EVE Search - Insurance payouts and Concord... what's the latest?

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Insurance payouts and Concord... what's the latest?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Procul Harum	Posted - 2010.01.25 13:39:00 - [1] My first post, so go easy on me :) First of all, I realise this is in the "commonly proposed ideas" section, but what I'm after is NOT (another) debate, but just the answer to why CCP haven't removed insurance payouts from Concord-related killings? It seems to me that the vast majority of people think it would make the game better, even if it isn't a complete solution. And it wouldn't be very hard to implement? And CCP said they were thinking of it not too long ago... So what am I missing here? P.S. If they have already implemented it... my bad :P I haven't read anything to say that they had, and being a new player not really loving the idea of risking even a T1 ship to find out haha.
Slimy Chicky	Posted - 2010.01.25 15:43:00 - [2] Those Pilots among us that get a kick out of Ganking / Killing others, just for fun and not receiving any ISK sad back by doing this is fully supported by CCP. ThatÆs why Insurance is paid out by the game for loosing ships due to ConCorp intervention. He, it makes the game a more dangerous place and gives all that are in it the trill off a lifetime by loosing lots of ISK to the Gankers. ItÆs just like in Real-Life Economies and Politics. Never let your members get rich to easy or no one will work for there money anymore. You pay some, And you loose Some. ThatÆs EVE. And So be it!!!!!!!!!!
Procul Harum	Posted - 2010.01.26 04:32:00 - [3] Aside from the uber carebears out there, I don't think anyone has a problem with EVE being a dangerous place. I certainly don't. But an insurance payout to the owner of Concord'ed ship doesn't make sense on any level at all. At the moment, you have people suicide ganking because insurance subsidizes their costs to do so, and that isn't realistic at all. To keep the gankers happy, it would be better to nerf Concord a little so that they have a chance of popping the higher value haulers in hi-sec. Maybe this is a case of keeping the carebears happy, rather than the gankers? (ie only the insurance company loses out)... disappointing if so, because not only is Pend insurance not acting like a true corporation, but the way its set up is seriously messing with the economy of EVE.
Cambarus The Compass Reloaded	Posted - 2010.01.26 04:42:00 - [4] Originally by: Procul Harum Aside from the uber carebears out there, I don't think anyone has a problem with EVE being a dangerous place. I certainly don't. But an insurance payout to the owner of Concord'ed ship doesn't make sense on any level at all. At the moment, you have people suicide ganking because insurance subsidizes their costs to do so, and that isn't realistic at all. To keep the gankers happy, it would be better to nerf Concord a little so that they have a chance of popping the higher value haulers in hi-sec. Maybe this is a case of keeping the carebears happy, rather than the gankers? (ie only the insurance company loses out)... disappointing if so, because not only is Pend insurance not acting like a true corporation, but the way its set up is seriously messing with the economy of EVE. IIRC CCP announced a fair while back that they were going to include this with their latest iteration of concord buffs. The gankers freaked. CCP ditched the idea. As far as the insurance companies not acting like real companies goes, the police don't act like real police either. I've said it before and I'll say it again: You want insurance removed from concord killings? Make concord avoidable. Eve's supposed to be a harsh unforgiving game, and there are already more than enough things discouraging people from shooting each other...
Procul Harum	Posted - 2010.01.26 05:14:00 - [5] Thanks Cambarus, you answered my question. I would definitely support nerfing or making Concord avoidable for balancing purposes. And I agree that there are too many safeguards in places where it's only meant to be safER (this coming from a relative newbie as well). Gankers have an important place in the game, but insuring their ships is the wrong way to go about it imo. I find it hard to believe that this is the best solution CCP can come up with.
Procul Harum	Posted - 2010.01.26 05:20:00 - [6] Originally by: Cambarus As far as the insurance companies not acting like real companies goes, the police don't act like real police either. I've said it before and I'll say it again: You want insurance removed from concord killings? Make concord avoidable. Eve's supposed to be a harsh unforgiving game, and there are already more than enough things discouraging people from shooting each other... Seems like we're on the same page. Is there a petition or something that is worthwhile signing?
