Originally by: Creed Richards

---

This may have been spoken before, I apologize if it was.

Tell me CCP, were suicide gankers really what you intended?

Do you have to provide a potentially large reward for them to seek out and hunt in areas that should be safe?

---

Originally by: dragonssbane

---

Originally by: Creed Richards

---

This may have been spoken before, I apologize if it was.

Tell me CCP, were suicide gankers really what you intended?

Do you have to provide a potentially large reward for them to seek out and hunt in areas that should be safe?

---

A dangerous open ended game is what was intended. Read the back of the damn box. This game was intended to be played in a ruthless, dangerous and unforgiving environment, and has been played this way long before you decided to play.

You sir are being very selfish and self centered to expect that things should be changed to your point of view because you don't like the way we are playing the game the way it was intended to be played in the first place.

Deal with it...

---

Originally by: Morgann Atreus

---

Edited by: Morgann Atreus on 29/06/2007 19:59:30

Originally by: dragonssbane

---

Originally by: Creed Richards

---

This may have been spoken before, I apologize if it was.

Tell me CCP, were suicide gankers really what you intended?

Do you have to provide a potentially large reward for them to seek out and hunt in areas that should be safe?

---

A dangerous open ended game is what was intended. Read the back of the damn box. This game was intended to be played in a ruthless, dangerous and unforgiving environment, and has been played this way long before you decided to play.

You sir are being very selfish and self centered to expect that things should be changed to your point of view because you don't like the way we are playing the game the way it was intended to be played in the first place.

Deal with it...

---

Something of a wide sweeping assumption being presented as established fact here I feel.

Since when does CCP intend more than 50% of what happens in this game?

Would also like one of the pro gankers to comment on the logic of Concorded ships receiving insurance payouts; as a general principal I mean.

---

Originally by: Morgann Atreus

---

Edited by: Morgann Atreus on 29/06/2007 19:59:30

Originally by: dragonssbane

---

Originally by: Creed Richards

---

This may have been spoken before, I apologize if it was.

Tell me CCP, were suicide gankers really what you intended?

Do you have to provide a potentially large reward for them to seek out and hunt in areas that should be safe?

---

A dangerous open ended game is what was intended. Read the back of the damn box. This game was intended to be played in a ruthless, dangerous and unforgiving environment, and has been played this way long before you decided to play.

You sir are being very selfish and self centered to expect that things should be changed to your point of view because you don't like the way we are playing the game the way it was intended to be played in the first place.

Deal with it...

---

Something of a wide sweeping assumption being presented as established fact here I feel.

Since when does CCP intend more than 50% of what happens in this game?

Would also like one of the pro gankers to comment on the logic of Concorded ships receiving insurance payouts; as a general principal I mean.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Originally by: Morgann Atreus

---

Edited by: Morgann Atreus on 29/06/2007 19:59:30

Originally by: dragonssbane

---

Originally by: Creed Richards

---

This may have been spoken before, I apologize if it was.

Tell me CCP, were suicide gankers really what you intended?

Do you have to provide a potentially large reward for them to seek out and hunt in areas that should be safe?

---

A dangerous open ended game is what was intended. Read the back of the damn box. This game was intended to be played in a ruthless, dangerous and unforgiving environment, and has been played this way long before you decided to play.

You sir are being very selfish and self centered to expect that things should be changed to your point of view because you don't like the way we are playing the game the way it was intended to be played in the first place.

Deal with it...

---

Something of a wide sweeping assumption being presented as established fact here I feel.

Since when does CCP intend more than 50% of what happens in this game?

Would also like one of the pro gankers to comment on the logic of Concorded ships receiving insurance payouts; as a general principal I mean.

---

Would you like to comment on the logic of a one-time insurance payment that's less than a 3rd of the payout?

Since you ask, yes. Car insurance premiums are commonly paid yearly and it would be extremely odd if the premiums were more than a third of the insured amount except in the case of old cars being isured by high risk drivers. But then EvE isn't insuring
third party risks so the premiums should be even lower

Now. fair's fair. I addressed your point. How about you address mine?



They should rename insurance to a "recycling contract" for "mineral salvage" or some such. "SomeNameCorpÖ has paid you 105,000,000 ISK for the minerals salvaged from your wreck."

The nice people at SomeNameCorp don't care how you lost your ship, only for the tasty, tasty tritanium.

Eve was explicitly developed as a PvP game. The devs have explicitly said that it's supposed to be dark and dangerous. The FAQ explicitly says you're not 100% safe anywhere. If anyone doesn't like that sort of game, they're simply in the wrong game. Just like someone trying to play zero-contact ice hockey. If you want to skate on ice without the bruising impacts, take up figure skating or some such. (to extend the metaphor)

---

Originally by: Morgann Atreus

---

Not arguing with you mate. Just asking you to comment on whether getting paid out on your insurance after getting youself Concorded makes sense.

Asking me to justify some random stuff about premiums isn't addressing it; it's, rather obviously, blowing
smoke.

---

Originally by: Kylar Renpurs

---

I like suicide ganking. I dont do it, but it's a very realistic game dynamic.

Think of it as high-sec terrorism. Someone suicide ganks, they die, simple. Meanwhile someone (an alt somewhere nearby) benefits in some way.

People confuse high sec as being safe. It's not. period. If you're in a noobcorp, you cant be wardecced so thats protection. As a noob, that protects you when you *dont* understand the game, and more importantly, when you dont have anything of worth. When you start to become a target, through one mechanism or another, you have to learn how to protect your assets.

---

Originally by: Kuseka Adama

---

As far as i am concerned there is a damned easy solutuion to this

Allow players to buy free fire permits.

Free fire permit works as follows

Corp A plots a route with a concord offical/gm

Concord is hereby notified that corp A is authorized to return fire if attacked and is not to interfere in their battle.

Corp B decides to intercept. Corp B hits A A returns fire and everything works. Escorts in empire actually MEAN SOMETHING rather than getting concord ganked. But this permit ONLY applies to the route. Any action off the route will be responded to as normal.

the only other real option is raising the cost of insurance for those who suicide gank. The problem there is proving it. I think this makes both sides happy. A gets the ability to fight back. B can still give it a shot.

---

Originally by: frihetskjemper

---

Does corp not get attacking power when member is attacked in high security?

---

Originally by: FarScape III

---

No insurance is all it will take to have it make sense IMO.

and the drones should be shot at too,

but mostly the insurance makes no sense to be given out to players ganked by concord.

Is no insurance so hard to do?

---

Originally by: Tarminic

---

Originally by: frihetskjemper

---

Does corp not get attacking power when member is attacked in high security?

---

Can someone please ban this clown for necroing? He's done this to about half a dozen threads already. Stop trying to get attention.

---

Originally by: Sgt Blade

---

suicide gankers are fine, dont need any change tbh. if your really scared then put your stuff in secure cans so they cant scan you and/or bring protection

---

Originally by: MotherMoon

---

I say make a suicide gank implies suicide implying that you lose everything you came with, not you get paid back as much as your brought with insurance.

---

Originally by: Kutul

---

Signed.. just lost nearly all my assests ( not much anyways ) to a Domi and hauler in 0.6 wasnt even afk but on auto..


Spoke about it in a another thread and had it locked...

---

Originally by: morgannax

---

you wanna see how quick they change this

get a few thousand ppl to make a alt and start killing all the new players in the game. stop their source of new income and i bet they'll decide to do something

---