|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 10:48:00 -
[1]
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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 11:30:00 -
[2]
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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 14:11:00 -
[3]
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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.16 14:32:00 -
[4]
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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.17 13:19:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Tippia on 17/02/2011 13:23:09
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire I think insurance should not be reimbursed due to criminal activities. It sends the wrong message out.
Not really. It sends out the message "we like criminal activity", and that's pretty much a spot on message for EVE.
Originally by: My Postman Gankers should¦nt be able to PROFIT from suiciding,
Why not? If they can't profit from it, ganks won't happen to any greater extent, and that would be rather bad for the safety in highsec.
Quote: You can tank an Orca. Up to 100k 300k EHP. OK, it¦s slow about as fast as a battleship, it¦s its aligning time is slow 10 seconds and you will need more time than in your untanked Itty 5. Get over it.
Fixed. 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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.17 19:33:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Tippia on 17/02/2011 19:36:49
Originally by: Wet Ferret Suicide ganking is cool and all but when it's affordable to shoot just about anything because of nearly full reimbursement, it is a bit whacky.
àand yet they don't, most likely because they don't get "nearly full reimbursement" any more. You'd think that if it were as easy as some would like to paint it, there would be huge concord clouds around every gate and hub station. There isn't, so something is wrong with that picture.
These days, you can sit for hours outside Jita 4-4 and not get to steal a single gank. At best, some party nukes a couple of WTs, but there's no loot in that. The problem is rather the opposite: people have grown so accustomed to the ridiculous levels of safety that highsec offers that they no longer think that ganks can happen and thus we get these hilarious overreactions when someone occasionally does get blown up.
Originally by: Space Tarantula You should suffer the consequences accordingly to the play style you embrace. It's just common sense.
Agreed. If you're not doing your duty to vitalise the economy by exploding or blowing stuff up, your insurance should skyrocket in price. If you're a good citizen and cause stuff to explode (or get exploded) in large volumes, the price should go down. 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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 16:40:00 -
[7]
Originally by: My Postman My first point: What do you want to tell me with this statement? Highsec becoming safer? Unsafer? Are you arguing with me that making PROFIT WITHOUT ANY RISK is eve-like? Please elaborate, or don¦t.
I'm saying that gankers should be able to profit from suiciding. If they couldn't they wouldn't do it as much, and that would be bad.
Quote: My second point: 100k or 300k, as fast as a battleship or slow, 10 sec or slow, what do you want to tell me with? Some sort of education? Feel free to educate me, or don¦t.
I want to tell you that you're vastly underestimating or understating the Orca's capabilities. 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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 20:26:00 -
[8]
Originally by: KaarBaak The question is: why is CCP in the insurance business at all? Why isn't this mechanic player-run as part of the sandbox? Like the banks are.
KB
Because insurance in EVE is not a business ù it's a game mechanic that is meant to promote ship destruction. 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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.18 21:18:00 -
[9]
Originally by: KaarBaak Bah...mechanics change. Learning skills, RR, insurance.
Sure they do, when they're not serving a good purpose any more.
Right now, too few ships get blown up in EVE, so the chances of a change in the primary mechanic that promotes ships blowing up are rather tiny indeed. Or wellà I suppose they could make insurance pay more, and thus promote it even further, but that's not really the kind of change being proposed here. 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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 16:05:00 -
[10]
Originally by: KaarBaak Ah, I didn't realize that moving insurance to a player-run mechanic would cause people to stop PvPing. So yeah, if removing/changing insurance would cause PvP to come to an end, then it shouldn't be changed at all.
More accurately: making it player-run would mean that it would be run as a for-profit business, which would in turn mean that it wouldn't serve its actual purpose: to reward people who blow up/get blown up a lot.
Insurance in EVE does not work like a business because it cannot work like a business and still serve its purpose. To make it player-run, it must work like a business, or no-one would run it. The two don't mix. 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 |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 13:44:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Space Tarantula Haklar Building on wrong assumptions can only draw poor conclusions...
You mean like how people assume that the industry subsidy mechanic called "insurance" will work like an for-profit insurance company? 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 |
|
|
|