Reggie Stoneloader JAFA Trade and Manufacturing Cooperative	Posted - 2010.01.26 06:36:00 - [7] There are cases of accidental Concordings, like when you're running high-sec missions with friends from other corps and someone's drones get smartbombed or you hit the wrong button and don't have the warning enabled. Insurance payouts in those cases are fair, in my mind, and they allow the Concorded player to deal with it without getting into petitions. I suspect that removing the insurance payout would lead to a flood of extra work for GMs. And yeah, ganking's annoying, but how often does it really happen? Wasting some money and a decent chunk of sec status for a kill that doesn't earn you money isn't as appealing as it might seem, and if your ship is fitted such that the loot and salvage from its wreck will cover the cost of ganking it, then you're far enough along that you shouldn't need high-sec to hold your hand. Running at min/maxxed profit margins inside of high-sec should not be risk-free. TL;DR: Fly a Covetor or make some friends and go to low-sec, where gankers can't sidle right up to you and open up at optimal. ====================== Crusades: Security Status
Damien Arcuri Empire Black Market	Posted - 2010.01.26 09:13:00 - [8] Quote: There are cases of accidental Concordings, like when you're running high-sec missions with friends from other corps and someone's drones get smartbombed or you hit the wrong button and don't have the warning enabled. Insurance payouts in those cases are fair, in my mind, and they allow the Concorded player to deal with it without getting into petitions. I suspect that removing the insurance payout would lead to a flood of extra work for GMs. Accidental concording is easily worked around as many of the billion threads on the topic have pointed out. For instance, delay insurance payouts for a few minutes and then check if there's a ship kill entry in their concord standing transaction log. There would be a separate entry for ship kill if that happened, in addition to ship aggression which is all that would show up in cases of accidental aggression. If there is a ship kill standing loss, no insurance. Simple.
Archanjo	Posted - 2010.01.26 12:00:00 - [9] Edited by: Archanjo on 26/01/2010 12:00:58 Insurance method is helping more pirates than Noobs every day...so why keep this system? In my country RL Car Insurance Companies insure ure car for an ammount payed monthly or 6 by 6 monthes whatever...if u crash youre car.. the ammount payed "by month" increases... cause u have a car crashed... if u crash twice, the ammount high up very significantly... and only after lets say 2 years without crashes it may lower... This rule could be applyed in eve, and I think its the solution. So if a newb to the game crash his car 10 times...what the hell go play Facebook games... A pirate that is wasting ship after ship... then he needs to cooldoown for a while or start to pick REALLY WORTH Targets... Because its starting to hurt in his pocket asweall. But pls it makes nosense that Insurance is paying back cars used to robberys... at the excuse that could be a safe to a couple of cases Sorry my English
Typhado3 Minmatar	Posted - 2010.01.26 13:56:00 - [10] Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader And yeah, ganking's annoying, but how often does it really happen? Wasting some money and a decent chunk of sec status for a kill that doesn't earn you money isn't as appealing as it might seem, and if your ship is fitted such that the loot and salvage from its wreck will cover the cost of ganking it, then you're far enough along that you shouldn't need high-sec to hold your hand. Running at min/maxxed profit margins inside of high-sec should not be risk-free. TL;DR: Fly a Covetor or make some friends and go to low-sec, where gankers can't sidle right up to you and open up at optimal. ganking happens quite often in case you havn't noticed the competitions and corps and swarms of players all dedicated entirely too doing it. Also the loss from it is rediculously small with jack all risk. Trying to attack suicide gankers is pretty futile considering their ship is designed to die and concord will cover their ass most of the time. Their really isn't a lot of risk in it and the profits are massive and rather consistent. Essentially suicide ganking is the risk free easy version of pirating and it's dragging pirates away from 0.0 and low sec into empire. The idea that it's pushing ppl out of empire is a load of crap it's doing the exact oposite. But now that it's established itself any talk of nerfing it gets screamed out the window by whines and everyone arguing for a nerf is classed as a noob who got ganked. ------------------------------ God is an afk cloaker
Cambarus The Compass Reloaded	Posted - 2010.01.26 21:41:00 - [11] Edited by: Cambarus on 26/01/2010 21:47:51 Originally by: Typhado3 Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader ganking happens quite often in case you havn't noticed the competitions and corps and swarms of players all dedicated entirely too doing it. Also the loss from it is rediculously small with jack all risk. Trying to attack suicide gankers is pretty futile considering their ship is designed to die and concord will cover their ass most of the time. Their really isn't a lot of risk in it and the profits are massive and rather consistent. Essentially suicide ganking is the risk free easy version of pirating and it's dragging pirates away from 0.0 and low sec into empire. The idea that it's pushing ppl out of empire is a load of crap it's doing the exact oposite. But now that it's established itself any talk of nerfing it gets screamed out the window by whines and everyone arguing for a nerf is classed as a noob who got ganked. Ganking doesn't happen nearly as often as people like to think it does. Hulkageddon aside, how many times have you been suicide ganked while not doing something stupid like hauling hundreds of millions of isk in an 800k hauler? The problem with suicide ganking is the same as the problem with people complaining about how pvp fit ships own pve fit ones; it's not that there's a problem with it per se, it's that the people on the receiving end of the ass-whooping refuse to take a cut in their isk/hour to protect themselves from that sort of thing. Want to mine in nearly complete safety? You have 2 very easy options available to you: 1)Mine in a covetor. This might come as a surprise, but a 20mil insurable ship costs less to lose than a 80-120mil insurable ship. The risk of getting ganked is still there (though less likely as you're a less juicy target) but the loss involved is minimal. 2)Mine in a mission/hidden belt. Rogue slave trader 2 of 2 (at least the lvl 4 version, but I think in lower levels as well) spawns 400,000 units of omber (8 roids with 50k each). You get this mission, clear out the first room (but not the second one) and mine all day. The next day, guess what? THE MISSION RESPAWNED! \o/ You now have another 400k omber to mine. Just clear out the first room. You can do this for a whole week before having to turn in the mission/taking a standings hit. IIRC Enemies abound 1 of 5 does the same thing, only it can be challenging to clear out if you're a newb with missions. But that mission spawns 800,000 omber every day. So you've got your own private, daily-respawning belt with more ore then you could possibly mine on your own. not only that, but you're not in a belt! People don't usually bother to scan down barges/exhumers since they're nearly always in a belt, so the odds of you seeing anyone are very, VERY slim. (Unless of course they're after you specifically but then they'd most likely be ganking you without insurance anyway). Only problem with these methods is that they require either time to get the desired mission or isk in that you're not making the max theoretical isk/hour. Because of this most carebears refuse to use these simple insurance policies and end up getting ganked.
suspisious	Posted - 2010.01.27 10:33:00 - [12] Ganking is part of the game. How many times it happens i dont know. But the system is flawed. If you are the victim and your ship get blown up losing millions. You will not have a good time. But at least theres the small comfort that concord bit blast your attackers to bits. But wait they got their money back from the insurance. They barely lost anything. while you lost so much. Plus there probably now stealing stuff from your wreck as we speak. gankers 3 victim 0 Tell me how that is fair? People who suicide their ship dont deserve insurance. Now Its just pouring salt on the victims wounds.
Dr Karsun Gallente HUSARIA Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2010.01.27 18:35:00 - [13] D: NOES, never do it! it'd force to actually wait for the self-destruct timer when making raven insurance frauds! Did I just write that? :P Seriously this idea has been proposed before, but that'd actually just move the suicide ganking problem a bit higher on the ladder - it wouldn't be profitable to gank freighters with mere 100m of loot - they'd need 400-500m to make it worth the while. On the other hand I really don't like suicide ganking so... Signed! I just had to point out what I find wrong in it.
