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)
crastar	Posted - 2010.09.20 22:28:00 - [91] Originally by: Tippia No-one is arguing this ù the argument is over whether insurance is an ISK faucet or sink (it's the former). Ah trolling and I bit. Nice.
crastar	Posted - 2010.09.20 22:33:00 - [92] Originally by: Ruhige Schmerz 2/10 troll attempt. One point for persistence, and one point for the strawman. I'm not trolling, the fact is you haven't made a case. Go ahead and do so if you can.
Ruhige Schmerz Valhalla Naval Corp IMPERIAL LEGI0N	Posted - 2010.09.20 22:36:00 - [93] Originally by: crastar Originally by: Ruhige Schmerz 2/10 troll attempt. One point for persistence, and one point for the strawman. I'm not trolling, the fact is you haven't made a case. Go ahead and do so if you can. The fact is, you've argued against a strawman of your own design, and not the case. Removal of insurance for concorddokkens. Not removal of all insurance. You've also spewed straight up falsehoods and then made pathetic attempts to brush them under the rug rather than manning up and admitting your mistake. strawman + lying = troll.
Marak Mocam	Posted - 2010.09.20 23:07:00 - [94] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: crastar In your eve universe the process would stop and you would be correct because your equation does not include the subsequent cost of replacing the ships. That cost is almost entirely in terms of items ù if you stay away from NPC-owned industry slots (hell, even if you do use NPC slots), the ISK spent is next to zero. It mostly comes in the form of market transaction costs. Quote: Most of us play the game in the real eve universe where pods don't have guns or cargo bays, and usually have implants installed, all of which when destroyed must be replaced to play the game àand most of which have zero effect on the ISK supply. Implants are the only real exception, assuming you get them from LP stores rather than as mission loot/rewards (and even then, it's the LP store that is the sink, not ship destruction). Quote: What you seem to be trying to do, is to make the game less of a game No, I'm trying to make you understand what consitutes an ISK faucet and what does not, since you seem slightly confused about what role insurance plays in the overall economy (viz. an ISK faucet). Quote: As already stated, destruction of ships and modules stimulates the economy. No-one is arguing this ù the argument is over whether insurance is an ISK faucet or sink (it's the former). I don't know if it's a sink or a faucet. I know I used to insure my ships quite a but then stopped. I have 3 ships that I insured 3 times over and I still have all 3 ships, along with perhaps a dozen other ships. The only way it's a faucet is if you lose your ships a lot and the majority of players don't seem to lose many ships. Over half the player base is in highsec and rarely loses ships. Yet insurance is paid for across many/most of those ships. If only a fraction of the ships are being lost while the majority are being insured, that would make it a sink vs a faucet. We don't have the numbers of ships destroyed that were insured vs the number insured that just keep getting insured without being lost -- that kind of metric would be needed to determine if it's a faucet for just a select few vs the majority.
crastar	Posted - 2010.09.21 00:06:00 - [95] Originally by: Ruhige Schmerz Originally by: crastar Originally by: Ruhige Schmerz 2/10 troll attempt. One point for persistence, and one point for the strawman. I'm not trolling, the fact is you haven't made a case. Go ahead and do so if you can. The fact is, you've argued against a strawman of your own design, and not the case. Removal of insurance for concorddokkens. Not removal of all insurance. You've also spewed straight up falsehoods and then made pathetic attempts to brush them under the rug rather than manning up and admitting your mistake. strawman + lying = troll. So your complete argument for the removal of "concord" involved insurance payouts consists of whine and calling me a troll? Thank you.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.09.21 04:49:00 - [96] Originally by: crastar Originally by: Tippia No-one is arguing this ù the argument is over whether insurance is an ISK faucet or sink (it's the former). Ah trolling and I bit. Nice. Neither. Like I said: you just lost sight of what the issue was. 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
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2010.09.21 06:46:00 - [97] This mechanic puts those it's intended to protect at much more risk. Good luck finding a non-newbie flying valuables around in a poorly tanked ship. And that, in a nutshell, is my sig.
kveldulfson The Executives IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.09.21 07:31:00 - [98] Originally by: Ran Khanon 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 Well no insurance would not keep people safe as there will always be ganking for laughs and the end of Hulkageddon is no great loss to anyone other than those who build hulks and organise the event to increase their own profits. I dont see CCP making the change though as too many empire care bear gankers would cry about it.
Malcanis Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.09.21 09:41:00 - [99] Insurance for suicide ganking is a moderately ridiculous and anti-immersive mechanic, but then so is CONCORD itself. If you want to argue for the removal of insurance for ganking in the name of realism, then you should also be arguing against omnipotent, infalliable NPC friends who oppear within 30 seconds, for free. If you want to argue against it in the name of game balance, you need to show that hi-sec industry needs a buff compared to lo-sec/0.0, which I for one would be interested to read. Insurance is a subsidy for gankers, just as CONCORD is a subsidy for industrials. The one you dont like is the balance price you pay for the other one you do. 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.
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2010.09.21 10:00:00 - [100] Originally by: CSM Summit Minutes 18-20/02/2010 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. Deal with it. 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.

Hamshoe	Posted - 2010.09.21 10:33:00 - [101] Originally by: Tippia It obviously proved not to be needed. There are obviously a lot of features that have likewise "proved" not to be needed. How's the lag? ;) Kicked in the head by a horse, what's your excuse?
Hamshoe	Posted - 2010.09.21 10:37:00 - [102] Originally by: Malcanis Insurance is a subsidy for gankers, just as CONCORD is a subsidy for industrials. The one you dont like is the balance price you pay for the other one you do. Missed the whole discussion around the implementation of NPC Corp taxes, did you? Kicked in the head by a horse, what's your excuse?
Jenny Hawk	Posted - 2010.09.21 10:46:00 - [103] Originally by: Corozan Aspinall 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. As has been proven before, EVE's design doesn't neccessarily follow logic.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.09.21 11:03:00 - [104] Originally by: Hamshoe Originally by: Malcanis Insurance is a subsidy for gankers, just as CONCORD is a subsidy for industrials. The one you dont like is the balance price you pay for the other one you do. Missed the whole discussion around the implementation of NPC Corp taxes, did you? CONCORD subsidises industry even if you're in a PC corp. 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 - 2010.09.21 11:08:00 - [105] Originally by: Hamshoe Originally by: Malcanis Insurance is a subsidy for gankers, just as CONCORD is a subsidy for industrials. The one you dont like is the balance price you pay for the other one you do. Missed the whole discussion around the implementation of NPC Corp taxes, did you? Just say I did, please explain what you mean. 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.
Hamshoe	Posted - 2010.09.21 11:14:00 - [106] Originally by: Mag's Originally by: Hamshoe Originally by: Malcanis Insurance is a subsidy for gankers, just as CONCORD is a subsidy for industrials. The one you dont like is the balance price you pay for the other one you do. Missed the whole discussion around the implementation of NPC Corp taxes, did you? Just say I did, please explain what you mean. Part of the official "immersion" justification was to pay for Concord, that it wasn't fair to be protected for free. Now, it's paid for. Kicked in the head by a horse, what's your excuse?
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.09.21 11:19:00 - [107] Originally by: Hamshoe Part of the official "immersion" justification was to pay for Concord, that it wasn't fair to be protected for free. Now, it's paid for. That had more to do with wardecs ù you still have the same wide-ranging protection even in a deccable PC corp, so the subsidy is still there. 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
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.09.21 13:04:00 - [108] Originally by: Hamshoe Part of the official "immersion" justification was to pay for Concord, that it wasn't fair to be protected for free. Now, it's paid for. Protected from war declarations, boy. Because that's the only difference between a player in a PC corp and one in a NPC corp. _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
My Postman	Posted - 2010.09.21 14:00:00 - [109] I¦m all against insurance for concordokken/self destruction. So lets level the playground and remove insurance at all for players lets say older than two months. Industrialists, Miners, Missionrunners, Traders, all what the comm usually calles "Carebears" mostly have billions. We don¦t care about shiplosses, we can replace them in minutes time and we don¦t care. WHAT we care about is when getting ganked in a officer fitted rattler is, that ganker comes out with +2b (depends on drop luck) and the victim comes out with -3b. And it¦s risk free. So the change has not to be to insurance alone, but also to "drop rate" when concord is involved. If one wants to stop suicide ganking this has to be done as well.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.09.21 14:21:00 - [110] Originally by: My Postman So the change has not to be to insurance alone, but also to "drop rate" when concord is involved. If one wants to stop suicide ganking this has to be done as well. àbut, as mentioned, why would one want that? 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

Malcanis Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.09.21 14:30:00 - [111] Originally by: My Postman I¦m all against insurance for concordokken/self destruction. So lets level the playground and remove insurance at all for players lets say older than two months... If we're "levelling the playground" dont forget to remove CONCORD protection as well. Can't really claim a "level playground" when you still have almost-instantly appearing omnipotent NPC buddies appearing to shoot your enemies, can 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.
Aralyn Cormallen Wraith.Wing Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.09.21 16:02:00 - [112] Originally by: Orange Lagomorph Let's be clear: If EVE ship insurance were modeled on real-world vehicle insurance, either there wouldn't be any insurance at all, or the insurance agencies of New Eden would have gone bankrupt in 2003. Why? Well, if you offer insurance policies on warships that blow up all the time, you'll soon have no money. In a semi-realistic insurance model, exhumers, freighters, shuttles, and other "civilian" vessels might be insurable. They still get blown up frequently, though. I must say, the devil in me would enjoy the idea of a more realistic insurance system. To quote my own car insurance policy: Originally by: Direct Line We will not cover: - liability caused by acts of terrorism - driving under the influence of drugs - deliberate damage caused by anyone insured under the policy - loss or damage, if at the time of the incident, driven by someone not in your imediate family - loss due to any government, public, or local authority legally taking or destroying your car - damage resulting from suicide or attempted suicide - damage caused by radioactive exposure (!!) - damage caused by war, invasion, or revolution So, if i'm reading all that right, insurance would be voided on - Suicide gankers - Victims of suicide gankers - Anyone killed by Concord, Faction Police, or Faction Militia - Anyone using Boosters - Anyone under a War Declaration - Anyone killed by invader in their own space - Anyone killed invading someone elses faction space - Anyone flyng someone elses ship (common for SRP programmes for the alliance to insure the ship). I could go for this
My Postman	Posted - 2010.09.28 13:22:00 - [113] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: My Postman I¦m all against insurance for concordokken/self destruction. So lets level the playground and remove insurance at all for players lets say older than two months... If we're "levelling the playground" dont forget to remove CONCORD protection as well. Can't really claim a "level playground" when you still have almost-instantly appearing omnipotent NPC buddies appearing to shoot your enemies, can you? Excuse for taking a week to reply, but i¦ve been cought in a bubble called "influenza" for one week So to level the playground you want concord to be removed? Thats the same when i try to take a rattler to lowsec, which will make the km even more spectacular, and the c&p comm will have a good lough about the idiot who did. So thats not a valid solution. @ Tippia who nailed it again, we are talking about "nothing" here as it won¦t happen from ccp¦s side.
Barakkus Caelestis Iudicium	Posted - 2010.09.28 15:39:00 - [114] Insurance is stupid. Just remove it completely.
Tellenta Gallente versic LLC	Posted - 2010.09.28 17:00:00 - [115] I was wondering how long it would take for a bawwww suicide gankers :( thread of this quality to come up after the carebear dancing that was happening with the lowering of insurance payout. All I can really say is shut up and deal, the removal of insurance completely will not stop suicide ganking. Consider this, the cost of a ship to gank a hulk can be made in 10 minutes to 1 hour depending on technique used to earn the cash. That same ship can be used to pop a hauler full of awesome funding even more ships to suicide with. If you're that hulk/mackinaw pilot damn that sucks guy, if you are that hauler full of awesome... EVERYTHING IS YOUR FAULT!
Serpents smile	Posted - 2010.09.28 17:03:00 - [116] Originally by: Barakkus Insurance is stupid. Just remove it completely. No it's not. But it's nice to read you haven't worked that out your self.
baltec1 Antares Shipyards Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.09.28 17:06:00 - [117] Removing insurance from ganks is not going to change anything. So long as daft people fail to take steps to protect their assets there will be gankers. A full removal is just not worth the dev time.
Barakkus Caelestis Iudicium	Posted - 2010.09.28 17:14:00 - [118] Originally by: Serpents smile Originally by: Barakkus Insurance is stupid. Just remove it completely. No it's not. But it's nice to read you haven't worked that out your self. Sure it is, why should someone get money for losing a ship period?


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.