EVE Search - Insurance remboursing suicide Hi Sec. Should be removed!

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Insurance remboursing suicide Hi Sec. Should be removed!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Miri Tirzan Caldari Clan Korval	Posted - 2007.01.16 15:16:00 - [31] Originally by: Asinia Au I disagree with the OP, and with the idea of changing insurance as a whole. From day 1 EVE has been about risk vs. reward. The greater the reward, the greater the risk. That is just as true in 1.0 space as it is in 0.0. If you make yourself a target by filling huge mining barges with valuable minerals with no security, then you are providing a tempting target for someone on the other side of the risk vs. reward equation. It is not EVE that needs to change, it is the mindset of those who live in the EVE universe. Get a clue, there is not much that can be done to stop a sucide ganker. Why? - Most are in NPC corps, so war dec is out. - They get to pick the fight and take the first shot, so Concord protects them till they commit the crime. - They generally work as a group of alts with a hauler alt sitting beside the target to loot the wreck. Not having insurance pay them is the least of what should be done. Personally, I think that if a player that is part of an NPC corp commits a crime, that corp kicks him out and makes him a member of a criminal corp, but that is just IMHO. svetlana - "whining gets you stuff. that is why humans got to the top of the food chain and all the other animals got nerfed."
Ki An Gallente The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2007.01.16 15:26:00 - [32] /Signed on the condition that no insurance is payed out for a hauler or miner who did not take adequate means to protect himself from attack, i.e. a good tank on his ship and/or barge, and a security detail if the ship contained valuable cargo. I mean, as most of you in this thread like to draw dubious RL analogies, no insurance company in the world would insure a bank who transported cash in shopping carts. /Ki
Wyehr	Posted - 2007.01.16 15:27:00 - [33] Originally by: checkmarquet Originally by: Wyehr Originally by: checkmarquet When your about to shoot someone you have a warning message. If you removed it you can reset it by the ingame options. So there is no excuses for wrong targeting + shooting. You've obviously never used remote repair systems or repair drones. No, sorry i dont =) Try it some time. Let me know how long your warning box lasts.
Vasiliyan PAX Interstellar Services Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.16 15:27:00 - [34] Removing insurance increases the number of people who quit because they get ganked, suicide or otherwise; also it makes remote repair in Empire an even more dangerous prospect.
Mike Yagon Minmatar The Nest Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.16 15:36:00 - [35] Insurance loss? Jail time? Harsher penalties? Sure, because EVE is Real Life. Check The True EVE Player thread. Then guess which percentage you fit in? I've never had much trouble with suicide gankers. It's been tried, and they failed. If you get suicide ganked carrying 15.000 units of Zydrine in an unprotected hauler, then that's a nice swipe for that pirate. You made the stupid, STUPID choice of carrying millions of isk in assets in a ship that's worth a mere fraction of it. As for mining barges getting ganked, time to stop mining in high population areas. I've mined with an alt in a barge for days on end once. I've never once seen a suicide ganker, nor ever had any ore stolen from me. Taking away insurance from aggressors is not always fair. Some of the CONCORD losses happen due to accidents. (Activating smartbombs is a good example.) Some CONCORD losses are incurred due to Drones figuring it's a good idea to attack your gang members instead of the hostiles. The list goes on. ------ In Carebear We Trust
Polonium 210	Posted - 2007.01.16 15:38:00 - [36] Edited by: Polonium 210 on 16/01/2007 15:35:34 Originally by: Thaneal Swiftbird More challenging? The whole point of an RPG? It is enough challenging if compared to hi-sec missions or multiaccount hi-sec mining operations. If it was less challeging nobody would mine or do missions. Quote: Because otherwise the artifical society of eve (and therefor the whole game) is broken? No it isn't. Suicide gankers lose standing and ships. Their deeds are always revenged by the police. Don't think anything that could break the lore. Quote: Would you play football with someone who repeatedly kicks you in your balls? Football has rules which don't allow kicks in the balls. EVE has rules which explicitly allow suicide gankings. That's why there are 6(six) gradations of secure space, from 0.5 to 1.0, and the difference in concord arriving time. Quote: What do you think why every game has rules and unwritten "stuff you are just not supposed to do, otherwise people will call you an *****"? Eve has rules which state that killing in hisec is stuff that is _supposed_ to do. And there's no unwritten stuff that suiciding is bad, do not make it up. For quite a few of people I know it is perfectly good. Quote:** Why care to have a sci-fi setup with background story and all, just to let it go down the drain for some stupid gankers. I have said it before. We have nations in this game. Pirates are hurting the economies of those nations, killing their citizens (who pay them taxes btw), making them more vulnerable to attacks from the other nations. But they do not put any sanctions on the baddies? They even let insurance companies pay reimbursements to the murderers? Yeah, very likely. Stop that propaganda, really. I know that many people don't used to see opinions that are fundamentally, not in detail, contradict with theirs. That's not your flaw, that's how the system works in so called "western democracies", but please, let us live without that bs there in game. I like feeling that i can be suicided in hisec. You don't like it? Bad to you, but don't impose your seeing of situation on another people.
Mira deVorsha Caldari Boards.ie	Posted - 2007.01.16 16:04:00 - [37] Originally by: Lucio Maybe suicide ganking should just be banned as part of the EULA as there's very very few good gameplay reasons for it. Huge amounts of profits on a kill, stopping traders flooding an area you are trading in, denying alliances from making easy profits. There are ways to counter suicide camps very easy. Learn how rather then whining to have it added to the EULA.
Cabadrin Caldari Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.01.16 16:10:00 - [38] How could you possibly structure CONCORD to understand what s a "suicide" attack and what is an accident? _______________________________________________
Mira deVorsha Caldari Boards.ie	Posted - 2007.01.16 16:11:00 - [39] Originally by: Miri Tirzan Get a clue, there is not much that can be done to stop a sucide ganker. There are many ways to stop suicide gankers. Just because you can't wardec them doesn't you can't stop it. First do some research. Here let me help you a little. 1. Determine how much it costs to fit a suicide ship. That is the suiciders baseline. They will normally want to be making at least double that on their kill. 2. Scout ahead, although all major hubs have suicide camps. Drop cargo a couple of jumps away. If your prices are ok people do the 1-2 jumps away. 3. Get a ship that can withstand an attack for the level of cargo you are shipping. 4. Attack the suicide camper. This will get you concorded bringing the cops into the location while your buddy moves the cargo through. Simple bottom line is this. You move really expensive cargo in a ship that can't withstand attack then your asking to get spanked.
Blindscythe	Posted - 2007.01.16 16:12:00 - [40] I'm pretty amazed that the ships can get insured at all really, considering you are primarily throwing them into combat every 5 minutes
Thaneal Swiftbird	Posted - 2007.01.16 16:50:00 - [41] Edited by: Thaneal Swiftbird on 16/01/2007 16:49:41 Edited by: Thaneal Swiftbird on 16/01/2007 16:49:24 Quote: Stop that propaganda, really. I know that many people don't used to see opinions that are fundamentally, not in detail, contradict with theirs. That's not your flaw, that's how the system works in so called "western democracies", but please, let us live without that bs there in game. I like feeling that i can be suicided in hisec. You don't like it? Bad to you, but don't impose your seeing of situation on another people. edited - a few errors A very entertaining post. Especially the "western democracies" thingie. Nearly fell off my chair. Thank you very much, you just made my day. Are you by any chance one of them "true eveplayers" one reads so much about here on these forums? Because, if you are, could I propably get your autograph then? That would be a noble gift for a not-so true eveplayer like me massa. With best regards Thaneal Swiftbird
Morden Nok Cohortes Vigilum Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.16 17:13:00 - [42] First: Personally I don't think that insurance from Concordokkened targets should be removed. Considering the massive amount of ships lost in empire wars for overview bugs and just plain bad luck, ships changing place in overview, accidentally clicking F1 and a gate right after that in fast locking ship. Originally by: Cabadrin How could you possibly structure CONCORD to understand what s a "suicide" attack and what is an accident? No way that I can think of. Though there is very, very easy to approximate it: if you take part in action that gives you sec hit for ship killing, your insurance in in high-sec will be void for next few minutes. This is long enough for Concord to kill you. Technically easier to do this way: 1) ship goes boom 2) check if sec status loss for ship kill within 5 minutes in high-sec, if so do nothing. 3) no ship kill -> check insurance level and pay it out. Disclaimer: I have not been Concordokkened nor have I been suicide ganked. I take precations for the latter and am bit paranoid in empire about the former.
Morden Nok Cohortes Vigilum Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.16 17:13:00 - [43] First: Personally I don't think that insurance from Concordokkened targets should be removed. Considering the massive amount of ships lost in empire wars for overview bugs and just plain bad luck, ships changing place in overview, accidentally clicking F1 and a gate right after that in fast locking ship. Originally by: Cabadrin How could you possibly structure CONCORD to understand what s a "suicide" attack and what is an accident? No way that I can think of. Though there is very, very easy to approximate it: if you take part in action that gives you sec hit for ship killing, your insurance in in high-sec will be void for next few minutes. This is long enough for Concord to kill you. Technically easier to do this way: 1) ship goes boom 2) check if sec status loss for ship kill within 5 minutes in high-sec, if so do nothing. 3) no ship kill -> check insurance level and pay it out. Disclaimer: I have not been Concordokkened nor have I been suicide ganked. I take precations for the latter and am bit paranoid in empire about the former.
Vladikov Orrico	Posted - 2007.01.16 20:30:00 - [44] I get a kick out of threads like this. In response to the OP, I totally agree that insurance should be yanked on a character that shows trends towards this type of behavior. It's only fair. This entire forum board is full of "tough guys" who claim this is all about loss and if you you don't like it then get out and go carebear in WoW." Then you see threads like this where those same type of people all of a sudden get defensive..."why would you yank insurance...real life dictates that this would not happen.." etc etc. whine whine....someone call the waaahbulance. My response to that, "put your money where your mouth is." You want it fast and loose? That is about as fast and loose as it gets. You can continue your precious ganking trends...but now you actually have some risk on the table. The current people who gloat on one thread and then whine on another....are pure and simple cowards. If you were half the pirates you claim to be you'd get your head of out concord's backside and get some guts. Nuff said. Please continue the whines.
Asinia Au	Posted - 2007.01.16 20:34:00 - [45] How 'bout CCP just yanks insurance for everybody and is done with it?
Vladikov Orrico	Posted - 2007.01.16 20:48:00 - [46] I'd be willing compromise and say that any miner in empire who keeps getting his ship blown up would lose his insurance coverage sure.... 1 or 2 times is a learning lesson, but if you are getting ganked that many times...get protection or pay for your own ship replacements... Just to keep things fair on both sides...
James Snowscoran Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.16 20:55:00 - [47] Hey, I got an interesting POV for you. Insurance in EVE doesn't make sense. Why? Well, the entire system is designed so that it pays out over twice as much cash as goes into the system, since most ships that get insured gets destroyed before the 3 months are up. If I'd been the CEO of pend insurance, I'd get out of the capsuleer market with immediate effect. So yeah, insurance is just a game mechanic that exists to ease the pain of losing a t1 ships (doesn't affect t2 so much). It doesn't discriminate and tbh it shouldn't either. There are already very convincing game mechanics in place to protect victims of highsec attacks, which is called CONCORD. -----
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.16 21:02:00 - [48] If Insurance were removed, I for one would PvP a lot less in 0.0, both from neccessity and frustration of having to re-amass an extra 60 million isk on top of whatever else I've lost jsut to be able to play again. Insurance was put in to facilitate more PvP, so it isn't going any time soon. I would like to see insurance disappear if you get CONCORDed, though. If you commit a crime, you shouldn't be reimbursed for it- its just common sense. you can still suicide gank if you want, but atleast the profit margin is shrunk somewhat. -----------------------------------------------
Agent Li Galactic Defence Consortium	Posted - 2007.01.16 21:02:00 - [49] Originally by: Miri Tirzan Edited by: Miri Tirzan on 16/01/2007 Well, lets take the training wheels off for PvP. If you start a war, no insurance. If you argree to have a war, no insurance. If you get concord ganked, no insurance. If you start a fight and lose, no insurance. If you fly an industrial with no shield tank or no armor tank, no insurance payout. It's like driving without brakes.
Galimiy Portret R.u.S.H. Red Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.16 21:04:00 - [50] /signed to invalidate insurance if killed by CONCORD. ...now in RED
Buster Gonads	Posted - 2007.01.16 21:06:00 - [51] Edited by: Buster Gonads on 16/01/2007 21:02:49 Originally by: Agent Li Originally by: Miri Tirzan Well, lets take the training wheels off for PvP. If you start a war, no insurance. If you argree to have a war, no insurance. If you get concord ganked, no insurance. If you start a fight and lose, no insurance. If you fly an industrial with no shield tank or no armor tank, no insurance payout. It's like driving without brakes. Bad analogy. It's like driving through Manhattan without an armor plated car.
Stakhanov Gallente	Posted - 2007.01.16 21:09:00 - [52] Oh , and what about those of you self-destructing their ships to get insurance ? Killing hundreds or thousands of crew members in the process... you murderers
Cipher7	Posted - 2007.01.16 21:14:00 - [53] Highsec is for new players. Those who own barges should get out of highsec. Those who can do level 4 missions should get out of highsec. You are no longer a new player, stop abusing the new player area.
Ekscalybur	Posted - 2007.01.16 21:22:00 - [54] Originally by: James Snowscoran There are already very convincing game mechanics in place to protect victims of highsec attacks, which is called CONCORD. While my views on this is probably very similiar to yours, I really have a prob with this bit here. Showing up after you have died or your ship has blown up is most certainly not protection. Its more like retribution. Concorde protects no one. They just hand out punishment for crimes committed. They just happen to show up in the middle of crime most times. But they are most assuredly not protecting people, and us players need to get forget the idea that they do protect. If they materialized the instant the aggressive act started, then we could probably call it protection. Sorry I went off on a rant like that.
Dawnstar Gallente Kiroshi Group	Posted - 2007.01.16 21:47:00 - [55] This isn't a new debate. Its been around since the early days of Eve. I have held the opinion for the last several years that the insurance system really needs an overhaul. As one poster mentioned - the CEO of PEND really needs to take a hard look at income vs payout for pod pilots. I must admit that I'd be curious as to what Eve-wide the payout vs payin ratio for insurance is. I think that a shift towards a real world model of how insurance works would cure many of the complaints that have been expressed about the insurance system. Suicide gankers would only be able to profit form a couple of insurance payouts before its no longer worthwhile. The miner who keeps getting ganked would see higher and higher insurance rates. Likewise those who keep repeatedly losing their ships will start paying bigger and seeing penalties for doing so. Those who blow up their ships simply because the insurance is due won't be doing this much more. Some will complain that it will kill pvp. I think that this won't be the case. For one it gives a bit more of a bite to the pvp battles. The more often you kill a player, the more costly each subsequent kill becomes as his/her insurance rates skyrocket. I think it will cause a slight shift downward in the ships most people fly in PVP, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. And of course, if the rates are too high, people will fly uninsured. -D
Jenny Spitfire Caldari Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.16 21:52:00 - [56] Concorded ships should not be reimbursed but PVPers will whine. --------- Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria! Kali is for KArebearLIng. I 100% agree with Avon. Female EVE gamers? Mail Zajo or visit WGOE.Public in-game.
Rabb Darktide Independent Fleet O X I D E	Posted - 2007.01.16 22:04:00 - [57] Originally by: Cipher7 Those who own barges should get out of highsec. Yep, because we all know the market is just FLOODED with common minerals right now.. Originally by: Cipher7 Those who can do level 4 missions should get out of highsec. You are no longer a new player, stop abusing the new player area. Obviously what CCP intended, after all, they didn't put any level 4 agents in highsec.

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.