EVE Search - Suicide piracy

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Suicide piracy

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sharcy	Posted - 2006.02.03 11:06:00 - [1] CCP, there have been a couple of threads recently on suicide tactics in 1.0; pirates knowingly sacrificing Ravens to blow up haulers while a buddy collects the loot. Despicable as those tactics may be, there is one thing I really don't understand, and that is the fact that insurance is still paid to these pirates for losing their ship. In the real world, such an illegal act would void any insurance in an instant (suicide clauses in life insurance for example). I propose that insurance on ships is not returned when someone has been killed by CONCORD. -- Sonnema is recruiting!
Za Po	Posted - 2006.02.03 11:13:00 - [2] Agreed. Suicide tactics shouldn't be disallowed, but they shouldn't be supported by insurance either. Being killed by CONCORD should void insurance. -------------------- This solution to BM-related server resource usage can reduce lag with the same interface.
Awox	Posted - 2006.02.03 11:49:00 - [3] I like this idea! /signed
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.02.03 11:51:00 - [4] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 03/02/2006 11:51:02 A quick bet on why CCP won't and hasn't implemented insurance defaulting for players that incur security status loss in 0.5+ before getting killed by concord as yet. People that make a honest mistake, or lock and fire the wrong target due to lag in their overview, or fire a smartbomb with a cloaked ship nearby, or any other variation on the : "yeah that was your own fault, but we got this cushion called insurance that makes it reasonable to let you sort the consequences yourself" theme. These people now lose a bit of isk, and would then lose a ****load of isk. Now, what do you think would be the rough numbers of suicide ravens versus the numbers of 'honest mistakes' ? Sure, ideally you wouldnt pay those guys insurance. But that wouldn't stop them either, they'd just use cheaper ships instead and accept the occasional failure. It's not like finding an indy transporting more then 120m worth of goods is hard in Jita is it ? Power to the players !
Sharcy	Posted - 2006.02.03 12:04:00 - [5] Originally by: Rod Blaine Edited by: Rod Blaine on 03/02/2006 11:51:02Now, what do you think would be the rough numbers of suicide ravens versus the numbers of 'honest mistakes' ? Have you ever known a RL insurance company to say "Oh sure Mr. Blaine, we'll refund you in full for your car even though your insurance only covers 3rd parties and you hit that lamppost yourself, as it was an honest mistake"? It's besides the point. Illegal activities should void insurance, whether in mistake or intended. -- Sonnema is recruiting!
Wendat Huron	Posted - 2006.02.03 13:01:00 - [6] Make them lose a ****load more in standings while doing this and make it harder to regain said standings, that'll send a message.
Jhonen Senraedi	Posted - 2006.02.03 14:34:00 - [7] well..ok there's a couple of things that can be done here...or more. 1/ Have any aggressive act in 1.0 and possibly 0.9 systems result in Concord scrambling/holding the aggressor while they have time to consider their options...i.e they target someone..they get webbed/scrambled and get a countdown to disengage. 2/Have any aggressive acts in 1.0 and 0.9 result,as stated ina bigger sec hit.Not sure how big this should be...-1 to -2.5 per act I'd say..thus they can profit a little from their tactics..but not too much thus representing heightened vigilance against such acts. 3/Have any persons with -5.0 or lower sec status be subjec to either revoked or greatly increased insurance cover cost...to represent like irl..that they are in pursuit of danger and thus more likely to incur a loss of ship..thus many insurance companies would not touch them. 4/Have it so that..immediately a person hits -5.0 sec status(and possibly each -1.0 thereafter?)Their insurance is voided and has to be renewed at higher rate...eg..Someone ganks in 1.0..they take their status down to -5.0 and suddenly they have no cover for ship they lost.
Halet Cu	Posted - 2006.02.03 14:53:00 - [8] The last time I even mentioned the topic of insurance I could feel the flames from where I was sitting Anyway I think the way to get around this particular issue would be to allow everyone one mistake. The first time you screw up with Concord, you get the insurance payout. If you screw up again--no insurance. Not perfect, but hopefully would stop the repeat offenders.
Chaoskeeper	Posted - 2006.02.03 15:04:00 - [9] Edited by: Chaoskeeper on 03/02/2006 15:04:01 double ppost... damnit
Chaoskeeper	Posted - 2006.02.03 15:04:00 - [10] Originally by: Sharcy Originally by: Rod Blaine Edited by: Rod Blaine on 03/02/2006 11:51:02Now, what do you think would be the rough numbers of suicide ravens versus the numbers of 'honest mistakes' ? Have you ever known a RL insurance company to say "Oh sure Mr. Blaine, we'll refund you in full for your car even though your insurance only covers 3rd parties and you hit that lamppost yourself, as it was an honest mistake"? It's besides the point. Illegal activities should void insurance, whether in mistake or intended. sorry... but do you know any RL insurance that insures any war vehicles? if you do, change it as soon as possible

dmaul raven	Posted - 2006.02.03 16:05:00 - [11] Signed -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CaptainSeafort	Posted - 2006.02.03 16:43:00 - [12] heres an idea: in .5+ space, concord webs and scrambles the dude, but the INSTANT an offensive module is activated, a "CONCORD Support Ship" warps in, and starts uber shield transfer/armor rep on whoever the target is, if there is a target. from then on, the engagement proceeds as normal =) "Planets and moons no longer hitch rides on player ships. Their towel privileges have been revoked." HHGG Lives on in EVE!
Za Po	Posted - 2006.02.03 16:51:00 - [13] I don't think there is need for direct protection in the form of instant undefeatable shield transfer. We don't want people in empire to be utterly immune to other PCs. If one is willing to lose a half billion in ships to take down a basic hauler, I think he should manage it. But getting insurance on those ravens, that's just weird. As for people making a mistake... tough luck. Mistakes are bad, especially with weapons. I bet next time he'll pay more attention. -------------------- This solution to BM-related server resource usage can reduce lag with the same interface.
Ergo Morte	Posted - 2006.02.03 21:56:00 - [14] Only the math impaired would think that insurance payouts matter in suicide gank piracy. 120mil is still less than 4bil. This whole topic is about percieved revenge agianst someone that could have easily been discouraged from attacking if the "victims" had bothered to use some foresight. NEWS FLASH, if I'm sitting on a 4bil haul from ganking your ship no insurance isn't gonna bother me in the least. Another point your overlooking is something called a "Letter of Marque" that endows it's holder as a privateer. So any loss by the enemy of whomever issued the letter is a legitimate bussiness loss. thus getting insurance from someone would still be possible. Assuming of course you want to keep it like R/L . However I this latest round of protests by the lazy that got taken by the motivated is just anither waste of time. The system is working as intended.
bearak	Posted - 2006.02.03 22:15:00 - [15] wow, thank you for the thread. I had a false sence of security until I read this. I frequently transport expensive items through sec space, why not? Now I know why not. Jees, the real issue here is the fact that this game was created by people and as such is not perfect. Players will find a way around the rules and regulations to get what they want. "Where there's a will, there's a way." So you're either dead in 0.0 space, or dead in sec space. Just stay out of a hauler, or cloak it. I'd move out to 0.0 space if I thought I could handle it. But the trueth is since the game is so old, the players are so old. And I'd have to have 12 million sp just to feel safe out there. I don't have any suggestions to fix it, I just wanted to say thank you for letting us "newbs" know about the potential danger.
Jhonen Senraedi	Posted - 2006.02.03 22:19:00 - [16] Funny how in any ofthese sort of threads...the long time players etc. always say everything is ok....probably because they have 100's of millions of isk etc.Too many damned elitists here who think because they've been around longer then they are more important... NEWSFLASH Those of us in for a month or two are just as important...we pay exactly the same amount per month as you do.....! Anyways part of the point of this thread is that ..in supposedly safe space the security forces should act quicker to deter such actions....it might happen once or twice...but more than that no...there'd be a public outcry at repeated muggings in such a high populace..and secure area..People would be suing the government for compensation and irl..you would be able to insure cargo. Also....very low sec rated people...and blatant criminals should find it hard to insure their vessels and even then at a greatly enhanced premium(if it can be insured at all) IRL..you do a dangerous job..insurance is near unobtainable or the premiums are very high...same should be true here seeing as a lot of the vets say "hey it's like rl" As far as lazy goes...are we..no...wouldn't matter what we put on a hauler against a Raven...and also you expect to be pretty safe in 1.0.Basically....kudos to the pirate for thinkng this up...but realistically ..just how many times could he do it before he was wanted Dead or Alive by the Authorities....or how many times would an insurance company pay out on a ship?
Ultim8Evil	Posted - 2006.02.03 22:56:00 - [17] Edited by: Ultim8Evil on 03/02/2006 22:57:44 I love it when people compare EVE to RL. When you have built space going warships that you pilot from within a capsule that fires lasers, warps faster than the speed of light across star systems and docks at space stations.... be sure to tell N.A.S.A. Until then, EVE is EVE and RL is RL. STFU The only thing this game has connecting it to RL is the players.
Nashime	Posted - 2006.02.03 23:14:00 - [18] Originally by: Ultim8Evil Edited by: Ultim8Evil on 03/02/2006 22:57:44 I love it when people compare EVE to RL. When you have built space going warships that you pilot from within a capsule that fires lasers, warps faster than the speed of light across star systems and docks at space stations.... be sure to tell N.A.S.A. Until then, EVE is EVE and RL is RL. STFU The only thing this game has connecting it to RL is the players. Yes, and unfortunately we only have real life to call upon for analogies. So at the very least it would be better to try and offer a better analogy than flame individuals who use what they know to illustrate their point. 01100110 01101110 01101111 01110010 01100100
Ergo Morte	Posted - 2006.02.03 23:43:00 - [19] Originally by: Jhonen Senraedi Edited by: Jhonen Senraedi on 03/02/2006 22:50:10 As far as lazy goes...are we..no...wouldn't matter what we put on a hauler against a Raven...and also you expect to be pretty safe in 1.0.Basically....kudos to the pirate for thinkng this up...but realistically ..just how many times could he do it before he was wanted Dead or Alive by the Authorities....or how many times would an insurance company pay out on a ship? Well, that's the problem right there. You expect to be safe. If your carrying anything of sufficent value you should expect someone to want it at your expense. Then a player can prepare. the player that most famously got ganked recently was a 2 year vet and should have known better. She was and is completely capable of taking the precations neccessary to discourage this type of behavior or prevent that particular style of gank. she got complacent and paid the price. Not exactly a case of the big bad rat beating up on a poor little nub. This is a game. There are rules. All players should become thoroughly familiar with the rules. What happenned was within those rules. Ergo, everything is working as intended. New players wanting the game changed so they're not so painfully low on the totem pole happens in every MMO. One day you'll be on the side of "she should have known better", or you'll quit and if you do quit can I have your stuff?
Tarminic	Posted - 2006.02.04 02:22:00 - [20] Unfortunately, it would be difficult for an automated system to differentiate between an "accidental" attack and an intentional attack via pirates, making denial of insurance money an unlikely solution. The idea that CONCORD would jam/scramble you if you locked on to someone in 1.0 is interesting...it would be a good way to keep pirating in high security space down. I think that since NPCs can now do the same that it wouldn't be difficult to adapt CONCORDs AI to do the same.

Deja Thoris	Posted - 2006.02.04 02:31:00 - [21] And is it realistic to have insurance on a war vessel in the first place? No. You are only trying to tweak a compromise feature (insurance) to suit your needs. I mean, who in their right mind would insure a warship that is going out to face 10 serpantis battleships in a mission? Nobody right? To paraphrase you, "in the real world such a silly act would lead to voiding the insurance"
Deja Thoris	Posted - 2006.02.04 02:36:00 - [22] Originally by: Jhonen Senraedi Anyways part of the point of this thread is that ..in supposedly safe space . From the player guide (quoted) "Don't expect CONCORD to keep you immune to attacks or ship losses. Like in the real world, law enforcers often arrive too late at the scene of the crime, and even though they able to punish the criminal, they can't always prevent the crime. " So in short, it's there in the player guide. It's just your misguided impression that "safe" space exists.
Zarch AlDain	Posted - 2006.02.04 07:50:00 - [23] Originally by: bearak wow, thank you for the thread. I had a false sence of security until I read this. I frequently transport expensive items through sec space, why not? Now I know why not. Jees, the real issue here is the fact that this game was created by people and as such is not perfect. Players will find a way around the rules and regulations to get what they want. "Where there's a will, there's a way." So you're either dead in 0.0 space, or dead in sec space. Just stay out of a hauler, or cloak it. I'd move out to 0.0 space if I thought I could handle it. But the trueth is since the game is so old, the players are so old. And I'd have to have 12 million sp just to feel safe out there. I don't have any suggestions to fix it, I just wanted to say thank you for letting us "newbs" know about the potential danger. I am currently based out of and working in 0.0 space. I don't feel completely safe but apart from a few near misses I haven't lost a ship out here yet and am a contributing and useful member of my corporation. I couldn't do it solo, but with corp backing it's more than possible, and a lot of fun. I am less than 2 months old. Newbies don't need to worry about the ganking raven, even if he only had fairly basic modules his ship would have had getting on for 100k worth of modules fitted. On top of that there is the time spent waiting and scanning. That strategy is only useful against people who have a lot of valuable items in their ship - which is unlikely to be newbies!
Rorix Whitecloud	Posted - 2006.02.04 11:35:00 - [24] In response to whoever said the police come to late in real life and whatever, you have to remember, IRL, you die only once. in EVE, you just get another clone, and you're back in business. No body IRL would rob a bank in broad day light if they KNOW they dont even have a chance of living through it. in EVE, the worst that CONCORD can do to you is make you lose your ship, and there's no such thing as permenant death. What might work to prevent these things might be if you disallowed the use of ship/cargo scanners in high sec space, so that the player pirates would not know if their target is empty or not, thus preventing them from making random shootings. I highly doubt that they would shoot a random industrial if they didnt know if it was carrying expensive loot/modules or not. Just my 2 cents...
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.02.04 13:16:00 - [25] Originally by: Nashime Originally by: Ultim8Evil Edited by: Ultim8Evil on 03/02/2006 22:57:44 I love it when people compare EVE to RL. When you have built space going warships that you pilot from within a capsule that fires lasers, warps faster than the speed of light across star systems and docks at space stations.... be sure to tell N.A.S.A. Until then, EVE is EVE and RL is RL. STFU The only thing this game has connecting it to RL is the players. Yes, and unfortunately we only have real life to call upon for analogies. So at the very least it would be better to try and offer a better analogy than flame individuals who use what they know to illustrate their point. Or you could stop relying on analogy and use some actual reasoning instead.
Drizit	Posted - 2006.02.04 21:24:00 - [26] What Concord should do is not the point, it's the insurance that's at issue here. I have just bought a 96m BS (0% below regional average) and the platinum insurance gives me over 130m which pays for the BS, the insurance premium and about 4 million over the top. In effect, it would pay me to have it ganked. So I put a couple of cheapo turrets on it and go pop an indy. Result = Bang and I'm immediately in pocket to the tune of 4 million isk. Get my buddy to scoop the cargo dropped from the hauler and we're really in the money. Rinse and repeat. Now isn't that an open invite to go suicide pirating in high sec? I just can't lose, even if there was no cargo, we have 2m each from the insurance alone. Ganking haulers just for fun could potentially earn over 8m per hour plus the cargo we'd get from it. Luckily for noobs, I'm not a pirate and as a miner/trader, I'm outraged that people can profit from the insurance alone like that. Insurance should be made available to everyone but deliberate, unprovoked acts of agression against someone in high sec should void any insurance payments (accidents included since you get a popup warning first). This should be implemented down to 0.5 but below that, anything goes since it's almost totally pvp down there and anyone daft enough to run a hauler through there without an escort is asking for trouble. As you go down lower, the risk is lower that Concord will catch the rat who did it and gank them. That way, 1.0 and 0.9 is safest and <0.8 carries more risk of getting ganked for your cargo just as it always has been. An easy way to do this is if Concord ganked you, it's tough luck - no payout! If it was a mistake, you're probably a noob who hasn't lost a big expensive ship anyway. anyone who lost a BS or such should have been playing long enough to opt out when the popup informs them it's an unprovoked act of agression. -- My idea of an OS is one that Operates the System, not a complete package of every piece of software ever written. Computers created "The Paperless Office". But some stupid fool invented a printer
Kittamaru	Posted - 2006.02.04 22:31:00 - [27] what about the people with faction equipment that can not only TANK concord, but can take them OUT?
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.02.04 23:36:00 - [28] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 04/02/2006 23:39:32 Originally by: Kittamaru what about the people with faction equipment that can not only TANK concord, but can take them OUT? Nonexistant. Sure, they can tank concord for 30 seconds, but die they will anyway. As soon as they don't, a friendly GM will come along and informt hem they broke the rules and destroy the ship anyway. As for the arguments regarding "safe" space needing to dissalow all forms of (suicide or other) non-war killing. That's a false argument. 1.0 isn't 'safe', it's 'safer'. That fact is explained nicely in new player guides and the game info on this very website. Now, the question posed here isn't wether or not that should change, and 1.0 should be safe. The question posed is wether removing insurance payout from concord-killed player ships is a good way to dissalow non-war killing to a greater extent. As far as I understand, that question simply ignores the earlier one and assumes CCP wants to change the sagety in 1.0. They don't as far as I am aware. But even if they would, this would not be the way in which they'd do it because of the argument I made earlier. Relating that to real-life analogies has no effect on the argument at all. Insurance in Eve isn't there because there's insurance in real life. Insruance is here to serve as a game mechanic that cushions shiplosses to a variable extent. It has more consequences that are part of its design, but that would be the main one. If CCP had not intended that insurance would also cushion shiploss due to error in high sec, there would be nothing stopping its removal in cases described here. But CCP did intent it to do that, something they've already explained once in teh past in a thread similar to this one (which ofc i cba to lok up for you since it might jsut as well have been in 2003 for all I know). Power to the players !
Blind Man	Posted - 2006.02.05 00:57:00 - [29] just dont carry your crap in haulers. use a bs or blockage running indy. its not that hard, and i feel sorry for idiots who carry billions in a badger. you deserve to die. thank you
Jhonen Senraedi	Posted - 2006.02.05 04:12:00 - [30] What has been suggested here though does not intend to stop suicide piracy....Merely make it so that one with the intent of piracy would have to carefully choose targets.. By making a deliberate aggressive act in 1.0/0.9 void insurance payout for thye aggressor....it gives the smaller haulers more of a chance.Also would make it a more realistic and dynamic multiverse....with only the legendary or very foolhardy attaempting such hijackings.... It's pk for people to say haul your gear in a blockade-runner or a battleship...but what about the people who don't yet have the skills for that...or if people wish to move a couple of frigates etc? Now ..I agree..no area should be technically free from risk..but...in 0.9 and 1.0 there are no npc rats thus player rats should also be virtually non-existent..and one or two acts of such piracy should be all that would be tolerated for a certain period...i.e the authorities would be put on public trial and pressure brought to make them act. Thus...perhaps a security hit equivalent to the systems security status for any ganks in high sec...sort of limiting the activities of notorious pirates...and Insurance rights should either be nullified or perhaps unobtainable by the pirate/aggressor for a certain time period? Also there should be maybe a limited local insurance..where one could insure their cargo...but only per run....say once again equivalent percentage payout per level of system security..e.g 0.9 you could pay a fee(10% of cargo value..with 9/10)returnable on journeys completion..to cover possible losses. Maybe there should also be a way of contacting and interacting with the authorities and making law-suits etc against the authorities(i.e Concord/local government etc)..for any such losses...would make some interesting rp...something I may have done had there been a mechanism for it.

Vizard	Posted - 2006.02.05 04:24:00 - [31] Would you all like some Cheese with your WHINE!! What is your problem, are there not enough lawyer Bull**** in real life. This is a game a PvP game By DESIGN. If your an idiot enough to haul 100mil or more cargo in one ship with out proper support your an IDIOT! I will tell you right now that if you drive down the street in most large cities with bags of money sitting out were people can see it you would be car jacked and I bet killed, atleast in high sec you get away without being podded in most cases. Now go home to mommy and stop crying.
Jhonen Senraedi	Posted - 2006.02.05 05:23:00 - [32] Hey Vizard stop smacking like a kid and answer the post in a more mature manner...W*nker
Vizard	Posted - 2006.02.05 07:28:00 - [33] Originally by: Jhonen Senraedi Edited by: Jhonen Senraedi on 05/02/2006 05:41:50 Hey Vizard stop smacking like a kid and answer the post in a more mature manner...We're trying to have a reasoned and reasonable discussion without all the CS kiddy talk... And mate..I ain't whining...I made the cash back and a lot more in a couple of days speculation so no big deal....Just trying to make the universe more dynamic....But if you're not into ideas being tossed around then ..pray tell...Why are you checking this sub-forum? There are alot of good IDEAS that come through here, this is not one of them I was talking about the post of wanting litigation against players for actions. I mean come on! If you want to play without PvP in a game were no danger, this is not the game you should play. The tactics these Pirates used is unique not the norm. There is many TRUE game issues that for one I find need fixing and for two are valid, this is not. Like the days of Pirates on the High seas they watched the ships and waited for the best time and prize to attack. The Raven was a little much, I would of used a different setup less expensive. But when your Insurance is about to expire why not get a Pay-out. I salute the pirates on a Job Well done Arrrrrrrrrrr....
whejl	Posted - 2006.02.05 12:52:00 - [34] Originally by: Jhonen Senraedi Funny how in any ofthese sort of threads...the long time players etc. always say everything is ok....probably because they have 100's of millions of isk etc.Too many damned elitists here who think because they've been around longer then they are more important... We are more important. Originally by: Jhonen Senraedi NEWSFLASH Those of us in for a month or two are just as important...we pay exactly the same amount per month as you do.....! Which gives us oldies the other 33 or so months of earlier payments, finiancing the game, servers and development to the point it is today.
