I just see ganked victims in here crying.
As long as CCP doen't announce anything in this direction im still there and waiting for your cargo.

From my point of view we (gankers) take huge amounts of isk out of the game ccp isnt able to cause of the nice botter ccp is to ****** do ban forever instead of 3 days for the 1st time. We should be awarded by free months for our work.

They are guilty of providing resources and materials for the enemy's war effort. They guilty of this because everyone is GÇö it's inherent in the design of the economy.
The victim is to blame if his actions needlessly and pointlessly elevate the risk. Is it your fault if you drive too fast to react and thus have an accident?
Why should it?

No insurance for beeing concorded is logical.

Of course not it makes no sense.

I dont know where you live, but here it is like, if YOU crash my car, YOUR insurance have to pay MY new car...or YOU and YOUR kids till the end of their lifetime.

Also - I should be able to additionally insure my cargo and get double payout when it got lost.

this is just a mechanic change which makes a lot of sense. the victim probably doesn't insure his miner/pve ship/hauler because you would lose alot of isk every 2 weeks. insurance is for risky operations where you have a high chance of losing your ship.

Point is that CCP is willingly bending over and taking it in the rear when they constantly give in to the preassure from the playerbase and changes what is seen as truisms of the game.

Eve online is a special, unique MMORPG

How so?

Paying out insurance to someone for what is a crimnal act is illogical.

I welcome this change, to be quite honest - it will make miners so much more complacent in their supposed "safety" that they will totally neglect taking any measures to protect themselves.

The trusims / principles of the game, or more precisely their implementation are subjective. For example one principle is risk vs reward, in the case of ganking in hi-sec (miners especially), I think the risk vs reward is out of balance in favour of the ganker, removing insurance is a step in returning to the one of the alleged principles of the game.

So, not only do you want to shoot at something that can't shoot back, you also want it to not flee either ... hmm ... I guess some people do find punching bags challenging and "fun".

OMG

Suicide ganking actually has a consequence now?

So we need alot more to end this crap.

Paying out insurance to someone for what is a crimnal act is illogical.

you only ask why something should change... and why not???

Again, you're confusing a game mechanic for real life. Insurance does not have the purpose you think it has, which is why it doesn't work the way you think it would work.
GǪby that logic, suicide-insurance should definitely pay out, considering how risky the operation is and how high the chance is of losing your ship (and if it's such a low risk for miners/PvEers/haulers that they don't need to insure their ships, then the supposed problem is rather overblown).

Its also illogical to build weapons and transport them to reprocess them to get nearly all the materials back u needed for the weapons just cause its smaller in the amount of cargo u need to be moved but noone cares about this (cause no carebear cried).

If u want a full logical universe turn your pc off and go outside

Again, you're confusing a game mechanic for real life. Insurance does not have the purpose you think it has, which is why it doesn't work the way you think it would work.
GǪby that logic, suicide-insurance should definitely pay out, considering how risky the operation is and how high the chance is of losing your ship (and if it's such a low risk for miners/PvEers/haulers that they don't need to insure their ships, then the supposed problem is rather overblown).

Sorry, are you talking about the miners or the gankers here?

No it's not. Paying out insurance in such a situation encourages the occurrence of that situation. It is only illogical if you assume that criminal acts are a bad thing and something that shouldn't be encouragedGǪ and I'm asking why shouldn't they be? They create a much-needed risk in highsec.

It's only illogical unrealistif from a real-world perspective, but they are game mechanics, not the real world, so that logic is rather irrelevant to how the mechanic fulfils its purpose.

there is a difference between high chance and sure chance. a miner who goes to null/low has a high risk and will insure but a ganker knows exactly what happens.

If I my car crashes or is blown to pieces during police chase (after me) do I get insurance paid out ?
You cant insure risk of beeing punished for wilful illegal activities. It plain simple.

It is illogical from a game world perspective

As for the game mechanic aspect, that is subjective, you think it is needed, others (including me) think the risk vs reward is too much in favour of the ganker in hi-sec and removing insurance evens that up a little.

... create a much-needed risk in high security..

Sure chance is the highest risk there is GÇö it's when the probability factor in your Cost +ù Probability equation is 1. I just find it rather telling that it is so pointless to insure your ship for every-day highsec activities. It suggests to me that the risks are a bit too lowGǪ

That depends. What is the purpose of the insurance company? Is it to make money and to try to not get thrown in jail for aiding crime? Then yes, you won't be able to insure against it and any such actions will void the contract you haveGǪ

GǪbut again, that is not the purpose of insurance in EVE, so there is nothing to say that you shouldn't/wouldn't/couldn't insure against such eventualities or that it shouldn't pay out. Real life is a great argument if you want to remove insurance completely (because everything that happens to you in-game that would make it pay out would void the contract if it were real life).

GǪif you assume that it is a business, not a game mechanic. Unfortunately for that line of logic, it is a game mechanic; it is not a business. So the logic of business does not apply, whereas the logic of game mechanics does GÇö within that logic, paying out insurance for criminal acts isn't strange in the least.
Yes! And my point is that this is where the debate should lie, because that is where the logic of the payouts comes from GÇö arguments about real life businesses completely miss the point and are utterly irrelevant because they have nothing to do with the logic of the mechanic. This is why I keep asking GÇ£whyGÇ¥: why is this adjustment of risk vs. reward (for both parties) needed? Why do the gankers need more risk and the victims less? Why can't/don't/shouldn't the victims do that adjustment on their own?

Since you were actually quoting me, not Ryllic SinGǪYes? Just because it is GǣhighGǥ security doesn't mean it should be without risk, nor does it mean that it can't use more risk than it currently has. Over time, GǣhighGǥ sec has edged closer and closer to complete sec, which has a number of harmful consequences. I would prefer that it was edged back towards being merely high security (relatively speaking, compared to the low security of low sec and the no self-made security of nullsec).
Yes? It has become a bit too rare, moving more towards scam spam and various aggression juggling (can flipping and the like), making it rare to see proper crime in space. Such acts rather seem to need a bit of encouraging in this day and age, to bump up that risk of flying in space a bit and to further stimulate the economic effects of such crime.

That's the funny thing about EVE: the way the game is set up, criminal behaviour is not a bad thing GÇö quite the opposite. Rampant criminality in EVE can have a silly amount of very positive effects.

But this change will do almost nothing to protect miners themselves, whilst it will radically increase the protection to freighters and orcas. If anything the poor schmoe in a mining marge is going to be slightly worse off, because he'll still be on that list of near-free-to-gank targets.

We better hope that Soundwave goes ahead and changes drones to bounty rats soon.

Since you were actually quoting me, not Ryllic SinGǪ

Yes? Just because it is GÇ£highGÇ¥ security doesn't mean it should be without risk, nor does it mean that it can't use more risk than it currently has. Over time, GÇ£highGÇ¥ sec has edged closer and closer to complete sec, which has a number of harmful consequences. I would prefer that it was edged back towards being merely high security (relatively speaking, compared to the low security of low sec and the no self-made security of nullsec).

Yes? It has become a bit too rare, moving more towards scam spam and various aggression juggling (can flipping and the like), making it rare to see proper crime in space. Such acts rather seem to need a bit of encouraging in this day and age, to bump up that risk of flying in space a bit and to further stimulate the economic effects of such crime.

That's the funny thing about EVE: the way the game is set up, criminal behaviour is not a bad thing GÇö quite the opposite. Rampant criminality in EVE can have a silly amount of very positive effects.

This is actually a change in the right direction. Obviously it will not stop suicide ganking. However, it should slightly curb it by forcing predators to be a wee bit more selective.

Also, in before Tippia's "How so?"

No, your statement is more of a Gǣwhy?Gǥ kind of thing, because you elaborate on the Gǣhow soGǥ partGǪ

Why is curbing ganking a change in the right direction?


GǪalso, I liked your first version of the post better.

That depends. What is the purpose of the insurance company? Is it to make money and to try to not get thrown in jail for aiding crime? Then yes, you won't be able to insure against it and any such actions will void the contract you haveGǪ

GǪbut again, that is not the purpose of insurance in EVE, so there is nothing to say that you shouldn't/wouldn't/couldn't insure against such eventualities or that it shouldn't pay out. Real life is a great argument if you want to remove insurance completely (because everything that happens to you in-game that would make it pay out would void the contract if it were real life).

Bombers are more fragile than, say, Punishers. Nobody complains about that.

Why is curbing ganking a change in the right direction?