Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Fritzman
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 08:31:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Fritzman on 16/02/2011 08:35:42
When is insurance going to be removed from deaths by Concord? People in their haulers need to have more faith in the illusion of hi sec being completely safe. By removing the insurance, a lot of recreational gankers would stop popping indies for a minimal financial gain, and in the end their numbers would drop and ganking would become less common. People hauling just a couple of hundred million worth of isk wouldn't be viable targets any longer. Everyone would win in this scenario.
Any timeline on this change?
|
Frau Klaps
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 09:01:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Fritzman Any timeline on this change?
Yes. ---
|
prospector oen
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 09:03:00 -
[3]
raise insurance for suicide ganks by 50%
|
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 09:07:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Fritzman recreational gankers
-
|
Milky Wimpshake
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 09:22:00 -
[5]
Please see my thread I propose smartbombs become active only to enemy targets.
|
Fritzman
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 10:14:00 -
[6]
This was a serious question. I've heard and read about a possible change for ages now, but so far I haven't seen any confirmation about the insurance changes from CCP. Even people who have gotten killed because of the cargo they've been carrying shouldn't be butthurt about this idea - it would make you safer in hi sec as long as you use common sense when filling up your indies.
|
Juby lee
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 10:20:00 -
[7]
I propose working solution.
Disable every offensive module in hisec. Problem solved |
Wombat942
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 10:20:00 -
[8]
Ehhh who cares.... why should stupid people get it easy?
Tank your haulers |
El'Niaga
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 10:37:00 -
[9]
Many have argued for this a long time, CCP though has mostly been mum on it. My feeling is they don't know enough about the insurance code to create an exemption where it won't pay out without possibly affecting it and other things drastically.
|
Fritzman
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 10:42:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Fritzman on 16/02/2011 10:42:44
Originally by: Wombat942 Ehhh who cares.... why should stupid people get it easy?
Tank your haulers
In my opinion, it's not about stupid people getting it easy.. or actually, it is :) It's about risk VS reward too. At the moment it's way too easy to jump into a hurricane and gank some poor bastard for couple of hundred million. You risk loosing 10-20 million in doing so, and easily have tenfold the amount of isk to gain.
I gank frequently myself, but I would like to see ganking made more difficult. Remove the insurance, make concord response times even faster. These two alone would cut the number of people ganking down considerably. Eventually, people would start feeling safer and would start hauling more expensive cargo in their indies and transports. These targets would still be gankable, but doing so would require more teamwork and better setups if you wanted to be successfull, but the rewards would also be greater.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 10:48:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Fritzman This was a serious question. I've heard and read about a possible change for ages now, but so far I haven't seen any confirmation about the insurance changes from CCP.
They mentioned that it might be done in addition to a CONCORD buff, should that one prove to be ineffectve. It was effective, so there never was (or is) any need for it.
Quote: Even people who have gotten killed because of the cargo they've been carrying shouldn't be butthurt about removing insurance from gankers - it would make you safer in hi sec as long as you used common sense when filling up your indies.
àand that's why it's not needed. If anything, highsec should be made less safe. 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 |
Mistress Darkside
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 11:15:00 -
[12]
Why not pay an extra percentage on your insurance that covers you when Concord rip you a new one. If you dont pay it and Concord kill you, you just get the dafult payment instead of your insured amount (trying to be a bit n00b friendly on that)
|
Mr Kidd
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 11:24:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Wombat942 Ehhh who cares.... why should stupid people get it easy?
Tank your haulers
Right on. I don't think the argument here is to prevent ganks. The argument is to stop facilitating ganks beyond what the gankers reap from the gank.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 11:30:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Mr Kidd The argument is to stop facilitating ganks beyond what the gankers reap from the gank.
And the counter-argument is: why is that needed? So few ships get blown up these days that ganks should be facilitated. 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 - 2011.02.16 11:33:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Fritzman Edited by: Fritzman on 16/02/2011 08:35:42
When is insurance going to be removed from deaths by Concord? People in their haulers need to have more faith in the illusion of hi sec being completely safe. By removing the insurance, a lot of recreational gankers would stop popping indies for a minimal financial gain, and in the end their numbers would drop and ganking would become less common. People hauling just a couple of hundred million worth of isk wouldn't be viable targets any longer. Everyone would win in this scenario.
Any timeline on this change?
Suicide ganking is supported and intended gameplay. Why should it be artificially penalised?
It is also the primary source of risk in hi-sec. What reduction in reward or increase in risk would you propose to compensate for a reduction in the viability of suicide ganking?
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. |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 11:35:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Mistress Darkside Why not pay an extra percentage on your insurance that covers you when Concord rip you a new one. If you dont pay it and Concord kill you, you just get the dafult payment instead of your insured amount (trying to be a bit n00b friendly on that)
Why not make it possible to escape CONCORD if you make the kill quick enough. Then people doing ganks in hi-sec would be incentivised to use more expensive, more effective fits in the hope of losing nothing, whislt risking losing more if they fail.
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. |
Fritzman
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 11:37:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Fritzman Edited by: Fritzman on 16/02/2011 08:35:42
When is insurance going to be removed from deaths by Concord? People in their haulers need to have more faith in the illusion of hi sec being completely safe. By removing the insurance, a lot of recreational gankers would stop popping indies for a minimal financial gain, and in the end their numbers would drop and ganking would become less common. People hauling just a couple of hundred million worth of isk wouldn't be viable targets any longer. Everyone would win in this scenario.
Any timeline on this change?
Suicide ganking is supported and intended gameplay. Why should it be artificially penalised?
It is also the primary source of risk in hi-sec. What reduction in reward or increase in risk would you propose to compensate for a reduction in the viability of suicide ganking?
You've got my message wrong here. I'm all for ganking, not against it. By making it more difficult it would essentially turn from a recreational shooting done by a lot of people into a mini-profession of its own. Higher risks, higher rewards. If it was more difficult to do, there would be more profitable indies flying around and less loot thieves hanging around the gates. In my books, making it difficult would make it more attractive as a profession and more viable due to bigger isk drops.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 11:45:00 -
[18]
So in other words, you are arguing that decreasing the risk of ganking by decreasing the risk of ganking, you would increase the risk of ganking and increase the rewards of ganking?
Fascinating.
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. |
Spurty
Caldari V0LTA VOLTA Corp
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 11:54:00 -
[19]
I thought I caught that faint odor of "Dead horse, flogged in the morn"
Must be another "Nano-Nerf", "Falcon-Nerf", "Insurance-Nerf", "Save our Super Caps", "30,000 blues are cool .. oh wait, no one to shoot now!" whines.
Hoppit!
|
I Love Boobies
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 12:30:00 -
[20]
To OP: You're mistaken if you think high security space is supposed to be completely safe. It has always been referred to as SAFER space, not completely safe. It has been described as being SAFER ever since I started playing. If it was meant to be totally safe, there would be no need for Concord and no one could actually die in high secure space unless @ war. The higher the Security Status of a system means Concord will arrive quicker.
With all that being said, I'm not sure gankers should be rewarded with insurance payouts when Concord is involved. I have felt that way for a long time. Losing a little bit of security status every time you gank someone isn't enough as it can be regained rather quickly. There should be stiffer penalties, not just security status loss.
Anyway, with all that being said, I doubt much will change. People have been yelling for a change for years, and nothing has been done. Best thing people can do is not fly around in a weak ship with hundreds of millions of ISK in the cargo hold. Tank your ship, or fly something that is fast, and don't auto pilot.
|
|
Fritzman
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 13:42:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Fritzman on 16/02/2011 13:45:37 Edited by: Fritzman on 16/02/2011 13:43:36 Edited by: Fritzman on 16/02/2011 13:43:09
Originally by: I Love Boobies To OP: You're mistaken if you think high security space is supposed to be completely safe. It has always been referred to as SAFER space, not completely safe. It has been described as being SAFER ever since I started playing. If it was meant to be totally safe, there would be no need for Concord and no one could actually die in high secure space unless @ war. The higher the Security Status of a system means Concord will arrive quicker.
With all that being said, I'm not sure gankers should be rewarded with insurance payouts when Concord is involved. I have felt that way for a long time. Losing a little bit of security status every time you gank someone isn't enough as it can be regained rather quickly. There should be stiffer penalties, not just security status loss.
Anyway, with all that being said, I doubt much will change. People have been yelling for a change for years, and nothing has been done. Best thing people can do is not fly around in a weak ship with hundreds of millions of ISK in the cargo hold. Tank your ship, or fly something that is fast, and don't auto pilot.
Exactly. Which part of "People in their haulers need to have more faith in the illusion of hi sec being completely safe" can you not understand? What I'm talking about is exactly making hi sec less safe by providing more incentives to gank. This incentive could for example be indy pilots hauling valuable cargo under the illusion that "they're not going gank kill me, they can't even get insurance for attempting it and the concord responds way too quick for them to do anything." As a result of believing in this, they would start actively hauling more expensive cargo. Removing insurance from ganking would be the first concrete step in creating this scenario where peoples' illusions get ripped apart by people well-prepared for the gank, not the typical I-gank-once-every-sunday-out-of-boredom -pilots.
Just my personal opinion though, I'm growing tired of loot drops below 1b.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 13:51:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Fritzman Edited by: Fritzman on 16/02/2011 13:45:37 Edited by: Fritzman on 16/02/2011 13:43:36 Edited by: Fritzman on 16/02/2011 13:43:09
Originally by: I Love Boobies To OP: You're mistaken if you think high security space is supposed to be completely safe. It has always been referred to as SAFER space, not completely safe. It has been described as being SAFER ever since I started playing. If it was meant to be totally safe, there would be no need for Concord and no one could actually die in high secure space unless @ war. The higher the Security Status of a system means Concord will arrive quicker.
With all that being said, I'm not sure gankers should be rewarded with insurance payouts when Concord is involved. I have felt that way for a long time. Losing a little bit of security status every time you gank someone isn't enough as it can be regained rather quickly. There should be stiffer penalties, not just security status loss.
Anyway, with all that being said, I doubt much will change. People have been yelling for a change for years, and nothing has been done. Best thing people can do is not fly around in a weak ship with hundreds of millions of ISK in the cargo hold. Tank your ship, or fly something that is fast, and don't auto pilot.
Exactly. Which part of "People in their haulers need to have more faith in the illusion of hi sec being completely safe" can you not understand?
Like me, he's probably confused by the fact that you're making it actually safer. If you'd balanced your suggestion by (for instance) making CONCORD a little slower to appear, or even a small chance that they wont turn up, then yes this argument could have some merit.
As it is, it's a thinly disguised suicide-ganking whine and nothing more.
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. |
Fritzman
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 13:58:00 -
[23]
Look up my kb record if you think it's a whine.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 14:11:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Fritzman Look up my kb record if you think it's a whine.
So why do you want to make highsec more safe, then? Because in spite of what you claim, that is what you're suggesting. 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 |
Fritzman
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 14:17:00 -
[25]
Don't you think there would be more gankers if it hi sec was safer? If the average value of cargo in an industrial went up considerabl because of a false sense of security when flying in hi sec, I'm sure this would also correlate strongly with a rise in the amount of people doing well-planned ganking. The number of people ganking "just for the lols" or for some minor financial gain would no doubt go down.
|
Space Tarantula Haklar
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 14:19:00 -
[26]
It's call game balance: risks and looses are only meant to be sustained by carebears.
The day as*holes are put into orbit, you don't finish spinning M. Audiard |
Othran
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 14:21:00 -
[27]
I have to be honest about this and say you shouldn't get any insurance if concord pop you.
I've been in various pirate corps over the years (from space invaders onwards) and its bullsh*t. CCP know it, "pirates" know it, PvP corps know it, we all know it. Few ever say "yeah its stupid" as they benefit from it.
Insurance was introduced (and exploited in one weekend such that they had to rollback ) to compensate people for silly losses.
Now its used to insure wars.
Dumb and dumber.
Get popped by concord - no insurance. Get popped by wartarget - no insurance.
Simple rules and high-sec wars would become interesting rather than a farce.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 14:32:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Tippia on 16/02/2011 14:35:53
Originally by: Fritzman Don't you think there would be more gankers if hi sec was safer?
No. Mainly because that has never happened before when highsec has been made safer.
You're saying that by making it safer it will be less safe. That's not only thoroughly contradictory and disingenuous but empirically proven not to work.
Quote: If the average value of cargo in industrials went up considerably due to a false sense of security
That's the problem with your plan: it wouldn't be a false sense of security. Yes, some people might cram more into their ships, but those who fall for something that stupid are already cramming their ships full and are already ripe targets. All you're doing is increasing the threshold for when you become worth-while to gank, which means that people will stuff more stuff into their ship up until that threshold because it is now safe to do so.
The ganks will not increase in number because that would be a losing proposition for the gankers. Yes, there would be more targets carrying more value ù that doesn't mean that there will be more worth-while targets. Quite the opposite, since you just massively increased how much a target must carry to be worth-while ù they can now do fewer runs carrying more each time, and still be just as safe as before. You have thereby reduced the number of viable targets and reduced the number of gankers and (unsurprisingly) reduced the number of ganks. By making highsec safer you'veà (drumroll) àmade it more safe.
You seem to think that more higher-value targets = more worth-while targets. This is not the case, because the means through which you create those higher-value targets is by reducing their worth. So what you're creating is more lower-value targets (or even fewer targets, all of which are lower-value).
Here's how you make highsec less safe: by making it less safe. Not by making it safer. 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 - 2011.02.16 15:06:00 -
[29]
A bad idea in the wrong forum, speaks volumes for the OP.
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. |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 15:26:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Othran I have to be honest about this and say you shouldn't get any insurance if concord pop you.
I've been in various pirate corps over the years (from space invaders onwards) and its bullsh*t. CCP know it, "pirates" know it, PvP corps know it, we all know it. Few ever say "yeah its stupid" as they benefit from it.
Insurance was introduced (and exploited in one weekend such that they had to rollback ) to compensate people for silly losses.
Now its used to insure wars.
Dumb and dumber.
Get popped by concord - no insurance. Get popped by wartarget - no insurance.
Simple rules and high-sec wars would become interesting rather than a farce.
Of course "Insurance" is bull****. For the love of mike, how many times have we been through this exact discussion. The whole "suicide ganking shouldn't get insurance because insurance for crimes is silly" is based on a compeletely wrong assumption. No insurance company would insure ANY pod pilot for any ship, because we're an astoundingly hi-risk category. We dont get "insurance" money because there are little NPC gnomes who think that surely this quarter, PEND will turn a profit. We certainly dont get "insurance" based on real-world notions of whether it's "right" for us to do so. We get "insurance" because CCP have deemed that a partial ship replacement mechanic is required to balance gameplay and keep the economy moving. Realism doesn't come in to it. Huge aspects of EVe are vastly more unrealistic than the Insurance mechanic, and for the same reason: game balance and game play.
There is no good reason to remove "insurance" from hi-sec unless you can objectively demonstrate (that means using facts and data) that hi-sec is too dangerous compared to the amount of wealth that can be amassed there (Good luck with that). Saying "Well, State Farm wouldn't pay me insurance if I used my car to ram raid a jewellers" is not a good reason. You might as well petition a ship loss on the grounds that your ship should constantly accelerate towards lightspeed, not be limited to a few kilometers per second.
You could cite all the Newtonian and Einsteinin physics you liked, but they wouldn't matter a bit, because the game isn't based on Newtonian physics just as it's not based on western financial rules and laws.
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. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |