you're stupid thanks for trying

Needs better/different arguments - not the silly and often heard "proliferation of crime is unfair" thing you got going there. Cause you know, you're talking about Eve here, right?

I wasn't there to tell, but maybe insurance was introduced as a universal feature to prevent PvP from complaining that PvE got it when they were killed by NPCs.

Today insurance is a feature old enough and PvPers have got many free rides and it's time to remove some of their privileges.

CCP should do something for PvE each now and then, aside from spoiling their fun with scannable mission sites and removing Lvl5 from hisec, or keep them replaying the same old Lvl4 for years.

I see, still no arguments..

Unlike all the free rides industrials have gotten?

Tres is correct, you don't have an argument other than, 'it's not fair'.

Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship.

Butthurt ganker #2

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.

..and you're the butthurt gankee or what?

That you revert to light name calling tells any reader of your topic one simple thing: Bronden can't think of arguments to support his case and thus any discussion(*) with him is moot. You managed to put yourself into the corner of whiners. Congratulation.

(*) with opposing view on the topic

Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship.

Then why not give Concord a 0 sec answer time? That also would facilitate ship loses and would be good, too.

And yes, my whole point is about CCP being fair with their paying customers by not handling endless privileges to some and endlessly abusing the patience of some others. It kinda is implicit in "give with one hand, take away with the other", you know.

Insurance for suicide gankers is a bit silly, yet removal of insurance for them destroys an entire "profession".
Perhaps some other solution is in order?

Instead of removing insurance for suicide-gankers completely, introduce one of the following options:
-Pirate faction standings requirement for insurance payout in a suicide gank
-CONCORD standing reduction whenever insurance is paid out on suicide gank
-20% less payout for suicide ganks, automatically
-Instead of ISK, receive some raw minerals in the next NPC station you dock in. Inconvenient, but it's still valuable!
-Only 20% chance you will receive the payout. Introduce a skill which increases 10% per level
-Other stuff

Because everyone else does as well. If gankers stop getting insurance so should everyone else. They paid for it, they got it.
And if you're gonna start a thread try to have some arguments ready, not just some hate because someone blew you up paired with insults at everyone who disagrees with you. Nobody's taking this thread seriously anymore.

What is this insurance people are talking about?

With removal of insurance paying for gankers that lost a ship due concord action if fair because there is no sane logic that would make that happen in real world.
2nd, it would help new players (and CCP) not to be ganked so many times to stop playing.
3rd, it would remove one ISK gain in game (ISK from nothing) and it would help the EVE economy.

Play the tutorials, THX.

Actually thinking about it, I might have had an insurance for a Tempest expire back in 2009 or was it maybe 2008. Ah well can't remember.

Once you start flying T2/T3 the insurance button is of no interest, which means you don't even think about its existance when you end up undocking in a Hurricane once in a while.

I've been reading the fears that the new BCs will be used as the perfect suicide gankers due to their pew-pew... so that should be countered in some way.

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.

That makes +2 for PvP, so I am going to suggest CCP to give a -1 to PvP to keep the fair play.

My suggestion is:

Remove insurance for concordokken ships.

That will effectively raise the cost of every ship used for suicide ganking, shiny new BCs included, and will fulfill a venerable old demand of many players who feel outraged by such a ludicrous thing as rewarding criminals for their crimes.

If someone has got the "galls" (cough, cough) to be a ganker, there is no point rewarding him for so. If being a ganker is not rewarding enough, he should stop being a ganker.

So that's it. Give PvP their shiny new ganker BCs and the implant killmails, BUT remove insurances when they are killed by the law.

Give with one hand and take away with the other, CCP.

BE FAIR.

Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Yet you support people logging off to save their ships.

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)

also tanks can be overcome if the reward is high enough.

Needs better/different arguments - not the silly and often heard "proliferation of crime is unfair" thing you got going there. Cause you know, you're talking about Eve here, right?

Insurance for suicide gankers is a bit silly, yet removal of insurance for them destroys an entire "profession".
Perhaps some other solution is in order?

Instead of removing insurance for suicide-gankers completely, introduce one of the following options:
-Pirate faction standings requirement for insurance payout in a suicide gank
-CONCORD standing reduction whenever insurance is paid out on suicide gank
-20% less payout for suicide ganks, automatically
-Instead of ISK, receive some raw minerals in the next NPC station you dock in. Inconvenient, but it's still valuable!
-Only 20% chance you will receive the payout. Introduce a skill which increases 10% per level
-Other stuff

Maybe provide some counter arguments. Payments for ships blown up by concorde makes no sense to me and I've never seen a single argument which I can objectively see as a valid point as to why insurance payouts are made for ships killed by concorde.

(...)

It's very simple: people keep claiming that ganking has no risk, without considering what it is that creates this situation. What generates Gǣno riskGǥ for gankers is that they mitigate those risks and they accept a drastic reduction of income. They ensure that the target is weak enough; that it carries enough to conceivably turn a profit; that the ship they use gets maximum oomph for the money (because no, insurance does not cover the cost). And then they waitGǪ and waitGǪ and wait for something that fits the profile. While waiting, they're losing income.

So the question is: why is it to blasphemous to suggest that the self-proclaimed victims do the same? Why can't they accept a loss of income just like the gankers do? Why can't they mitigate their risks by carrying sensible loads and protecting them and scouting for possible targets? It's not that ganking has no risk and hauling/mining/whatever has all the risk GÇö it's that one party choose to mitigate their risks and accept a reduction if efficiency whereas the other chooses not to (and then refuses to blame themselves for the choices they made GÇö it has to be someone else's fault). Stop suffering from such epic grades of entitlement-itis and start doing what the GÇ£other sideGÇ£ is doing! They're doing it for a reason, you knowGǪ

If hisec suicide ganking is a pain in the ass, then don't do it. If hisec suicide ganking hurts your income, do things more profitable.

If you can't have fun without hisec suicide ganking... well... Sane people does not have a primal urge to f*ck off other people for the sake of fun, you know?

I am for the concept of erasing insurance on ships that suicide gank - and the definition in the kill mail will have concord as the greatest damage dealer.

The reason why I would support this change is simple. Actions have consequences. You decide that you want to take out a target that you are not at war with - you get slapped for your impetuosity by concord and you get fined.

However - lets take this one stage further.

I would ask that the victim gets the isk. Regardless of the insurance taken out by the victim, they also receive insurance isk from the perpetrators ship death. That should make the replacement funded by the ganker.

Then there would be tears

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?

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.

I wasn't there to tell, but maybe insurance was introduced as a universal feature to prevent PvP from complaining that PvE got it when they were killed by NPCs.

Today insurance is a feature old enough and PvPers have got many free rides and it's time to remove some of their privileges.

CCP should do something for PvE each now and then, aside from spoiling their fun with scannable mission sites and removing Lvl5 from hisec, or keep them replaying the same old Lvl4 for years.

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.

Remove insurance for concordokken ships.

That will effectively raise the cost of every ship used for suicide ganking

Because everyone else does as well. If gankers stop getting insurance so should everyone else. They paid for it, they got it.
And if you're gonna start a thread try to have some arguments ready, not just some hate because someone blew you up paired with insults at everyone who disagrees with you. Nobody's taking this thread seriously anymore.

I've been reading the fears that the new BCs will be used as the perfect suicide gankers due to their pew-pew... so that should be countered in some way.

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.

That makes +2 for PvP, so I am going to suggest CCP to give a -1 to PvP to keep the fair play.

My suggestion is:

Remove insurance for concordokken ships.

That will effectively raise the cost of every ship used for suicide ganking, shiny new BCs included, and will fulfill a venerable old demand of many players who feel outraged by such a ludicrous thing as rewarding criminals for their crimes.

If someone has got the "galls" (cough, cough) to be a ganker, there is no point rewarding him for so. If being a ganker is not rewarding enough, he should stop being a ganker.

So that's it. Give PvP their shiny new ganker BCs and the implant killmails, BUT remove insurances when they are killed by the law.

Give with one hand and take away with the other, CCP.

BE FAIR.

Another strawman to miss-represent what I said.

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.

Proof, I think that, that you do not have a legitimate rebuttal.

I LOL'ed seriously.

It would be too CRUEL to have EVE's Crime & Punishment behave as in RL...

Because it provides an incentive to blow ships up, and ships blowing up is is what keeps the wheels of EVE in motion.

Moreover, if you want to go for the Gǣmakes no senseGǥ line of reasoning, remember that the same nonsense is what provides you with an teleporting, instagibbing, omniscient, unavoidable, undefeatable (RAAARRRR) police forceGǪ Do you want that removed as well?

I am for the concept of erasing insurance on ships that suicide gank - and the definition in the kill mail will have concord as the greatest damage dealer.

The reason why I would support this change is simple. Actions have consequences. You decide that you want to take out a target that you are not at war with - you get slapped for your impetuosity by concord and you get fined.

However - lets take this one stage further.

I would ask that the victim gets the isk. Regardless of the insurance taken out by the victim, they also receive insurance isk from the perpetrators ship death. That should make the replacement funded by the ganker.

Then there would be tears

That would be seriously epic. However, I doubt that'll ever happen, it just makes too much sense.

Blowing ships up in wars, low sec and null is what keeps eve in motion. high sec ganking isn't some work around of the war Dec mechanic or anything to do with pvp

It's not pvp by any stretch of the imagination.

Not saying stop suicide ganking, I'm saying remove the payment for doing it.

i am babby

i am a dummy and think miners can't fit a tank or have any defenses

On one hand I agree that current suicide mechanics are "a bit silly" but on the other I will defend EVE's bloodthirsty Darwinism to the last breath.

How about bringing in a more realistic insurance idea; introduce both reduced payouts as diminishing payouts within a certain time frame. Counted from the last offence, a certain amount of time afterwards there would be lower payouts, actual numbers are open for discussion ofcourse but this is how it could look.

First concordoken: 80% payout
second within a month of last concord loss: 50%
third: 20%
fourth: 0%

That way newbies (the eternal reasoning to not remove insurance) aren't hurt much at all but repeating offenders get "blacklisted" and have a reduced payout, if they keep out of trouble for that timeframe (a month in this example) then they'll be back at step 1. Again, actual numbers or "parole time" is up for discussion but I do believe this system would work fine; taking care of the repeat offenders and giving them a "time out" unless they agree to heavier losses.

fair play.

Theres your first mistake

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.

It's very simple: people keep claiming that ganking has no risk, without considering what it is that creates this situation. What generates Gǣno riskGǥ for gankers is that they mitigate those risks and they accept a drastic reduction of income. They ensure that the target is weak enough; that it carries enough to conceivably turn a profit; that the ship they use gets maximum oomph for the money (because no, insurance does not cover the cost). And then they waitGǪ and waitGǪ and wait for something that fits the profile. While waiting, they're losing income.

So the question is: why is it to blasphemous to suggest that the self-proclaimed victims do the same? Why can't they accept a loss of income just like the gankers do? Why can't they mitigate their risks by carrying sensible loads and protecting them and scouting for possible targets? It's not that ganking has no risk and hauling/mining/whatever has all the risk GÇö it's that one party choose to mitigate their risks and accept a reduction if efficiency whereas the other chooses not to (and then refuses to blame themselves for the choices they made GÇö it has to be someone else's fault). Stop suffering from such epic grades of entitlement-itis and start doing what the GÇ£other sideGÇ£ is doing! They're doing it for a reason, you knowGǪ

Your entirement argument is flawed based on the assumption that both sides have an equal opportunity to mitigate their risks and costs. News flash it's not. It's not even close.

It has nothing to do with entitlement-itis or whatever nonsense you wish to label it.

Most of the easily gankable targets in game are simply unable to field any form of defense that can't be worked over in short order by 2 brutix BC's.

Your position that suicide ganking isn't risk free is laughable. Risk from what?

It's risk free in a practical sense and you know it. That's why they do it. Sure it can occasionally be profitable

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.

wouldn't the same need to apply to both sides equally? (The point you missed.)

Why don't they have to accept some cost v reward? Why shouldn't they fit their ships or be active when transporting cargo, in order to mitigate the chance of being ganked? Surely the same economic argument should apply?

At the moment the gankee takes all the risk/loss, and the ganker gets the reward. That is fundamentally borked.

The 'victims' have to accept the loss. I argue that gankers should face the very same risk vs reward requirement.[/quote}They do. People just don't see it because the gankers are good at mitigating their risks (which comes at a cost that the victims don't see) and because the image of what they gain is skewed by the big-headline heists.
[quote]A system requiring that suicide ganking be economically viable doesn't eliminate the risk.

The inherently easily gankable targets are also inherently uninteresting targets unless their pilots do something stupid, such as turning them into loot pi+¦atas. They can trivially mitigate their risks by not being stupid. The commonly ganked targets, on the other hand, can protect themselves quite nicely, even more so if you actually take the time to fly them. Not only do they still have the option of not being stupid GÇö they can also be clever and mitigate it further by applying the additional options these ships offer.

you still have your logic module broken?