Jhonen Senraedi	Posted - 2006.02.05 17:52:00 - [35] Seems some of you are missing the point.... 1/The legal litigation etc. was not a suggested player v player mechanism...more a rp player v the authorities/local government etc..which I believe I did say.If a local police force fails in it's duty to protect a community(In our day at least)It is open to proceedings where a plaintiff can try and secure damages and be compensated for their failure to protect. 2/The mechansim where a person with an expiring insurance..or any insurance for that matter,can use it as a tool to profit from crime is unrealistic.Some say why would they be insured for battle..i.e Alliance/Corp wars etc....well that can be looked on as a corporate situation...i.e the insurer wishes to maintain the goodwill and profits from insuring these craft due to standing and business with the corps and alliances. However it is unrealistic to expect an insurer to support criminal activities by paying out for suicide ganks.Just like in real life...if suicide or a deliberate calculated act on the part of the insured is responsible for loss etc then the insurer would not pay out...and ,as has happened in some cases,would most likely be investigated and possibly brought to book both with criminal litigation and civil action...the latter for the insured's victims. And to the last poster..hmm so you vets are more important than the rest of us...ok..guess we should all just give you all our isk..gear and ships and quit because you are all so Godly?..I'm sure CCP see your money as somehow more holy???? Also don't forget that sure you helped get the game to where it is today..but without new blood it would stagnate and become a clique community...and that in the past you had better loot drops and the like so..in some ways it's tougher to make it for the newer player...but essentially they are and always will be as important as the vets out there. I mean by your theory ...anyone who has been on the planet longer than you is more importanty than you...
Nimie	Posted - 2006.02.05 18:52:00 - [36] Originally by: Vizard Would you all like some Cheese with your WHINE!! What is your problem, are there not enough lawyer Bull**** in real life. This is a game a PvP game By DESIGN. If your an idiot enough to haul 100mil or more cargo in one ship with out proper support your an IDIOT! I will tell you right now that if you drive down the street in most large cities with bags of money sitting out were people can see it you would be car jacked and I bet killed, atleast in high sec you get away without being podded in most cases. Now go home to mommy and stop crying. noone is arguing that this isn't a pvp game. the question is how much pvp it is. also, 100m isn't much. the whole purpose of an indy is to carry alot of stuff. unless you are using indys only for carrying trit and pye, you can easily get more than 100m in your indy.
Nimie	Posted - 2006.02.05 19:01:00 - [37] Edited by: Nimie on 05/02/2006 19:04:31 Originally by: Vizard If you want to play without PvP in a game were no danger, this is not the game you should play. The tactics these Pirates used is unique not the norm. it's not that we want a game with no danger. it's more like wanting a safe spot to go when you want to relax in peace. i always thought the game was meant to be there was one area that was relatively dangerous and one area that was relatively dangerous and not that all areas was relatively dangerous. these tactis are not unique. they are getting very common. kisago is not a trade hub for instance, but has huge amounts of ships killed per hr. the number of ships killed in kisago can go above what most of low sec can produce. also, 100m is a joke. with a 3b assests in rens, it would take me 1200+ jumps to move my stuff to jita. this is incredibly stupid that i have to carry less than 100m or move through empire space full of wcs and plates as if there was a war going on.
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.02.05 19:13:00 - [38] Missing the point entirely. You shouldn't be shipping large amounts of stuff in an undefended transport. Get an escort already.
Nimie	Posted - 2006.02.05 19:23:00 - [39] Edited by: Nimie on 05/02/2006 19:23:17 Originally by: Joerd Toastius Missing the point entirely. You shouldn't be shipping large amounts of stuff in an undefended transport. Get an escort already. you are the one missing the point. 100m is not "alot of stuff". i should not need an escort or wcs and plates to move 100m worth of stuff in empire.
Grey Area	Posted - 2006.02.05 22:16:00 - [40] I think there is a clause in "real life" life insurance that voids it if the insured was killed "by a member of any law engorcement agency in the pursuit of his duty". I'd tend to agree that insurance for kills by Concord shouldn't pay out, and those who have little "accidents" might be less likely to have them in future. Yes, I have had little accidents with Concord myself, no I wouldn't have whinged if the insurance was withheld, as long as that was made clear when I took out the policy. Originally by: Avon Your sig is always a welcome sight... ...it means I've got to the end of your post.

Grey Area	Posted - 2006.02.05 22:20:00 - [41] Originally by: Nimie Edited by: Nimie on 05/02/2006 19:39:51 Originally by: Joerd Toastius Missing the point entirely. You shouldn't be shipping large amounts of stuff in an undefended transport. Get an escort already. you are the one missing the point. 100m is not "alot of stuff". 100 is a "small amount."i should not need an escort or wcs and plates to move a "small amount" worth of stuff in empire. As far as I can tell, you're ALL missing the point...the op's not complaining that he shouldn't have been ganked. He's complaining that it's unfair that the ganker gets the insurance on his ship. Since people WILL insist on real life analogies...it's like someone ramraiding a Mercedes in an old clapped out Honda Civic, the police then blowing the crap out of said Honda Civic, and the ramraider claiming on his insurance for the damage the police did to the car. Yes, that MIGHT happen in America, but most of what happens in America doesn't count as a real life analogy. Originally by: Avon Your sig is always a welcome sight... ...it means I've got to the end of your post.
Che Hermez	Posted - 2006.02.05 22:59:00 - [42] From a storyline point of view I agree with the OP. But it would lead to other things. People with negative sec can buy insurance, even though they are known criminals? Seems odd that. People who are in corps in CONCORD registered wars go out and buy insurance. Do these insurance companies carry out no background checks? I have known people buy, insure and lose 3 bs in a night. If a household insurance company was to insure a guy 3 times in a row for houses that burnt down on the day he bought the insurance, I doubt they would stay in business. I know I'm going down the "real-life analogy for virtual scenario" route, but Sharcy started it :P Voiding insurance for concord kills might sound like a nice idea for prevention of suicide piracy, but with the buggy state of the overview it would make empire war nearly impossible (or at least incredibly expensive) to conduct. Stiffer sec hits are a better idea, but i don't think its necessary. Its not hard to make a set of instas for your trip before you go, fit stabs and/or nanos, carry things in less obvious ships etc etc. I have been playing the game three years, but I'm no elitist. Many players only 6 months old have MUCH more isk than me, and if I lost 100 mill (which is apparently a small amount) in a hauler i would be mighty annoyed, but probably more with myself for being too lazy, stupid or brave to take some of the steps I detailed above. In summary, I reject Sharcy's proposal. Thank you for your time. PER SCIENCIA AD ASTRA ETHICS IS JUST ANOTHER EXCUSE TO STAY WEAK
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.02.05 23:14:00 - [43] Analogies suck. Use some actual reasoning and this argument might go somewhere.
Grey Area	Posted - 2006.02.05 23:15:00 - [44] Well, even given the eloquent post above from Che, I think he still feels that SOMEthing has to be done to prevnet the rise in suicide piracy...it's a low form of playing...regardless of the value of cargo, a 1.0 system is supposed to offer protection from random gankings (not sanctioned wars, in other words) and a small section of the player base have found a way to minimise their losses so as to be able to carry it out. Suggestion: Should Concord pod people who DESTROY another ship in 0.5+ sec (sanctioned wars excluded)? Firing on them would result in the normal ship destruction...but blowing up their ship would get them podded. Accidents would still pay out insurance, and as long as the player didn't carry through the attack to destruction, no podding would take place...so actually no different from the system now...but to continue and destroy the target would result in a podding...I can see how you might accidentally FIRE on a ship, but it's a bit much to accidentally DESTROY one... And yes, a battleship might get lucky (or should that be unlucky, if it's an accident?) and one-shot a frigate. Does it seem harsh that the battleship player gets podded...yes, a little, if it was a genuine accident. But if you're in a BATTLESHIP, you should damned well know better by now... Originally by: Avon Your sig is always a welcome sight... ...it means I've got to the end of your post.
Strongarm Sally	Posted - 2006.02.05 23:40:00 - [45] I tend to agree with those that warn haulers to bring an escort and make instas. I've been playing for nearly 3 years myself and the ONLY time I end up getting ganked (in ANY system) is when I get lazy or stupid. I do see the point someone made about ship insurance now paying out more than the ship is worth - that is mainly thanks to our friendly macros and farmiers selling that isk on ebay (its down to $20 now? wow...). The massive influx of minerals has made the once elite battleship a mere weeks savings more than a frigate, and that sux. Insurance has always been a bit whacked tho. It never takes into account any fittings on the ship, but as we know, you could easily insure the ship with a 200m setup then change it out to a 200k setup and reap the rewards that way, so I'm kinda glad it is the way it is. I DO think, however, insuance should be based on the average regional price and NOT the npc price of the mineral content. That way, if the price goes up again, people are still covered, while not allowing profits from low cost sales. One other little thing: There is NO ACCIDENTAL firing... All you vets should have pointed that out. The very first time you try to shoot another player, or good npc, you get that stupid pop-up (one for each weapon you tried to fire, too). If n00bs turn that off, they deserve to get concord ganked. There is, however, that messed up overview, but in time that will be fixed... probably just like drones got fixed :-/ Oh, well.
Ayla Vanir	Posted - 2006.02.06 02:28:00 - [46] Nice idea. Void insurance for illegal activity. I'd voice support for this - no real downside to it as far as I can tell. Escrow Market Revamp
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.02.06 10:27:00 - [47] You can't make ins depend on average price because it's absurdly easy to manipulate.
Pesadel0	Posted - 2006.02.06 10:57:00 - [48] Edited by: Pesadel0 on 06/02/2006 10:58:02 I agree with the OP ideia and make it so that all -10 can roam the 1.0 secure space like all the serpentis,angels,sansha,drones etc . I would be a happy man to go to jita ,rens every friday and kill 200 guys now that would be fun ^^
Moirane	Posted - 2006.02.06 11:29:00 - [49] i have 3 words for thoose who carry goods worth ****loads of ISK GIANT SECURE CANS prevents ppl from using whatever u'r carrying, makes they're sacrifice not worth much.
Sharcy	Posted - 2006.02.06 13:55:00 - [50] Originally by: Joerd Toastius Missing the point entirely. You shouldn't be shipping large amounts of stuff in an undefended transport. Get an escort already. The one who's missing the point here is you and all the other loudmouths who claim my post is a whine for more safety. Read it again and you'll see it's not. Drizit's post was excellent in describing the issue. - PVP is not the issue - Safety is not the issue - Piracy is not the issue - RL vs Game is not the issue The issue is that killing another player in hi sec has been deemed illegal by CONCORD, punishable by destruction. If that's the case, than paying out insurance for the same act is bizar and completely illogical. -- Sonnema is recruiting!

Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.02.06 14:26:00 - [51] Explain to me where my post was replying to you.
Ayla Vanir	Posted - 2006.02.06 14:37:00 - [52] Originally by: Joerd Toastius Explain to me where my post was replying to you. You'd posted in this thread, so there should be some level of confidence that your reply had something to do with the OP. But there's been some derailment. Soooo... back on topic: Insurance voided for activities deemed illegal by CONCORD. Great idea. Makes perfect sense. No downside. When does it go into effect? ;) Escrow Market Revamp
smallgreenblur	Posted - 2006.02.06 15:19:00 - [53] Good idea with the voidig insurance for illegal acts. Not gonna stop them, but makes the game more realistic. sgb
Chaoskeeper	Posted - 2006.02.06 15:28:00 - [54] I just see some problems with this idea: a) if you ever did a fleet battle in empire you know how fast you can target a wrong one in all the mess, so you can destroy a ship without wanting it b) Even if the guy had traveled with escort they couldn't do anything, Raven would still kill it and complice would still take the loot. Nobody has an escort of 5 indies as backup. c) **** happens.... I don't support those actions, no at all. But I think it's just the risk you take hauling that much isk at one time. Don't give up, 100mil isn't really alot if you work hard
Grey Area	Posted - 2006.02.06 15:34:00 - [55] Chaoskeeper; a. You answered this with the first two words of your point c. b. True an escort is no defence...so would you support the voiding of the insurance? c. Yes, it does, but in this case the ** is happening to someone who was an "innocent" victim...a little naive, maybe, but still innocent. Taking the insurance payment off the suicide ganker would at least make sure that the was spread around a bit. Originally by:** Avon Your sig is always a welcome sight... ...it means I've got to the end of your post.
Pang Grohl	Posted - 2006.02.06 18:54:00 - [56] Having been shot at in Hi-Sec space this weekend it's time to weigh in. I say deny the insurance pay out. Why? 2 reasons, 1) these tactics are being emulated by folks who can't correctly evaluate the risk vs. reward equation(my hold was empty when the attack happened), making the risk larger will deter this behavior until a player can make sure they have a gain on the action. 2) Since the perpetrators get to keep thier ill-gotten gains, let that be their reward for ratting in Hi-Secville. If a rat can catch me napping in hi-sec space & my loot is more valuable than his ship, he is welcome to try to make a profit at my expense. He shouldn't be profiting even if the attempt fails. Pang Forum: A place where ideas come to prove their worth.
Yurameki Daishun	Posted - 2006.02.06 23:15:00 - [57] one problem with that, insurance companies may choose to be seedy and hide things from Concord, we don't know if concord even bothers to police the insurance companies, they likely don't. Plus player corps should be able to do things like become insurance companies and such I think, make insurance more realistic, and make a lot of other things more player based to make the economy a bit more vibrant and interesting. Also the guy that scoops the loot should be flagged as stealing from both the offending pirate and the player that got blown, so he should be shot up by concord too, but unfortunately that's not how concord works.
Strongarm Sally	Posted - 2006.02.07 04:46:00 - [58] Originally by: Yurameki Daishun ...Also the guy that scoops the loot should be flagged as stealing from both the offending pirate and the player that got blown, so he should be shot up by concord too, but unfortunately that's not how concord works. No, but when you travel with escorts, in a gang, the thief is flagged TO THE ENTIRE GANG - I know because I hunt macros and have been flagged many, many times to entire gangs of macro-bots. This means (directed at the one above that said the accomplice would still take the loot) any escorts of the original hauler could, feasibly, fend off theft until they could get a new hauler there. Once an accomplice takes the loot and gets popped, just drop a new jet can and move the item back into your posession so the next thief gets flagged as well. Traveling with anything worth more than you can afford to lose without armed escort is plain silly. As for the secure can trick - once that can is in MY hold and taken back to MY hangar, I can REPACK it, without the need to enter a password. While it DOES prevent someone from getting a fix on what you have in your hold, just having a secure can could be enough to trigger an incident. Add to the fact that most of these folks are talking about things WAY MORE than 3900m3 in size... But, as it has been pointed out, that is not the issue in question. Paying insurance out to an explicitly illegal act should not be. It would be quite similar to me taking out auto insurance and getting into a high speed chase and totalling the car - think any sane insurance company will be paying for the car? It's just not practical, nor does it make any sort of sense, reality or not. Insurance companies are in it to make money, not give out a free ship with every ganking...
Corp Scammer	Posted - 2006.02.07 09:08:00 - [59] well then we need to find where the high sec gankers are and run basic industrials with sec cans with a password something like t2 BPO - when they gank u they loose a lot and of course there isnt a t2 BPO in the first place.
Sharcy	Posted - 2006.02.07 10:10:00 - [60] Originally by: Joerd Toastius Explain to me where my post was replying to you. Well, as I didn't see you quote anyone.... <points to Quote option above ^^^^> -- Sonnema is recruiting!

Halet Cu	Posted - 2006.02.07 14:58:00 - [61] Relating that to real-life analogies has no effect on the argument at all. Insurance in Eve isn't there because there's insurance in real life. Insruance is here to serve as a game mechanic that cushions shiplosses to a variable extent. It has more consequences that are part of its design, but that would be the main one. Hmm. Actually insurance in EVE is a copy of insurance in RL (albeit a bad one). Why else use the term "insurance"? Couple of points to make here. First, is the issue of play balance. If a pirate can sit at a 1.0 gate, gank defenseless frieghters AND make a profit because he is safely insured, while the "ganked" take a loss because they can't insure the contents of their ship, then there is something seriously wrong with the mechanics of the game. Granted all EVE isn't RL, but much of it is. The concept of law and order is built into the game. Thats why your drugs get confiscated, why you get kill rights, and why you suffer decreases in your security rating when you do nasty things and why Concord will KOS if you have a -5 sec. rating. I really believe the pirating actions described here are the result of some very creative players manipulating a glitch in the programming. My second comment is aimed at the pirates who undertake these activities. They are parasites, cowards and beneath contempt. They have either gotten very lazy or are simply too afraid to go play with the grown-ups in 0.0. My suggestion to them--get off your fat lazy a**es and PLAY THE GAME. If higher level gameplay in 0.0 is too challenging then quit EVE and go play WoW. Peace.
Halet Cu	Posted - 2006.02.07 14:58:00 - [62] Relating that to real-life analogies has no effect on the argument at all. Insurance in Eve isn't there because there's insurance in real life. Insruance is here to serve as a game mechanic that cushions shiplosses to a variable extent. It has more consequences that are part of its design, but that would be the main one. Hmm. Actually insurance in EVE is a copy of insurance in RL (albeit a bad one). Why else use the term "insurance"? Couple of points to make here. First, is the issue of play balance. If a pirate can sit at a 1.0 gate, gank defenseless frieghters AND make a profit because he is safely insured, while the "ganked" take a loss because they can't insure the contents of their ship, then there is something seriously wrong with the mechanics of the game. Granted all EVE isn't RL, but much of it is. The concept of law and order is built into the game. Thats why your drugs get confiscated, why you get kill rights, and why you suffer decreases in your security rating when you do nasty things and why Concord will KOS if you have a -5 sec. rating. I really believe the pirating actions described here are the result of some very creative players manipulating a glitch in the programming. My second comment is aimed at the pirates who undertake these activities. They are parasites, cowards and beneath contempt. They have either gotten very lazy or are simply too afraid to go play with the grown-ups in 0.0. My suggestion to them--get off your fat lazy a**es and PLAY THE GAME. If higher level gameplay in 0.0 is too challenging then quit EVE and go play WoEVE Online \| EVE Insider \| Forums
Organa	Posted - 2006.02.07 15:19:00 - [63] for those of you who are not pirates the insurance is not a factor one way or the other in sucide rating in high sec space if i see a hauler with vaulable cargo ifi can kill it before i get pwned and it runs away are the only factors becuse my m8 will get the cargo so all it comes down to is finding some one hauling good loot in an ez to kill hauler becuse if i make 4bill 100mill isnt really a big deal thefore with the game mechanics the insurance show be set up so that if i kill some one then i dont get the isk from insurance but if i do not then i get the isk this way ppl to fire accdently with get most of there isk back and rats killing ppl with not
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.02.07 16:55:00 - [64] The name's the same because it helps explain what the function does. However, the two concepts have fundamentally different justifications. I doubt that the SCC actually makes money off its insurance contracts, for example. As to the actual problem in question, I'm not sure that the question of whether the guys actually doing the indy-ganking should get insurance is teh big problem. The far bigger concern is the "blanket implementations" people are suggesting, which have the potential to unfairly penalise a lot of people. If you just void insurance for the actual kill, then people will have a frigate out with their gank group to take the hit. If you do it for everyone who attracts concord attention, you also hit the guy who got concordokkened during the Mordu's/Razor road trip to outer ring when he shot a razor pilot in empire by mistake, or the guy in the thread complaining about getting ganked after someone deliberately flew through his smart bomb. Insurance is at least partly there to cushion people's losses when they make mistakes - a blanket change risks penalising these people unfairly.
Ulle	Posted - 2006.02.20 15:23:00 - [65] From the point of view of the killed, the fairest thing probably would be to be refunded of his losses. A mechanism for this could include a sort of transport insurance that the hauler could buy before leaving the station, do be refunded only in case of illegal kill and paid as a fund transfer from the killer to the killed ... but this would create serious problems, exploits and loopholes elsewhere (debts, alt recycling, etc) so it's probably too hard to implement in a balanced and fair way. The idea of removing the insurance from the killer looks surely easier. To remove most honest mistakes from the equation, the no insurance rule could be applied only when the target actually dies and not just for simple aggression. But if they just want to remove most suicidal action ... just have Concord confiscate all loot from such battles, including the aggressor own items, to be given to the victim, deposited in the nearest station. (personally, I think the risk in empire hauling adds something to the game, especially if I have the tools to counter it or lessen the effects, but that's just me and I still have to haul anything of some value ... )
Endevite	Posted - 2006.02.20 15:54:00 - [66] /signed ---------------- Assumption is thy enemy. \| Portrait Malfunction :(
Fooball	Posted - 2006.02.22 20:21:00 - [67] I fail to see anything wrong with suicide piracy. That's why my Badger has usually all med slots full of shield extenders. I've had someone trying a suicide run on me... And failing miserably. It's one of the most funniest things you can do Tactics vs tactics, as usual. Just don't play stupid I say.


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.