| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Renturu
Tribal Spirit
Tribal Unity Alliance
2
   |
Posted - 2011.10.22 10:40:00 -
[31] - Quote
I've been gank'd... Meh! Get my insurance payout for the miner in which I was in. I do in some degree think there should be a penalty for ALL who willfully do stupid things and get blown up (rather a profession, or not) you gank, no or reduced insurance. Same thing is you get popped in Low/Null Sec mining solo and not paying attention. You make a stupid decision that costs your ship, why should CCP sink additional cash into this practice.
It should be equal for those who make suicidal decisions no matter the environment, suicide gank, Mining in Low Sec solo (Moron) or shoot at a protected target (station, etc.,..)
Then again, I don't have insurance and haven't for a while... not really worth it... If I cant afford to lose it, I don't use it. |
Meridith Akesia
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
51
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 10:48:00 -
[32] - Quote
Bronden Neopatus wrote:Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship.
For the same reason you get paid when you lose a ship. |
Adelphie
Paradox Collective
20
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 10:55:00 -
[33] - Quote
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Also lately PvP have been handed a treat that will ruin many people's living... namely implants in killmails, which mean that now there will be a serious reason to pod everyone, with or without a ransom. Good-bye piracy, btw.
BE FAIR.
I see this as quite the opposite actually - I see it as a piracy buff.
I can now point a pod, look at their previous losses to see what implants they usually rock and ransom accordingly - where as before it was near impossible to price a pod bountry. |
Cassina Lemour
Staner Industries
13
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:03:00 -
[34] - Quote
Eve is a libertarian dystopia, suicide ganking can only be justified when it is supported entirely on it's own economic merit. The current welfare model of insurance is a subsidy for the idiotic and lazy. Removing this welfare payment would require suicide ganking to pay it's own way just like other eve activities. Supporting the current system is closet communism.
Everybody gets a starter ship if they dock in pod, so real newbies are covered, if they fall foul of this in a more expensive ship then harsh lessons are best learnt early. |
Bronden Neopatus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:05:00 -
[35] - Quote
Adelphie wrote:Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Also lately PvP have been handed a treat that will ruin many people's living... namely implants in killmails, which mean that now there will be a serious reason to pod everyone, with or without a ransom. Good-bye piracy, btw.
BE FAIR.
I see this as quite the opposite actually - I see it as a piracy buff. I can now point a pod, look at their previous losses to see what implants they usually rock and ransom accordingly - where as before it was near impossible to price a pod bountry.
Killmail collectors will render that useless. Also, you mean that the price tag for ransom will come from failed ransoms... 
Currently it's hard enough to get a ransom, imagine when people begin being systematically podded just in case they were wearing a slave set... |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
790
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:07:00 -
[36] - Quote
Cassina Lemour wrote:
Eve is a libertarian dystopia, suicide ganking can only be justified when it is supported entirely on it's own economic merit. The current welfare model of insurance is a subsidy for the idiotic and lazy. Removing this welfare payment would require suicide ganking to pay it's own way just like other eve activities. Supporting the current system is closet communism.
But lazy AFK auto piloting in flimsy ships with semi/very expensive cargo should be rewarded. amirite?
CCP Zulu.....
Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
790
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:08:00 -
[37] - Quote
Bronden Neopatus wrote:Killmail collectors will render that useless. Also, you mean that the price tag for ransom will come from failed ransoms... Currently it's hard enough to get a ransom, imagine when people begin being systematically podded just in case they were wearing a slave set... I'd like to see the information you base this on please.
CCP Zulu.....
Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Bronden Neopatus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:09:00 -
[38] - Quote
Cassina Lemour wrote:
Eve is a libertarian dystopia, suicide ganking can only be justified when it is supported entirely on it's own economic merit. The current welfare model of insurance is a subsidy for the idiotic and lazy. Removing this welfare payment would require suicide ganking to pay it's own way just like other eve activities. Supporting the current system is closet communism.
All in all an insurance is a contract, and contracts got exceptions. I paid for my insurance so I must get it if **** happens, yet if i cause **** to happen then insurer is not obliged.
There was a time when some people made fortunes by self destructing their ships due to insurance paying more than they costed to build... currently is not that silly, fortunately, but insurance could get some work out and be nerfed or removed when ti's obviously against good sense. |
Cassina Lemour
Staner Industries
13
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:10:00 -
[39] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Cassina Lemour wrote:
Eve is a libertarian dystopia, suicide ganking can only be justified when it is supported entirely on it's own economic merit. The current welfare model of insurance is a subsidy for the idiotic and lazy. Removing this welfare payment would require suicide ganking to pay it's own way just like other eve activities. Supporting the current system is closet communism.
But lazy AFK auto piloting in flimsy ships with semi/very expensive cargo should be rewarded. amirite?
No, that is Strawman fail.
"semi/very expensive cargo" makes a perfect economic target, that proves my point.
|
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
790
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:14:00 -
[40] - Quote
Cassina Lemour wrote:Mag's wrote:Cassina Lemour wrote:
Eve is a libertarian dystopia, suicide ganking can only be justified when it is supported entirely on it's own economic merit. The current welfare model of insurance is a subsidy for the idiotic and lazy. Removing this welfare payment would require suicide ganking to pay it's own way just like other eve activities. Supporting the current system is closet communism.
But lazy AFK auto piloting in flimsy ships with semi/very expensive cargo should be rewarded. amirite? No, that is Strawman fail. "semi/very expensive cargo" makes a perfect economic target, that proves my point. Not at all. You said that the current insurance model is a subsidy for the idiotic and lazy. I was merely using the same argument in regards to the idiotic and lazy AFK APers.
Are you now saying that your argument is also fail?
CCP Zulu.....
Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Bronden Neopatus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:16:00 -
[41] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bronden Neopatus wrote:Killmail collectors will render that useless. Also, you mean that the price tag for ransom will come from failed ransoms... Currently it's hard enough to get a ransom, imagine when people begin being systematically podded just in case they were wearing a slave set... I'd like to see the information you base this on please.
It's called incentives. Currently pods have got no price tag (no "loss" in the killmail), once you put it on them, they will be collected for the price tag. Which will unbalance how ransoms are offered, accepted and honored. This is EVE, getting a ranmsom PLUS a "loss" in a killmail is better than just get the ransom and let the guy go with God knows what "loss".
Once ransoms are dishonoured enough, people will just stop acceptign them: better lose the implants and no Isk than lose ISK and then the implants on top of it. It may even reach a point where nobody takes seriously "honorable" pirates... |
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum
KUGUTSUMEN.
208
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:17:00 -
[42] - Quote
Its about Risk vs. Reward.
Currently there is very little risk involved with suicide ganking. Even after the insurance change you can still break even or just lose a few mil isk. From looting your own ship+insurance and thats not even including drops on the target. However the reward can be high if you pick your targets right, and even if you don't you still lose very little.
Even losing sec status isn't that much of a downside, since the Orca was released as well as using alts to dump ships in SS it makes being -5+ not even a burden.
It being a safe gaurd for new players doesn't even hold water really. When you initiate aggression you get a obvious warning stating that you will get blown up if you do this, all that needs to change is add in "This action will void any insurance". If a new player still does not heed the warning, then in all honestly they deserve to get screwed over and needs to chalk it up to another lesson learned.
Removing insurance payouts for Concord deaths won't kill the ganking profession, all it will do is cause those who wish to do it to be more picky over who they gank. Right now you can gank anything with a pulse and doesn't really effect much. Especially with how easy Isk is to get nowadays. |
Caulk H0lster
Kazakh Ministry of Wealth Redistribution
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:18:00 -
[43] - Quote
The OPs idea was supposedly supposed to happen a while ago. I even remember seeing it in patch notes at the time. I remember this because I used to make my income from suicide ganking haulers. I also remember that in your average hauler gank on a gate, concord only rarely gets the final blow, so I always dismissed my insurance payouts.
It really should be fixed though. Insurance companies shouldn't reward illegal activities. |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
790
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:27:00 -
[44] - Quote
Bronden Neopatus wrote:Mag's wrote:Bronden Neopatus wrote:Killmail collectors will render that useless. Also, you mean that the price tag for ransom will come from failed ransoms... Currently it's hard enough to get a ransom, imagine when people begin being systematically podded just in case they were wearing a slave set... I'd like to see the information you base this on please. It's called incentives. Currently pods have got no price tag (no "loss" in the killmail), once you put it on them, they will be collected for the price tag. Which will unbalance how ransoms are offered, accepted and honored. This is EVE, getting a ranmsom PLUS a "loss" in a killmail is better than just get the ransom and let the guy go with God knows what "loss". Once ransoms are dishonoured enough, people will just stop acceptign them: better lose the implants and no Isk than lose ISK and then the implants on top of it. It may even reach a point where nobody takes seriously "honorable" pirates... So you're making assumptions.
Many that honour ransoms, do so because that is how they make ISK. It's not sensible to kill a ransom target after a ranson is made, as it will affect income at a later date.
In this regard, an argument could be made that it may even increase ransoms and decrease pod loss if it is known what implants they tend to wear.
But there will always be those that dishonour ransoms, because they like the tears.
It's up to you to know those that honour and those that don't. Whether you pay or not, makes no difference either way.
Those that want tears will still pod you no mater what, those that want to live of honouring ransoms, will not when one is paid.
CCP Zulu.....
Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
March rabbit
Ganse
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
17
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:29:00 -
[45] - Quote
Bronden Neopatus wrote:Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship.
let me guess....
Maybe this is because "Eve players are more amateur that in other MMOs and they will leave immediately if they get some consequences for their playing style"?
I mean: whole hi-sec ideology of CONCORD, insurance, Faction Navy, etc gives attackers very easy mode while at the same time makes defence an a lot more difficult task. When 20 days old n00b can suicide kill mining ship, get money from ship back with insurance and get some money from salvage from victim wreck this is EASY MODE.
Removing insurance or (OMG!!!) setting timer for CONCORD to 0 will make gankers needed to plan attack, make some work with numbers to decide "attack or not". They will need brain.
And then they will cry, riot and unsub.
So no. Eve can't be the game when you need brain to be a ganker. |
Mashie Saldana
Veto.
Veto Corp
37
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:34:00 -
[46] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Removing insurance or (OMG!!!) setting timer for CONCORD to 0 will make gankers needed to plan attack, make some work with numbers to decide "attack or not". They will need brain. And then they will cry, riot and unsub. So no. Eve can't be the game when you need brain to be a ganker.
Please show on this doll where the terrible people ganked you.
And remember, highsec is safer, NOT safe.
Anastasia -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á Dominique-á-á Mashie -á-á Monica |
David Grogan
The Motley Crew Reborn
97
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:36:00 -
[47] - Quote
the easiest fix would be to give the basic insurance payout ONLY to players killed by concord. NO platinum insurence payouts.
With goons getting a new gankmobile aka tier 3 bc
Something CCP should consider
so far industrials have the highest risk (yes even in high sec they die too easily which is why no one wants to go to low sec or 0.0 to mine) for feck all isk (we all know mining pays crap all per hour and is the poorest paid profession in eve online)
Haulers have next to no defenses vs gankers and their alpha... maybe a sig radius reduction might help
Mining barges cannot fit a tank.... 1 mid slot + frig sized hp, pg and cpu is simply not enough: add at least 2 more mid slots
Exumers also need a buff to hp, pg and cpu + 1 more mid slot
If both mining barges and exumers are medium sized ships with medium sized sig radii its only fair to be able to fit them with medium sized modules.
Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless your from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs. |
RAW23
B And H Drive Yards
23
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:46:00 -
[48] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Cassina Lemour wrote:Mag's wrote:Cassina Lemour wrote:
Eve is a libertarian dystopia, suicide ganking can only be justified when it is supported entirely on it's own economic merit. The current welfare model of insurance is a subsidy for the idiotic and lazy. Removing this welfare payment would require suicide ganking to pay it's own way just like other eve activities. Supporting the current system is closet communism.
But lazy AFK auto piloting in flimsy ships with semi/very expensive cargo should be rewarded. amirite? No, that is Strawman fail. "semi/very expensive cargo" makes a perfect economic target, that proves my point. Not at all. You said that the current insurance model is a subsidy for the idiotic and lazy. I was merely using the same argument in regards to the idiotic and lazy AFK APers. Are you now saying that your argument is also fail?
I don't understand why suicide ganking should get its profitability topped up by CCP. If the target value is lower than the cost incurred in attacking the target, then there is no economic sense making the attack. If the only way of making certain attacks economically viable is to have a subsidy from CCP then I'm not sure those attacks should really be encouraged in the name of mindless PvP. Taking away insurance payouts wouldn't stop ganking, it would just mean that if you are ganking purely for the purposes of griefing lazy APers with worthless cargos then you will have to pay for your fun. If you attack an economically viable target then insurance won't matter and a more thoughtful approach to this form of PvP will develop.
Whilst arguments from reality are not really applicable, arguments from consistency are. Just as insurance fraud was pretty immersion breaking, so is the idea of a profession aimed at destroying ships that is propped up by the insurance industry, i.e. by the people who suffer from the destruction of ships. That aside, there is also clearly too much isk in the economy already and insurance payouts add new isk into the economy 'out of thin air' so to speak.
I don't really have an axe to grind on either side. I like the fact that suicide ganking takes place as it's one of the things that adds spice to the game for an industrialist like me (and believe me, there are few enough causes of excitement in this game for my profession). But I would like a system that makes sense and that doesn't make me cringe every time I consider the details. I would also like suicide ganking to be a less indiscriminate profession where people are encouraged to pick their targets carefully and where the gankers risk substantial losses, just as their targets do. Getting rid of insurance payouts seems to offer a lot towards making ganking more challenging and more consistent with the game world. |
Bronden Neopatus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:54:00 -
[49] - Quote
RAW23 wrote:[(...)
I don't really have an axe to grind on either side. I like the fact that suicide ganking takes place as it's one of the things that adds spice to the game for an industrialist like me (and believe me, there are few enough causes of excitement in this game for my profession). But I would like a system that makes sense and that doesn't make me cringe every time I consider the details. I would also like suicide ganking to be a less indiscriminate profession where people are encouraged to pick their targets carefully and where the gankers risk substantial losses, just as their targets do. Getting rid of insurance payouts seems to offer a lot towards making ganking more challenging and more consistent with the game world.
THIS! Exactly this! That's one serious argument to throw CCP's way. EVE is about being tough, not about getting paid by crashing mom's Volvo... |
Heimdallofasgard
APEX ARDENT COALITION
NEM3SIS.
25
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 11:56:00 -
[50] - Quote
ITT - Subject is an awesome song |
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
102
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 12:04:00 -
[51] - Quote
I haven't read this thread much. It'll just ruin my argument with facts (or maybe not). Never let logic get in the way of something... I can't remember how that ends.
I'll just say that there must be lots of people who don't get their insurance money back, otherwise it wouldn't be worth it for the insurance companies to keep insuring the ships, right? |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
40
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 20:33:00 -
[52] - Quote
The whole risk vs reward issue is heavily slanted to favor gankers and carebear PvPrs, it's not just the insurance that matters. Although it is pretty silly and has been asked for long and PvP whiners alway come to its defense.
So... no NEx store... no Incarna... no casual content... no solo content... no PvE content...
Why should I keep paying to play this game? |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 20:39:00 -
[53] - Quote
wtf is this pvp'ers vs pve'ers bullshit? This is eve, ever the hulks are supposed to be pvp'ers.
This is a harsh world, if you want fairlytales then go play WOW |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
78
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 20:57:00 -
[54] - Quote
Off topic, trolling and spam removed.
CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator |
|
Martinez
T-Cells
Moar Tears
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 22:20:00 -
[55] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Bronden Neopatus wrote:Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship. You want the change, so therefore you need to supply a reason why they shouldn't. But I'll bite, it facilitates ship loss which is a good thing.
Yet you support people logging off to save their ships. |
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
7
|
Posted - 2011.10.22 22:30:00 -
[56] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:The whole risk vs reward issue is heavily slanted to favor gankers and carebear PvPrs, it's not just the insurance that matters. Although it is pretty silly and has been asked for long and PvP whiners alway come to its defense.
Actually, there is one reason which CCP mentioned when the CSM brought this up. What if you accidentally your own ship? Belive it or not, it happens a lot.
Example: mission runner fits smart bombs to deal swift retribution to those pesky frigs. Salvager warps in and poof! True story.
But I don't feel this is enough to justify the insurance being paid out. All though I don't have any real number to support it, I've been told that removing insurance will hardly put a dent in a professional suicide gankers income. So I don't really see why not, it's not like people are suddenly going to stop doing it because it's not profitable anymore.
Aside from that, +1 to you post |
Elson Tamar
Lion Investments
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 00:32:00 -
[57] - Quote
Couple of ideas which will be unpopular, but are kinda intersting maybe in a what if kind of way.
I dont think that you should get insurance when you get blown up by concord, or infact if engaged in factional warfare. Who bloody well insures people for crime or going getting a tank blown up in war! Maybe you can only get basic premiums that cover illegal acts. Or maybe special crimianal isurance agents?
Can CONCORD make arrests, not sure how that would work, but if you get blown up by CONCORD, can they not hold you for questioning etc? Fine you, push you down some stairs etc? What is the Punishment for your crime? Could CONCORD set bounties on repeat offenders? (Although i suspect some alt abuse may happen if the bounties are high enough, 'Hey jim shot me and i'll split the bounty') Or some insentive for people to activly hunt and brutalise criminals that cant be abused with 'hey jim shoot me in the face there's LPS, Standing and ISK in it foir you'. Thats where spirit of game vs metagame come in. I used to post bounties when i started, until my veteran friend said once the bounty is high enough he jumps into a jump clone and gets a corp mate to pod him.....
Some of the problems we face are it's a game, so people play with the meta. Alts are a problem as some consqences (ie i have no ability to buy new ships because of my sec rating) go out of the window, where as if the player says i need someone in high sec i can do business with to buy ships and move them to me you suddnely have an interaction and inter depency between high and low sec, or that player needs to manufacture ships again, more interactions. Less Hate between sec ratings.
Really just throwing stuff out there, but there are some flaws in the game that unfortunatly are a reality of the game. Now before you think i'm on an alt hate thang, i have an ALT im traing frigs in so i can do some cheap faction warfare in as i dont want the corp i ceo in FW, but i want to indulge in FW. However i wont use my ALT to steal stuff and then throw it away or for convenience for my main character. Not sure where im going with this, and may have gone off piste, and policing Alts is impossible.
My 2isk |
Cur
Hardcore p0wnography
Cascade Probable
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 01:31:00 -
[58] - Quote
IF people actualy took two seconds to put tank on their haulers - and did not afk in transit.... you wouldent die to suicide gankers.
Hulks/Macks..... if the hulkageddon's and goon's ice-denying-mission isnt enough of a hint this is something that is never going to go away.......... you shold pay attention to the forums, and move systems to avoid then rather than afk mine and QQ when they return to a pod. |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
41
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 08:09:00 -
[59] - Quote
Cur wrote:IF people actualy took two seconds to put tank on their haulers - and did not afk in transit.... you wouldent die to suicide gankers.
Hulks/Macks..... if the hulkageddon's and goon's ice-denying-mission isnt enough of a hint this is something that is never going to go away.......... you shold pay attention to the forums, and move systems to avoid then rather than afk mine and QQ when they return to a pod.
Well, and if people never hauled more than 2 billion in a freighter likely they wouldn't be ganked in hisec. And if my aunt had wheels she would be like a bike.
But so far some people gank in hisec because they are rewarded by mechanics with a nonsensical insurance that halves their loss, whereas freighters, industrials, miners and other easily gankable targets get no bonus for that risk. "Put a tank on it" is nonsense, tanks cost income (and freighters CAN'T be tanked at all) and also tanks can be overcome if the reward is high enough. There is a reason why officer-fit mission runners have become legendary: everyone talks of them but I never met one, except in the form of "whooaaa, a century ago they ganked my 5 billion whatsoever with 7 BS and I was gone in 30 seconds so I never again used officer modules". So not even tanks can keep you safe beyond certain "kill point". Removing insurances for ships killed by "the law" would rise the "kill point" of every hisec target.
But to the OP, provided how winter expansion, the ongoing devblogs, CCP's anouncement and Hilmar's interview mean that some paying customers are getting our hopes handed back to us with a nullsec turd on them, I see how it would be nice that CCP "ungriefed" us by effing PvPrs for a change. At least the scum that ganks in hisec only and exclusively because of insurance.
So... no NEx store... no Incarna... no casual content... no solo content... no PvE content...
Why should I keep paying to play this game? |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
861
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 09:29:00 -
[60] - Quote
Martinez wrote:Mag's wrote:Bronden Neopatus wrote:Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship. You want the change, so therefore you need to supply a reason why they shouldn't. But I'll bite, it facilitates ship loss which is a good thing. Yet you support people logging off to save their ships. Do I?
Are you sure I wasn't simply against, yet another one of your self entitlement rantings? As has been said to you before, 'I WANT' isn't a reason for change. 
So you want more ship loss and would be against this idea? As every idea is so black and white.
CCP Zulu.....
Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |