Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Erueka Chi
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 22:38:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Erueka Chi on 01/06/2010 22:45:22 This is an idea a corp member and I came up with to keep High-Sec Pirates from being such a nuisance. What I suggest is that anyone who gets themselves concorded will not be paid insurance,this way it's not just targeting High-Sec pirates, but all people who do illegal things in High-Sec. The problem comes from the smart bombers taking out small haulers runing between Jita and Hek. There is a string of systems where bombers just random attack people, smart bombing them to death then have a friend come in a scoop up the remains. They then use the insurance to buy a new battlehsip and more insurance to go back out and do it again.
My Corp mates and I came up with 2 ideas to deal with this. Ban Smart Bombs from High-Sec, or make it so no one couldn't collect insurance if they get condorded. We felt the Insurance idea was better cause it also delt with the Hulkagedeon guys, as well as punished any and all who break the law in high-sec. We felt this made sense, since in real life if you were to burn your house down to get the insurance, and were caught, they wouldn't pay you. We also believe this would not completely eliminate High-Sec piracy, it would just make it so the pirates would have to be more creative.
If you agree with this please Join in and help us get this changed.
|
Legendone
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 22:45:00 -
[2]
i concur, if it took skill and more than a couple of weeks to train throw away alts to do this, it would be one thing, but as is, to easy for noobs to fly around bombing anything in sight. /signed
|
Ranka Mei
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 22:50:00 -
[3]
I agree with the proposal. +1
I don't think it will do much, in terms of stopping suicide ganking, though. But 'immergence' wise it's a good thing to stop pay-out on being Concorded. --
|
Ace Dooley
Nomadic Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 22:53:00 -
[4]
Supported.
|
Genesis War
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 22:53:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Genesis War on 01/06/2010 22:55:21 I would have to say the same thing, it would make the most sence to help stop some of the high sec. killing. Just to loot the cargo.
|
Demerato
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 23:03:00 -
[6]
I also support this.
|
Ryuoshi
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 23:05:00 -
[7]
I'm a high-sec suicide bomber, and even I agree that this is a good idea. Hell I'll find a better way to annoy you all
|
NonZtop
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 23:10:00 -
[8]
High-sec space should be safe space. I agree with this
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 06:18:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Malcanis on 02/06/2010 06:21:14 You realise that the way insurance works has changed, and that it's no longer free to lose T1 ships anyway?
EDIT: And also that CCP recently re-affirmed to the CSM that suicide ganking was intended and supported gameplay. Why therefore should it be "punished"?
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
foksieloy
Minmatar Universal Army Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 07:21:00 -
[10]
No support. _______________________ We come for our people! |
|
Shaemell Buttleson
Euphoria Released HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 09:10:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Malcanis Edited by: Malcanis on 02/06/2010 06:21:14 You realise that the way insurance works has changed, and that it's no longer free to lose T1 ships anyway?
EDIT: And also that CCP recently re-affirmed to the CSM that suicide ganking was intended and supported gameplay. Why therefore should it be "punished"?
Agree with what you say except I have allways felt no insurance should be paid and this should be a factor that gankers should base their costs on. Maybe the changes in insurance will be enough.
* Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. - CCP Ildoge
|
Cyrus Doul
Cosmic Vacum Cleaners
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 12:00:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Shaemell Buttleson
Originally by: Malcanis Edited by: Malcanis on 02/06/2010 06:21:14 You realise that the way insurance works has changed, and that it's no longer free to lose T1 ships anyway?
EDIT: And also that CCP recently re-affirmed to the CSM that suicide ganking was intended and supported gameplay. Why therefore should it be "punished"?
Agree with what you say except I have allways felt no insurance should be paid and this should be a factor that gankers should base their costs on. Maybe the changes in insurance will be enough.
If someone uses their car for a hit and run and the car gets totaled two things happen. they end up with more expensive insurance or become uninsurable and they pick up the police aggro. In game they pick up the police aggro and get a nice hefty reward for using their car as a bullet shield / tank to rob the other people / armored car / expensive thing with.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 12:16:00 -
[13]
Anyone who thinks any comparison at all can be made between RL insurance and in-game insurance has absolutely no concept of how one or the other of the two works. -
DesuSigs - Now with ThreadAssignÖ and SigSelectÖ |
Kidzukurenai Datael
Imperial Collective
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 12:33:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Kidzukurenai Datael on 02/06/2010 12:36:12 I'd have to say I don't agree with this, I'm afraid. The thing that immediately comes to mind is when I was being neuted and shot at by ninja salvagers. One of the ninja's corpmates came in while I still had timer, started firing at me, and just between him activating (no you will die warning since I still had aggro) and the guns actually firing the Corp aggro ran out (I had taken from one of the ninja's cans to initiate a fight because I was being ****y, hence the aggro...) and he got concorded. I don't believe that was his fault. Even though I was the target I did feel a little sorry for him thanks to this.
Another thing that came to mind is new players. Yea, I know there's a warning but when you feel like you've got your chance to kill someone and you're a new player, no long-worded message is going to get in the way of you killing your target. "Omg get out of my way! Kill them already! *yes*" Then the new player loses their ship, has no insurance payout, and is back to mining veldspar in a noob ship with one mining laser. How many people are going to keep playing after such a loss?
Also, no matter what you do with insurance the high-sec gankers will not be deterred by the lack of an insurance payout, especially considering that they're shooting at a hauler for its cargo; it's going to be worth getting concorded for whether they get an insurance payout or not.
Edit: corrected typos thanks to the magic iPhone "auto-correct"
|
Cyrus Doul
Cosmic Vacum Cleaners
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 13:11:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Crumplecorn Anyone who thinks any comparison at all can be made between RL insurance and in-game insurance has absolutely no concept of how one or the other of the two works.
Hey, its not me that complains that the game shows drastic lacks of realistic immersion. I live in 0.0, never have been ganked, just had my research corp decked once, took the tower down and spent five days of invention profits to make an alliance.
And the point still stands, In rl you pay insurance to protect you and the other person you hit but it can be voided on your end if you do something bad like a hit and run. In game here its a way to protect your assets from death and be able to recoup some of that. The help the guy you hurt aspect is not in in game insurance to begin with but you would think the you doing something illegal would void it part would be. Sure your station insurance adjustor knows that space is dangerous and thats why it cost so much. But hes a fool to insure someone who goes out and breaks the law. For a game that is supposed to be mega corporations some gallente that goes out and ganks a gallente and gets paid by a gallente insurance agent makes the gallente look dumb, and french.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 13:41:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Cyrus Doul Sure your station insurance adjustor knows that space is dangerous and thats why it cost so much. But hes a fool to insure someone who goes out and breaks the law.
This makes no sense.
Insurance isn't expensive. Most ships are guaranteed to be destroyed during the insurance term. For the insurance 'company' to make a profit on insuring ships, they'd have to charge over the payout. Instead we only pay a fraction of it. Laws, OTOH, have nothing to do with anything when it comes to capsuleers. -
DesuSigs - Now with ThreadAssignÖ and SigSelectÖ |
Ahsekuaw
Brother Theo's Monastery The Ancients.
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 14:21:00 -
[17]
I support no insurance payouts for pilots who lose their ships due to Concord actions.
I do not support banning smartbombs from high sec.
Ahs
|
Ruby Khann
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 15:16:00 -
[18]
For those of you using real life insurance analogies, I remind you that if you took your car into a gun battle in lawless territory, insurance would be void as well.
So we should cancel all insurance, including fleet fights and mission losses.
Sound good?
|
Shaemell Buttleson
Euphoria Released HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 15:19:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Ruby Khann For those of you using real life insurance analogies, I remind you that if you took your car into a gun battle in lawless territory, insurance would be void as well.
So we should cancel all insurance, including fleet fights and mission losses.
Sound good?
Not if it's Concord sanctioned.
* Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. - CCP Ildoge
|
Ruby Khann
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 15:21:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Shaemell Buttleson Not if it's Concord sanctioned.
I'm in nullsec running missions for Sansha's Nation, a notorious pirate organization that regularly makes incursions into high sec to abduct citizens.
In this particular mission, I'm taking on DED ships, but they destroy me.
I still get insurance.
Is this fair?
|
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre Xenogenesis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 15:46:00 -
[21]
You should never be awarded insurance due to CONCORD or Self Destruction of your ship.
Supported.
(Don't give a crap what people think of suicide ganking as this has nothing to do with it... suffer anyway) ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Anna Lifera
Gallente Imperial Legion of Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 16:54:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Shaemell Buttleson
Not if it's Concord sanctioned.
u do realize that even low sec piracy isn't concord sanctioned, since u take sec hits for it right? i'm pretty sure a flood of pirate tears would commence if they could never get insurance for their actions, which means it ain't gonna happen.
i love the tons of threads crying about this how ppl want to turn this into wow, not realizing that high security =/= complete security. --- LOLOLOL If anything, lvl4s require LESS effort then Mining!... At least in mining you have to check every 4 minutes to move the ore to the can. You're an idiot. - Jerid Verges |
Shaemell Buttleson
Euphoria Released HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 17:16:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Anna Lifera
Originally by: Shaemell Buttleson
Not if it's Concord sanctioned.
u do realize that even low sec piracy isn't concord sanctioned, since u take sec hits for it right? i'm pretty sure a flood of pirate tears would commence if they could never get insurance for their actions, which means it ain't gonna happen.
i love the tons of threads crying about this how ppl want to turn this into wow, not realizing that high security =/= complete security.
Good point on that. But removing insurance from suicide ganks where according to the rules made by ccp you have to suffer a ship loss that is the same as blowing up your own ship which I also think you shouldn't get insurance for. If i wanted it to be like WOW I'd be in favour of 100% insurance with no module loss and you could wake up in a cloning station without having any skillpoint loss if you didn't set a clone when podded.
As for 0.0 there is no laws out there to break so the post before yours that quoted me is a moot point afaic. Also if you are running missions in 0.0 from the pirate factions just for the sake of roleplay you could say it was an insurance scheme from the faction you are working from. You probably even set up the insurance from the NPC station you run the mission from anyway.
* Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. - CCP Ildoge
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 17:21:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/06/2010 17:24:51 Not supported.
T1 ships stopped being free already.
Originally by: NonZtop High-sec space should NOT be safe space. I agree with this
fyp
Safer, yes, but not safe.
Originally by: Kidzukurenai Datael and just between him activating (no you will die warning since I still had aggro) and the guns actually firing the Corp aggro ran out (I had taken from one of the ninja's cans to initiate a fight because I was being ****y, hence the aggro...) and he got concorded.
Heh heh, reminds me when I was a noob and dueling some other guy I knew, first to 30% armor kind of thing and, anyway, I had to dock and refit and do something else, came out, aggro still ok, no warning, fire, concordokken.
Killed by module lag Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Sellmewarez
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 17:33:00 -
[25]
Sportin'
In my view insurance changes did not go far enough and the change was only negligable for BS at best. Thats certainly not to say i think suicide ganking should be removed, with this change it would not be, gankers would just need to be smarter in their risk/reward equation.
Theres no real reason why insurance is paid out for suicide ganks. Get rid of it!
|
ing SpeedyJ
Gallente Broken Lightning
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 21:46:00 -
[26]
/signed
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 21:51:00 -
[27]
Seriously though, why not wait a few weeks and see what difference the insurance changes make.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Anna Lifera
Gallente Imperial Legion of Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.06.03 07:23:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Shaemell Buttleson Good point on that. But removing insurance from suicide ganks where according to the rules made by ccp you have to suffer a ship loss that is the same as blowing up your own ship which I also think you shouldn't get insurance for. If i wanted it to be like WOW I'd be in favour of 100% insurance with no module loss and you could wake up in a cloning station without having any skillpoint loss if you didn't set a clone when podded.
oh u mean these rules: The selected item will be insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. Repackaging the item will void the contract. The contract will be considered void if the item or ship is destroyed while being in the possession of somebody else. Do you accept the above terms and still want to insure the selected item?
in case u haven't figured it out yet, it's basically an incentive to use and lose your ship for whatever purpose u deem fit. what part of that do u not understand? --- LOLOLOL If anything, lvl4s require LESS effort then Mining!... At least in mining you have to check every 4 minutes to move the ore to the can. You're an idiot. - Jerid Verges |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.03 08:01:00 -
[29]
ITT: People just not getting the basic principle that it's not wrong to suicide gank. It's not an exploit. It's not cheating. It's not griefing. It's legitimate, supported play, with no particular reason to discourage it any more than piracy, missioning, fleet fights, ratting, scouting or any of the other ways of losing a ship that no RL insurance company would ever dream of paying out for.
As the poster above has correctly stated, EVE "insurance" is nothing more than a (partial) ship replacement mechanism designed to encourage people to go and and fight with them - in ways criminal, foolish or just plain mad. The only thing EVE "insurance" has in common with real world insurance is the name. Given that, and given that suicide ganking is a supported play, there is no reason whatsoever to remove it from suicide gankers any more than there is a reason to remove it from someone who engages versus 10:1 odds.
tl;dr: stop getting hung up on the word "insurance. It's an analogy at best for the way that Pend work. OP's proposal is not supported.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Sellmewarez
|
Posted - 2010.06.03 13:14:00 -
[30]
There is plenty of reason to remove insurance from ships that suicide gank.
This may blow some peoples minds but truthfully there is little to no risk for suicide ganking.
The loss of sec status? Can be npc'd back within a few hours if you know what you are doing.
The small loss of isk? Can easily be regained after a couple of hours of npcing. (And thats if you really care since if you are suciding ganking something likely you have made this isk in your kills loot many times over)
And you know you can do these both at the same time.
What i feel is necessary is for there to be a true balance between risk/reward throughout eve. There is NO reason why you get your insurance isk back after you have just been killed by concord.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |