EVE Search - So, When Are Hi Sec Gank Insurance Payouts Being Stopped?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

So, When Are Hi Sec Gank Insurance Payouts Being Stopped?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mr Xanatos	Posted - 2010.09.19 18:41:00 - [1] Edited by: Mr Xanatos on 19/09/2010 18:47:58 CCP made a commitment 2 years ago (see last paragraph of the blog linked) to stop Gank insurance payouts yet they still payout. Any updates CCP? In the words of the CCP blog: Quote: In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future Blog Link
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.09.19 18:42:00 - [2] Edited by: Mag''s on 19/09/2010 18:43:59 Originally by: Mr Xanatos http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577 CCP made a commitment 2 years ago (see last paragraph of blog) to stop Gank insurance payouts yet the still payout. Any updates CCP? In the words of the CCP blog: Quote: In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future They said they would look at it. Quit your whining. Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it. Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Shwedagon Paya	Posted - 2010.09.19 18:43:00 - [3] Posting in a powderkeg.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.09.19 18:44:00 - [4] It obviously proved not to be needed. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
CyberGh0st Minmatar Ara Veritas	Posted - 2010.09.19 18:45:00 - [5] Edited by: CyberGh0st on 19/09/2010 18:45:16 Originally by: Mag's Edited by: Mag''s on 19/09/2010 18:43:59 Originally by: Mr Xanatos http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577 CCP made a commitment 2 years ago (see last paragraph of blog) to stop Gank insurance payouts yet the still payout. Any updates CCP? In the words of the CCP blog: Quote: In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future They said they would look at it. Quit your whining. Please reread the blog, and come back when you understand it http://www.mmodata.net Favorite MMO's : DAoC Pre-TOA-NF / SWG Pre-CU-NGE
Mr Xanatos	Posted - 2010.09.19 18:45:00 - [6] Originally by: Mag's Originally by: Mr Xanatos http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577 CCP made a commitment 2 years ago (see last paragraph of blog) to stop Gank insurance payouts yet the still payout. Any updates CCP? In the words of the CCP blog: Quote: In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future They said they would look at it, they made no promise it would stop. Quit your whining. Not whining, looking for answers on why it wasn't implemented as per the blog. I would consider 2 years a little beyond "the near future"
Corozan Aspinall Party Time Inc.	Posted - 2010.09.19 18:45:00 - [7] I don't know any insurer that pays out on a culpable claim and/or will do so time and again ad infinitum without massive premium hikes. Insurance quotes/payouts should take sec status and whether you initiated the aggro in to consideration. You should also get no claims bonus lol.
Shwedagon Paya	Posted - 2010.09.19 18:47:00 - [8] Edited by: Shwedagon Paya on 19/09/2010 18:51:34 Originally by: Tippia It obviously proved not to be needed. The truth is probably that CONCORD insurance-voiding would only have stopped 5-10% of suicide ganks and reduced average ganker profits by 10-15%, raising the bar slightly and making no difference to people who lose multi-billion-ISK ships. They'd keep losing those expensive ships, and they'd continue to whine for more suicide gank changes. Also, removing insurance when CONCORDOKKENED would make it too expensive to gank macro Hulks. That ALONE is a reason not to go forward with this change.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.09.19 18:48:00 - [9] Originally by: CyberGh0st Edited by: CyberGh0st on 19/09/2010 18:45:16 Originally by: Mag's Edited by: Mag''s on 19/09/2010 18:43:59 Originally by: Mr Xanatos http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577 CCP made a commitment 2 years ago (see last paragraph of blog) to stop Gank insurance payouts yet the still payout. Any updates CCP? In the words of the CCP blog: Quote: In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future They said they would look at it. Quit your whining. Please reread the blog, and come back when you understand it Originally by: CSM Summit Minutes The CSM brought up the issue of suicide ganking and feels it is too easy. The main problem is that this is in effect subsidized by insurance. CCP is aware of the issue and has discussed it at great length in-house. CCP feels it absolutely needs to compensate newbies that attack players by mistake in high-sec. This may get changed in the future but not in the summer expansion. It was made clear that suicide ganking is an accepted game mechanic. Was brought up after the blog, please read it and come back when you understand more recent events. Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it. Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Cuchulain Spartan	Posted - 2010.09.19 18:55:00 - [10] Edited by: Cuchulain Spartan on 19/09/2010 18:55:48 CSM Minutes Quote: CCP feels it absolutely needs to compensate newbies that attack players by mistake in high-sec So, Gankers are using a game mechanic intended to compensate noobs for mistakes. Sounds like an exploit to me being used by non noobs. CSM Minutes Quote: It was made clear that suicide ganking is an accepted game mechanic No one has complained about ganking or even said it shouldn't be allowed in this thread, we are commenting on the insurance payout received after ganking.

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.09.19 19:06:00 - [11] Originally by: Cuchulain Spartan So, Gankers are using a game mechanic intended to compensate noobs for mistakes. Sounds like an exploit to me being used by non noobs. No. Gankers are using a game mechanic intended to reduce the burden of loss. It's about as much of an exploit as getting an alt and making use of the free remap and 1.6M training speed boost. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.09.19 19:12:00 - [12] Edited by: Mag''s on 19/09/2010 19:14:16 Originally by: Cuchulain Spartan CSM Minutes Quote: It was made clear that suicide ganking is an accepted game mechanic No one has complained about ganking or even said it shouldn't be allowed in this thread, we are commenting on the insurance payout received after ganking. It was from the CSM minutes, I copied and pasted the whole comment. Sorry it wasn't to your liking, but it seems you are upset about it anyway. Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it. Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
Lithalnas Amarr Privateers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2010.09.19 19:35:00 - [13] Dear Mr Xanatos CONCORD does not provide for the safety of pilots in space, only retribution for their untimely deaths. Action encompassing some moral imperative to stop you from dieing, your ore from being stolen and or your wreck from being looted are beyond our jurisdiction. However we have implemented the kill rights and War declaration system as a way of legal recourse against your aggressors. Fly Safe CONCORD commander -------------
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2010.09.19 19:40:00 - [14] If CCP got rid of insurance subsidies for the high-sec gankers, CCP would have to implement some other game mechanic to make these ganks as cost-effective as they currently are. The point here is to leave an appreciable level of risk for being outside the noobie systems. ...
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.09.19 19:44:00 - [15] Ganks are too rare as it is tbh. Today I was at the receiving end of an attack for the first time in over two years, and it wasn't even aimed at me ù some numpty in a discophoon managed to get a whole square off of my Orca's (non-hardened) shield gauge when I landed on a gateà àtoo little damage, and too far between the attacks, I say. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Shwedagon Paya	Posted - 2010.09.19 19:49:00 - [16] Originally by: Razin If CCP got rid of insurance subsidies for the high-sec gankers, CCP would have to implement some other game mechanic to make these ganks as cost-effective as they currently are. Why would they have to? Genuinely curious here. I know very little about suicide ganking except that people say it's "insanely profitable". Unless this is a myth, it actually favors a reduction in cost-effectiveness. Again, genuinely curious. Not taking sides, not attacking you, etc.
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2010.09.19 20:11:00 - [17] Originally by: Shwedagon Paya Originally by: Razin If CCP got rid of insurance subsidies for the high-sec gankers, CCP would have to implement some other game mechanic to make these ganks as cost-effective as they currently are. Why would they have to? Genuinely curious here. I know very little about suicide ganking except that people say it's "insanely profitable". Unless this is a myth, it actually favors a reduction in cost-effectiveness. Again, genuinely curious. Not taking sides, not attacking you, etc. I suspect that for every "insanely profitable" gank there are a hundred with nothing more than a lol-killmail to show for it, if even that. As for the reasons, there should be something besides economic decisions to moderate the empire trade; this is a spaceship pvp game, after all. There should be risk in empire to force haulers to choose between expanders or hardeners, for example. There should be an appreciable increase in risk in choosing the largest of the class vs. something smaller and more versatile. Etc. ...
Shwedagon Paya	Posted - 2010.09.19 20:19:00 - [18] Originally by: Razin There should be risk in empire to force haulers to choose between expanders or hardeners, for example. Not disagreeing with your overall point here, but you'd have to fit Jesus Christ Himself onto a T1 hauler to save it from even a half-hearted suicide gank. Definitely comes into play with T2s, though.
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2010.09.19 20:28:00 - [19] Originally by: Shwedagon Paya Originally by: Razin There should be risk in empire to force haulers to choose between expanders or hardeners, for example. Not disagreeing with your overall point here, but you'd have to fit Jesus Christ Himself onto a T1 hauler to save it from even a half-hearted suicide gank. Definitely comes into play with T2s, though. That was just a 'for example'. Another example of this is when faced with transporting valuable cargo there is always a choice between one trip in a paper-thin T1 industrial or several trips in a tanked BS (or, indeed, a tanked T2 transport). ...
Scotty Scordite	Posted - 2010.09.19 20:30:00 - [20] lol.

Torveln	Posted - 2010.09.19 20:39:00 - [21] They'll take a look at it about 16 months from now.
Professor Tarantula Hedion University	Posted - 2010.09.19 20:50:00 - [22] Originally by: Shwedagon Paya would make it too expensive to gank macro Hulks. Ahh yes, the mythical macro Hulks. I think these fabled beasts exist in much smaller numbers than the fairy tales would have you believe. My Warmest Regards. Prof. Tarantula, Esq.
Shwedagon Paya	Posted - 2010.09.19 20:59:00 - [23] Originally by: Professor Tarantula Ahh yes, the mythical macro Hulks. I think these fabled beasts exist in much smaller numbers than the fairy tales would have you believe. I think you must be new here. Welcome to EVE, how are you enjoying the game thus far?
Professor Tarantula Hedion University	Posted - 2010.09.19 21:15:00 - [24] Edited by: Professor Tarantula on 19/09/2010 21:20:50 Originally by: Shwedagon Paya Originally by: Professor Tarantula Ahh yes, the mythical macro Hulks. I think these fabled beasts exist in much smaller numbers than the fairy tales would have you believe. I think you must be new here. Welcome to EVE, how are you enjoying the game thus far? Been playing long enough to see sitting still for 5 minutes and not responding to insults in local as 'proof' of someone being a macro miner many times. Regardless of their numbers, it doesn't justify holding the entire game up just to make it easier to kill them. If people want them dead badly enough, they'll be dead with or without insurance. My Warmest Regards. Prof. Tarantula, Esq.
Mr Epeen	Posted - 2010.09.19 22:01:00 - [25] There should be no insurance payout for ganksters, period. That said, there should also be no insurance payout for losing your ship in a mission, belt, having fallen asleep mining, running complexes, ninja salvaging, etc. In short, there should be no insurance. One exception I can think of (and it will still be abused), is a payout for new players up to the point their 2X training runs out. One point whatever million skillpoints is plenty of time to make your mistakes. Mr Epeen
Irae Ragwan	Posted - 2010.09.19 22:46:00 - [26] Originally by: Mr Epeen Edited by: Mr Epeen on 19/09/2010 22:11:34 There should be no insurance payout for ganksters, period. That said, there should also be no insurance payout for losing your ship in a mission, belt, having fallen asleep mining, running complexes, ninja salvaging, etc. In short, there should be no insurance. One exception I can think of (and it will still be abused), is a payout for new players up to the point their 2X training runs out. One point whatever million skillpoints is plenty of time to make your mistakes. Another thought I just had. Make insurance payouts only applicable in loses that occur in 0.0. After the whine fest as this is implemented is over, new players will be thinking "Why not head into null, I get my ship back". Good incentive to get peeps moving where CCP would like them to be. Mr Epeen Came here assuming OP was retarted. Left knowing that Mr. Epeen is even dumber.
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.09.19 22:56:00 - [27] Originally by: Shwedagon Paya Originally by: Professor Tarantula Ahh yes, the mythical macro Hulks. I think these fabled beasts exist in much smaller numbers than the fairy tales would have you believe. I think you must be new here. Welcome to EVE, how are you enjoying the game thus far? oh you didn't go there. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.09.19 23:18:00 - [28] Edited by: Akita T on 19/09/2010 23:24:25 Originally by: Shwedagon Paya Not disagreeing with your overall point here, but you'd have to fit Jesus Christ Himself onto a T1 hauler to save it from even a half-hearted suicide gank. Come get your J.C. Shield Extenders, J.C. RT Plates, J.C. CDFEs, J.C. Trimarks, J.C. PDSs, J.C. DCs or J.C. Bulkheads right here, folks ! 20k EHP is not even that hard and up to 40k EHP is quite possible with just T2 gear on some T1 industrials. You know, depending on how much cargo you still want to be able to move in one trip, and how AFK you want the setup to be. _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
Ran Khanon Amarr Swords Horses and Heavy Metal	Posted - 2010.09.19 23:20:00 - [29] Edited by: Ran Khanon on 19/09/2010 23:20:55 Even though previously advocating for this change, I hope this will never be implemented as it would mean the end to having the feeling that you should always be on your guard whenever transporting something of moderate or higher value in EVE. Having insurance not pay out on concord kills would mean that only the most profitable targets will be hit and anything within the 20 - 200 million cargo/module value range (a HUGE number of ships) wouldn't have much to fear anymore. I like that fear. It adds substantial flavor to life in high sec and urges you to think and take precautions before undocking. It would also mean the end of Hulkageddon, or at least on the scale it takes place now. And I really dig that event Recruiting.
Zan Shiro	Posted - 2010.09.20 00:47:00 - [30] they did effect ganker insurance....when they lowered payout for eveyone lol. Alot of ships now cost more to replace when blown up so the bottom line did adjust for gankers. Full t2 fit ships generally not worth time of day once even a small party splits up the lootz. Wanna pimp a ship with 1 bil in faction parts though...the more you pimp, the more likely its going to be worth popping you even without insurance. No insurance will mean gankers will not let you get away. They will get a kill cause of money lost. With the insurance, see some less than steller gankers out there in empire. No big loss if they lose thier ship so you get some amateurs. Decent travel fit, bit of luck, they bite off more than they can chew and you can fly off while they say hi to the police from thier pods. No insurance...they will not mess around and amateuer hour will end with them taking their game up a notch.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.