Czert ElPrezidente	Posted - 2010.01.27 18:50:00 - [14] Originally by: Slimy Chicky Those Pilots among us that get a kick out of Ganking / Killing others, just for fun and not receiving any ISK sad back by doing this is fully supported by CCP. ThatÆs why Insurance is paid out by the game for loosing ships due to ConCorp intervention. He, it makes the game a more dangerous place and gives all that are in it the trill off a lifetime by loosing lots of ISK to the Gankers. ItÆs just like in Real-Life Economies and Politics. Never let your members get rich to easy or no one will work for there money anymore. You pay some, And you loose Some. ThatÆs EVE. And So be it!!!!!!!!!! This is completly wrong. Gangers in fact EARN money y suicide gangind - and sometimes lot of it. Why ? not only insurance is enough to cover cost of new ship + lov meta items used by gankers, but they have another profit from loot of victim. (loot is opicked by fridly non actual sucide ganger). Onlyest person which lose money is victim. So it m,akes peoples who are rich and enjoiing harrasing other peoples even richer. Anfd if in RL you are harrased in "high sec", then asasaulter is very hardly punished by cops, and surely not get bonus from insurance company. ------------------------------------------------ http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm&c=11 - mod for one of best game ever
Czert ElPrezidente	Posted - 2010.01.27 18:55:00 - [15] Originally by: Procul Harum Thanks Cambarus, you answered my question. I would definitely support nerfing or making Concord avoidable for balancing purposes. But is is here place in which you can avoid concord easily already - it is called LOW SEC. ------------------------------------------------ http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm&c=11 - mod for one of best game ever
Czert ElPrezidente	Posted - 2010.01.27 19:00:00 - [16] Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader There are cases of accidental Concordings, like when you're running high-sec missions with friends from other corps and someone's drones get smartbombed or you hit the wrong button and don't have the warning enabled. Insurance payouts in those cases are fair, in my mind, and they allow the Concorded player to deal with it without getting into petitions. I suspect that removing the insurance payout would lead to a flood of extra work for GMs. This is very easily solvable - lets make insurance payout decisin moved to victim - lets victim say if it was killed by acident (pay insurance) or suicide ganged (dont pay insurance). ------------------------------------------------ http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm&c=11 - mod for one of best game ever
suspisious	Posted - 2010.01.27 19:51:00 - [17] Originally by: Czert ElPrezidente Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader There are cases of accidental Concordings, like when you're running high-sec missions with friends from other corps and someone's drones get smartbombed or you hit the wrong button and don't have the warning enabled. Insurance payouts in those cases are fair, in my mind, and they allow the Concorded player to deal with it without getting into petitions. I suspect that removing the insurance payout would lead to a flood of extra work for GMs. This is very easily solvable - lets make insurance payout decisin moved to victim - lets victim say if it was killed by acident (pay insurance) or suicide ganged (dont pay insurance). That could work. You could also make insurance payout dependent on wether the assaulted ship was destroyed or not. So an accedental attack against a friend would still get you insurance. Destoying your friends ship (by accident) will be a problem, but how often does that happen? (A good harsh lesson to :))
Procul Harum	Posted - 2010.01.28 13:06:00 - [18] Originally by: Czert ElPrezidente Originally by: Procul Harum Thanks Cambarus, you answered my question. I would definitely support nerfing or making Concord avoidable for balancing purposes. But is is here place in which you can avoid concord easily already - it is called LOW SEC. Whats wrong with danger in hi-sec space? It would be dead boring if the only action existed in low sec. EVE clearly mentions you're not supposed to feel completely safe, just safER. Originally by: Dr Karsun Seriously this idea has been proposed before, but that'd actually just move the suicide ganking problem a bit higher on the ladder - it wouldn't be profitable to gank freighters with mere 100m of loot - they'd need 400-500m to make it worth the while. That's exactly the outcome I think we want. Insurance subsidizes the gankers which isn't realistic or good for the game. If it costs them a 400M to gank someone but they have 500M worth of cargo, then all's fair, at least in the world of EVE. The problem is insurance makes it profitable to gank people with less than 400M of cargo.

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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