| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Flying ZombieJesus
   |
Posted - 2010.06.03 13:58:00 -
[31]
I disagree; I don't think thats going far enough.
I think that concord should send you a mail after you get ganked asking how much you want the ganker to pay you. You put in a number, and it removes isk from their wallet and into yours.
If there isnt enough, it sells off their assets to the highest sell order available until it reaches that number.
If its STILL not high enough it makes a post in the character bizarre to see if anyone wants to buy the character.
If thats STILL not enough they send the police to round the person up in real life and take him to small claims court.
Maybe THEN this game will finally be safe for idiots like me to afk with 6 bil in my t1 cargo
|
4N631
|
Posted - 2010.06.03 14:01:00 -
[32]
|
Kal Murmur
|
Posted - 2010.06.03 14:15:00 -
[33]
Fully support insurance not paying when you get Concorded, and I say that as someone who's corpmates suicide gank fairly often. It just feels too easy at the moment.
The other emo whining in here though makes me want to not support it, just because I dont want to feel like I have anything in common with these people. 
|
Hardokan
|
Posted - 2010.06.03 14:24:00 -
[34]
|
Tunixgut
|
Posted - 2010.06.03 17:27:00 -
[35]
Supported.
Enhance this with a standing loss for using Cargo or Ship Scanners in High-Sec. Thanx.
|
Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.03 17:43:00 -
[36]
 Originally by: Sellmewarez
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.
the risk/reward argument is based on the totally fallacious idea that people deserve to be safe while being careless in hi-sec. the only thing that they have a right to expect is that unprovoked aggression will - eventually - cost the aggressor his ship. NOTHING more. CCP have re-affirmed this over and over again.
if people choose to move valuables in poorly tanked AFK ships, then of course it's going to be easy to gank them. that's no reason to whine to CCP to punish those who take advantage of their carelessness. it's not up to CCP to decrease rewards vs those who play poorly.
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. |
Stupid McStupidson
Gallente
Hoek Lyne and Sinker
|
Posted - 2010.06.03 18:14:00 -
[37]
Ehh...not supported. Hesitant to fall into the 'RL' trap. Concorded folks already take a sec hit, and the new insurance model will most likely inflict more pain on the suicidal types. If you want safe, stay docked.
|
Spirulina Laxissima
|
Posted - 2010.06.03 19:00:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Spirulina Laxissima on 03/06/2010 19:00:03
Against.
Freedom requires responsibility.
Too much control is not freedom.
If you fly the route frequently, make some
bookmarks real close to the stations/gates,
and warp to zero.
SRI SYADASTI SYADAVAKTAVYA SYADASTI SYANNASTI SYADASTI CAVAKTAVYASCA SYADASTI SYANNASTI SYADAVATAVYASCA SYADASTI SYANNASTI SYADAVAKTAVYASCA
Principia Discordiahttp://www.principiadiscordia.c |
Delilah Wild
|
Posted - 2010.06.03 19:11:00 -
[39]
Don't you just love the pirating curs' version of risk/reward -- your risk and their reward?
Delilah |
Crazy KSK
|
Posted - 2010.06.03 19:27:00 -
[40]
|
|
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
|
Posted - 2010.06.03 20:46:00 -
[41]
lol, the way it is now, there is no 'HIGH' Security.
I guess none of you remember when CCP placed the Tax on NPC corps, they said it was to make Eve more like 'Real Life' and the enticement to join or create a player corp was that it could be 'Tax Free'.
We all live in areas that have a High, Low and No (Null) Security.
So to make Eve more like 'Real Life',
Eve = Country, State, City, etc.
High Security = Financial, Industrial, etc.
Low Security = Commercial, Residential, etc.
Null Security = Rural, Undeveloped, etc.
In high security area:
Must have positive security status.
Not allowed to carry/have weapons.
Immediate response by authorities for crime committed.
In low security area:
Must have either high or low security status.
Can carry/have weapons.
Slow response by authorities for crime committed.
In null security area:
Can have either high, low or bad security status.
Encouraged to carry/have weapons.
No response by authorities for crime committed.
Having said all of that and if CCP is trying to use 'Real Life' as excuse for making changes, well, let's go all the way with it.
I endorse this 100%. 
|
Shaemell Buttleson
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.06.03 22:04:00 -
[42]
Allthough I don't agree with insurance payouts on ppl who have been concorded I do want it to be viable to suicide gank in hi-sec.
I want to see how the way the new insurance works out over the next few months before I give this my support or not.
* Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. - CCP Ildoge
|
Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
|
Posted - 2010.06.03 22:57:00 -
[43]
Lets face it eve insurance is not a real business model. The insurance companies would all go bankrupt whether we count ships blown up by concord or not.
If you want to play the real life card ask yourself this. What are the chances you will get insurance if you were to tell your agent that you are going to attach guns and missile launchers to your car and drive around with a bunch of other likeminded people as we all shoot at eachother? MKay. Insurance in eve is still a good thing because it supports one of the funnest activities the game offers - pvp.
Personally I think high sec is already too safe. Traders need some risk.
|
Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 00:16:00 -
[44]
Originally by: DeMichael Crimson
lol, the way it is now, there is no 'HIGH' Security.
I tell you what, we'll do a test by way of a thought experiment
I buy 20 haulers, 10 for you, 10 for me. Let's say... Iteron Vs.
I fly around lo-sec and you fly around hi-sec. We keep flying until all 10 haulers are destroyed. Who do you think will make the most jumps before he has no haulers left? (Hint: it will be you)
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. |
Ildryn
The Inf1dels
En Garde
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 00:18:00 -
[45]
I agree 100% and would like to add if i may.
That people who purposely put their ships at risk should also get 0 insurance.
If you purposely fly into a pirate or drone infested mission. 0
Gank a high sec mission runner. 0
Undock. 0
Do anything that could cause your ship to explode purposely or accidentally and get paid nothing.
|
Erueka Chi
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 00:34:00 -
[46]
This is not about Stoping high sec ganking. It's more about making it harder. I built an alt, leveled it enought to fly a battleship, outfit it with smart bombs and bombed the hell out of people myself. Took me just under a month, and with a little capital the platinum plan payouts kept my alt in BS's and bombing people for weeks. I just thought that taking away that insurance for anyone willing to break the law seemed to make sense, as well as would slow them down a little.
As for the insurance NOT being a RL buisness model, I disagree. I've bought insurance with my main maybe 50 times, and collected insurance on a lost ship but 1 time. The insurance company made more money off me then I made off them so I think it is some what realistic.
Admittedly some people insure thier ships, run out into low sec and get themselves blow up for the fun of it, but then maybe they should also add high risk polices increases and such like RL insurance would have. I didn't know about the insurance changes before I created this post, just thought it was a good idea and I wanted to share.
For those who say I want a WOW like enviroment, well I never said this would stop them, nor did I mean for you to think I want a 100% safe High-Sec, I just thougth it'd add a little more realism to the insurance then what is there now  |
Ildryn
The Inf1dels
En Garde
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 00:43:00 -
[47]
For some realism. If you purposely crash or whatever you will be black balled and lose your license eventually.
So there you go.
|
John Hamon
Hamon Industries
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 01:50:00 -
[48]
I agree. The deliberate destruction of your property through illegal activity is insurance fraud as far as I am concerned.
|
Jared D'Uroth
Minmatar
Universal Peace Operation
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 04:03:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Jared D''Uroth on 04/06/2010 04:06:34
Originally by: Cyrus Doul
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.
If someone builds a space vessel and fits weaponry to it, I think they get arrested. Oh wait, this is why real life comparisons don't work isn't it.
Not supported.
Edit for rage:
Can you morons stop using real life comparisons? EvE is NOTHING like real life, so making a real life comparison makes you look like an absolute ******. IN REAL LIFE IF THERE WERE PIRATES IN YOUR BACKYARD THE SPACE POLICE WOULD GO AND TAKE CARE OF IT, NOT TELL YOU TO GO DO IT. EVE isn't a safe place. GET OVER IT.
===
Quote:
I think the point [of t3] was that your foes would never know how you were fit, adding the element of surprise.
Like, surprise!!! I decided to go with EHP and DPS.
|
realdognose
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 06:51:00 -
[50]
Highsec Ganking is already punished with a decrease of Security Status.
I think the Highsec is already the ultimate Carebear-Playground.
There is no need to add further restrictions for beeing rude.
(PS.: Im in Highsec, too)
Actually Gate-Gamps only exists because of the following Thought:
"Oh, lets take this items with a worth of 1B, put em into my Badger Mark I and fly em to jita. 20 Jumps? Well Auto-Pilot!!
Nothing can happen - its highsec."
If players would be more careful about that, they might split up the cargo, take bigger ships - or use courier contracts to
those that HAVE the bigger ships.
Why carry 5B Faction Stuff with a "Badger"? Better use a 200k-fitted Battleship - and no body would alpha-strike you.
|
|
|
Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 08:11:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Ildryn
I agree 100% and would like to add if i may.
That people who purposely put their ships at risk should also get 0 insurance.
If you purposely fly into a pirate or drone infested mission. 0
Gank a high sec mission runner. 0
Undock. 0
Do anything that could cause your ship to explode purposely or accidentally and get paid nothing.
Why not just say "remove insurance altogether?"
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. |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 08:33:00 -
[52]
I'd just like to point out again that Insurance bears no relation to anything in RL. It seems to need repeating a lot.
Carry on.
-
DesuSigs - Now with ThreadAssignÖ and SigSelectÖ |
Ecco Storm
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 08:52:00 -
[53]
Supported. If you want to suicide gank then go for it. No problem with it. It shouldn't be free or nearly free to do so on the other hand. At the very least it makes the gankers cherry pick higher quality targets.
|
Jason Babbage
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 11:03:00 -
[54]
Originally by: realdognose
20 Jumps? Well Auto-Pilot!!
Why do people keep saying this? Does it really matter if you are auto-piloting and AFK? A suicide gank happens faster than Concord response. It doesn't matter if you are AFK on autopilot or glued to your screen with you hand on the warp button, if the pirates want you dead, you are dead.
I just wish people would stop pretending that somehow autopiloting is less safe. Sure in the incoming trip to the gate you warp to zero and are gone before they can respond. But on the other side of the gate you still have to align and warp off, and against a dedicated group with tacklers and what not, that's not going to happen unless you are specifically fitted to avoid it, and freighter can't fit.
I will agree autopiloting is a tiny tiny bit safer if the pirates are slow, but most suicide attacks happen in seconds and you are dead whether you are paying attention or not.
Anyway, just my opinion.
|
Blake Savage
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 11:42:00 -
[55]
Originally by: NonZtop
High-sec space should be safe space. I agree with this
I you believe high sec space should be completely safe you don't belong in Eve , no one should be able to hide unless their at a POS or docked up in a station or cloaked.
High sec ganking comes with a prize, the loss of your ship and a sec hit which it is how it should be.
|
Titanius Bridge
Caldari
The Secret Corp
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 14:14:00 -
[56]
I cannot support this idea. The only way I could see it working is if they would offer a 'premium' insurance option to cover for CONCORD interference. But even so, it would cause problems for new players, or people that hit the wrong button on accident, etc.
-------------
Because I am Bridge, and I'm
AWWWWWESOOOOMMMMEEE!!!
|
Phosphorus Palladium
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 14:30:00 -
[57]
Indeed. No iskies for those foolish enough to mess with CONCORD! |
Xearal
Minmatar
SOL Industries
Kamikaze Project
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 14:50:00 -
[58]
Cache cleared. |
So Cash
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 20:13:00 -
[59]
Perhaps would make pirates think twice before ganking.
|
Laxyr
Chamsin Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.06.04 21:04:00 -
[60]
Show me one insurance company that will pay something when my car gets busted during a police chase.
Lax |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |