by: Awesome Possum This man has made the points. Not supported, stop whining about suicide gankers. There's plenty of ways to keep yourself safe. The point of the topic wasn't whining about the act of suicide ganking, that's all and good. The point of the topic is how nonsensical it is for CONCORD to pay /you/ for breaking the law. I've never had a problem with suicide ganking, and I also don't think removing insurance payout would stop or even slow the act of doing much at all. It would just make you pick your targets more intelligently. You won't just suicide gank a floating destroyer for lols. You won't just suicide gank a caracal on his way to a mission. You'll suicide gank a cov ops frig for the possibility of carrying BPO's. You (or a scout character) would scan cargos of industrials and pick ones with juicy cargo for you to gank. You'd make more profitable decisions to offset your loss, a loss which there is absolutely no reason for the police force to pay for. It'd be like if police paid for your car that got wrecked while they were chasing you.
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.30 01:25:00 - [178] Originally by: Keitoshi Yamada It'd be like if police paid for your car that got wrecked while they were chasing you. Quote: 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. ITS A GAME Stop repeating yourself. EVE is PVP, nonconsensual PVP is PVP There are already consequences to shooting someone you're not 'allowed' to. Stop trying to make it impossible, because that's what you're aiming for. This isn't WOW, there are no safe zones (except docked) where you can get your character to and no one's allowed to hit you anymore. If you don't want PVP, log. Even docked playing the market you have people out for your blood. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.30 01:35:00 - [179] Originally by: Awesome Possum ITS A GAME I'm well aware of the fact that it's a game. that's why I am using the approved process to bring something to the attention of the player's representatives that I don't agree with in the game mechanics. If this was real life, I'd have sued someone already. Originally by: Awesome Possum There are already consequences to shooting someone you're not 'allowed' to. Stop trying to make it impossible, because that's what you're aiming for. Despite what other people may have said, this is not what I am aiming for. I am simply aiming to make suicide gankers suffer the same moment of pause when they undock as I do. It only seems fair. Miners have to decide what to mine to maximize profits. Manufacturers have to decide what to manufacture for the same reason. Why should the suigankers get a pass on that decision just because they're being subsidized by the system? All I want is for the suicide gankers to have to think before they shoot. Why are you so against leveling the playing field? --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Drake Draconis Minmatar Shadow Cadre	Posted - 2009.07.30 05:00:00 - [180] Edited by: Drake Draconis on 30/07/2009 05:06:24 Edited by: Drake Draconis on 30/07/2009 05:04:00 Edited by: Drake Draconis on 30/07/2009 05:01:39 Originally by: Awesome Possum Originally by: Keitoshi Yamada It'd be like if police paid for your car that got wrecked while they were chasing you. Quote: 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. ITS A GAME Stop repeating yourself. EVE is PVP, nonconsensual PVP is PVP There are already consequences to shooting someone you're not 'allowed' to. Stop trying to make it impossible, because that's what you're aiming for. This isn't WOW, there are no safe zones (except docked) where you can get your character to and no one's allowed to hit you anymore. If you don't want PVP, log. Even docked playing the market you have people out for your blood. Last I checked.. this thread is about revoking of Insurance for getting CONCORD'd. What the #### does this have to do with PVP? Stop derailing the thread.... or go make your own thread about PVP'ing because this has nothing to do with it. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com =========================

Girabaldi D'Protagonist Minmatar In Theory.	Posted - 2009.07.30 12:27:00 - [181] Originally by: Nian Banks Edited by: Nian Banks on 27/07/2009 13:53:51 Originally by: De'Veldrin Originally by: Drake Draconis Edited by: Drake Draconis on 24/07/2009 16:42:07 You want funny? Every single reason for saying no is utterly stupid. Even in-spite of the fact that this in no way hurts the criminal profession. Other than taking away "free ISK" But Drake, you know everyone likes free ISK. And I would like a free ** * but I aint getting one, should I complain because noone wants to give me one? Seriously, suicide gankers are giving miners a good reason not to mine. and then they just mission and hey we all know missions are broken because they give just as much minerals as mining. its a big WTF from me. Spread the love a little <isk to missions, <isk to suicide gankers, >isk to miners and industrialists. Then maybe we are getting close to how it should be. For some suicide gankers the idea is to make them not want to mine... that is the whole point in some instance.. yeah thats it.. With the prevalence of macro's invading every system, the only way to get the point across is to make their hulks and mackinaws go boom every 15 minutes.. they get the point and go somewhere else.. OH and BTW you don't need to spend a lot of money to pop a tanked hulk or mack.. its almost a science.. and looting the wrecks is easy too, including your team's wrecks.. you just have to know what you are doing.. For a lot of gankers that do this professionally, removal of the insureance payment won't be that big of a deal... hulks and macks still go boom.. and the salvage from one of those is in the Millions if you get the intact stuff.. plus the modules.. it all sells..
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.07.30 20:07:00 - [182] Originally by: De'Veldrin I'm well aware of the fact that it's a game. that's why I am using the approved process to bring something to the attention of the player's representatives that I don't agree with in the game mechanics. If this was real life, I'd have sued someone already. I don't recall quoting you when I made that post. Too many people here are equating in game mechanics to RL principles. Who cares what a RL cop or insurance company would do? The cops and insurance companies don't make the game or the rules, CCP does. Quote: Despite what other people may have said, this is not what I am aiming for. I am simply aiming to make suicide gankers suffer the same moment of pause when they undock as I do. It only seems fair. Miners have to decide what to mine to maximize profits. Manufacturers have to decide what to manufacture for the same reason. Why should the suigankers get a pass on that decision just because they're being subsidized by the system? You seem to forget that a hulk can be suicide ganked by 2-3 destroyers in cheap t1 crap for a total loss of... ? Even without insurance, its not going to stop anything. Quote: All I want is for the suicide gankers to have to think before they shoot. Why are you so against leveling the playing field? Considering there are already plenty of ways in game right now to keep from being suicide ganked, why are you trying to get in game mechanics changed just to penalize one small section of the game? Play the game. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.07.30 20:45:00 - [183] The heart of this issue is that the proponents dont want non-consensual PvP in empire.
Sans Honore Gallente Wirfadam Productions LTD	Posted - 2009.07.30 20:49:00 - [184] Originally by: Malcanis The heart of this issue is that the proponents dont want non-consensual PvP in empire. This.
Drake Draconis Minmatar Shadow Cadre	Posted - 2009.07.30 20:55:00 - [185] Again.. what does this have to do with insurance voiding due to getting CONOCRD'ed? ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com =========================
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.30 22:10:00 - [186] Originally by: Awesome Possum Quote: Despite what other people may have said, this is not what I am aiming for. I am simply aiming to make suicide gankers suffer the same moment of pause when they undock as I do. It only seems fair. Miners have to decide what to mine to maximize profits. Manufacturers have to decide what to manufacture for the same reason. Why should the suigankers get a pass on that decision just because they're being subsidized by the system? You seem to forget that a hulk can be suicide ganked by 2-3 destroyers in cheap t1 crap for a total loss of... ? Even without insurance, its not going to stop anything. I never suggested that it would stop suicide ganking. I suggested that it might the gankers think before they act. If they choose not to, that's not really my problem. Originally by: Awesome Possum Quote: All I want is for the suicide gankers to have to think before they shoot. Why are you so against leveling the playing field? Considering there are already plenty of ways in game right now to keep from being suicide ganked, why are you trying to get in game mechanics changed just to penalize one small section of the game? Play the game. You very nicely dodged answering the question you quoted. So I'll re-ask it. Why are you bound and determined to not have this one mechanic changed, since it does indeed impact such a small part of the game. I mean if it's so small, it shouldn't matter, right? Keep it as is, change it - shouldn't make any difference, since it's just a tiny little part of the game. I just want the job the gankers choose to follow to actually reflect it's true cost instead of having that occupation be subsidized. Unless you'd like to propose to CCP that they start seeding the market with free minerals so my chosen occupation can be subsidized too? --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Stil Harkonnen	Posted - 2009.07.30 23:08:00 - [187] Isn't insurance NOT the same as CONCORD? Meaning the insurance company could care less what you do with your ship, they're still going to pay for it if you have the coverage....
Amber Harden	Posted - 2009.07.31 12:08:00 - [188] Reading through peoples idea of what insurance is for is bizarre. That said - I can see both sides of the arguement. PVP, wanted or not, is a strong driving force in market stimulation. Without it the high sec industrialists would have a much harder time selling the products and produce. The stupidity of this is there is very little punishment for a ganker. They fully understand the risk they take when they attack and can calculate the money outlayed versus the possible reward from the wreck. The thing that is missing here is reality. What insurance company in its right mind would insure someone at a fraction of the cost of a ship, that is destroyed 2 hours later.....answer, nearly all of them, once. After that you would pay far more for insurance in premiums. Repeated insurance mis haps would eventually result in no one wanting to insure you....ever again. Sure Gankers take a security status hit - big deal - go kill some Battleships and recover this. Higher insurance costs for repeat gankers on an ever increasing scale. Then place cheaper, less reputable insurers in low sec systems, (where all the gankers tell industrialists they should be anyway) - that charge far less but have a % chance of not paying out.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.07.31 13:39:00 - [189] Originally by: Amber Harden Reading through peoples idea of what insurance is for is bizarre. That said - I can see both sides of the arguement. PVP, wanted or not, is a strong driving force in market stimulation. Without it the high sec industrialists would have a much harder time selling the products and produce. The stupidity of this is there is very little punishment for a ganker. They fully understand the risk they take when they attack and can calculate the money outlayed versus the possible reward from the wreck. The thing that is missing here is reality. What insurance company in its right mind would insure someone at a fraction of the cost of a ship, that is destroyed 2 hours later.....answer, nearly all of them, once. After that you would pay far more for insurance in premiums. Repeated insurance mis haps would eventually result in no one wanting to insure you....ever again. Sure Gankers take a security status hit - big deal - go kill some Battleships and recover this. Higher insurance costs for repeat gankers on an ever increasing scale. Then place cheaper, less reputable insurers in low sec systems, (where all the gankers tell industrialists they should be anyway) - that charge far less but have a % chance of not paying out. I could get behind the idea of a sliding scale of ship insurance based on actual market value and pilot performance (i.e. ship loss). it might need some tweaking, but the overall idea is intriguing and it accomplishes my main goal. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.07.31 14:55:00 - [190] Give us the tools for player run insurance and this wouldn't be an issue. Riskier pilots would pay more, gankers wouldn't get insured, and your standard player would play and pay more or less how they do now.

Kytanos Termek Darkstorm Command Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.07.31 16:17:00 - [191] Edited by: Kytanos Termek on 31/07/2009 16:17:39 Supported. I just dont think it feels right to get insurance if your go Jihad on someone. Terrorists should not get money :-)
Dariah Stardweller	Posted - 2009.07.31 21:33:00 - [192] Originally by: Awesome Possum Originally by: De'Veldrin You seem to forget that a hulk can be suicide ganked by 2-3 destroyers in cheap t1 crap for a total loss of... ? Even without insurance, its not going to stop anything. Awesome! That means all the gankers can stop whining and just switch to destroyers and insurance can be nerfed
Allen Ramses Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.31 22:46:00 - [193] Edited by: Allen Ramses on 31/07/2009 22:46:24 Supported. Insurance sucks. CONCORDOKKEN insurance is no exception. ____________________ CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [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.