EVE Search - *** STOP INSURANCE PAYOUTS TO EMPIRE GANKING! ***

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

*** STOP INSURANCE PAYOUTS TO EMPIRE GANKING! ***

» 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)
Mavrix Able Black Avatar	Posted - 2007.10.02 20:34:00 - [31] Even though its a game, I don't see how insurance can be compared to any real world scenario. In which part of the modern world can you legally buy a combat vessel (alright a few) and furtermore - insure it? (Yes; if you wanna compare spaceships with automobiles, everything with a gun is a combat vessel, IE. tank, apc, etc. and not a Ford Fiesta.) -NWS/Mav
Alz Shado Ever Flow FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.02 20:48:00 - [32] It's risk vs. reward. Assuming they're not just griefing but looking to profit, the highsec pirate is making the bet that the target is worth more than his ship is. Since there's the inevitable CONCORDOKKEN in .5+, the pirate has to include a lost ship as the "cost of doing business". The problem is that insurance mitigates that cost by reimbursing the pirate a portion of that ship's value. All it does is boost the pirate's bottom line, making ganking more profitable and thus increasing the popularity of the profession. While I'm not inherently against highsec ganking, I don't think that not fair to the "gankee" that the "ganker"'s risk is minimized while they suffer the burdeon of risk without reward (ie, they don't get anything for not getting ganked). What if the ganked pilot receives the insurance payout from the CONCORDOKKENed Ganker's ship if they survive the attack? Then there's the risk to the pirate (losing their ship, plus insurance payout) plus a reward to the innocent, providing the incentive not just to avoid ganks, but to perhaps seek them out and bait the pirates for their insurance money with tanked-up haulers and such.
Mirirar Solstice Systems Development Concourse	Posted - 2007.10.02 23:08:00 - [33] I think what you really meant is: "no insurance payout for people who loose ships to concord"
GeneticWeapon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.02 23:26:00 - [34] Awesome thread.
Naervic Gallente Brotherhood of the Shadows Momentum Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.02 23:57:00 - [35] I have to agree with the OP, insurance payouts should not be paid to those who lose their ships to Concord. Its easy to code and it makes sense. One of the most popular arguments against this is that its a game and not real life. But then the game is based on some form of logic. We're flying ships, and not hollowed out avacodos along with giant rubber ducky titans. Why? Because it would be stupid, and illogical. We know from science fiction, and our own space programs in real life that mechanical objects are required for space travel. The EVE Universe was entered using a wormhole, again something we can relate too and makes sense. Methods of cloning, communication, all make sense on some scale of logic if not actually true. If you don't believe me read into the scientific background, CCP wrote some extensive fiction to explain on how alot of things work. Now this is no argument that everything has to be exact to real life, and I know there will always be some inconsistencies, but removing insurance payouts for crimes committed seems reasonable and yes, logical. Suicide ganking isn't destroyed you just have to either... target more expensive haulers/freighters, or figure out cheaper ships and setups to suicide with.
Bish Ounen Gallente Omni-Core Freedom Fighters Combined Planetary Union	Posted - 2007.10.03 00:03:00 - [36] Originally by: Sixtina KL Think about it, folks. Think about it really hard. You perform a drive-by shooting and lead the police on a wild 2-hour chase against you. In the end, you take a corner too fast, panic, spin out and total your ride into a tree. Good luck getting your car insurance to cough up some cash for you. Dude... Your face...
Coran Ordus Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.10.03 00:07:00 - [37] Originally by: Alz Shado The problem is that insurance mitigates that cost by reimbursing the pirate a portion of that ship's value. All it does is boost the pirate's bottom line, making ganking more profitable and thus increasing the popularity of the profession. Conversely... removing the insurance just alters the bottom line a little. Do people really think it'll make much of a difference? With freighters and haulers full of billions of isk of goods, tweaking the cost of the gank by a few hundred million isn't going to matter. Furthermore, you punish newbies. No high sec insurance, or no insurance for being killed by concord, is going to be a lot harder on someone who made a dumb mistake than a pirate. It's not worth the trade-off as far as I'm concerned.
Naervic Gallente Brotherhood of the Shadows Momentum Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.03 00:10:00 - [38] Originally by: Coran Ordus Originally by: Alz Shado The problem is that insurance mitigates that cost by reimbursing the pirate a portion of that ship's value. All it does is boost the pirate's bottom line, making ganking more profitable and thus increasing the popularity of the profession. Conversely... removing the insurance just alters the bottom line a little. Do people really think it'll make much of a difference? With freighters and haulers full of billions of isk of goods, tweaking the cost of the gank by a few hundred million isn't going to matter. Furthermore, you punish newbies. No high sec insurance, or no insurance for being killed by concord, is going to be a lot harder on someone who made a dumb mistake than a pirate. It's not worth the trade-off as far as I'm concerned. But it can also conversely help newbies. Newbies starting their trade runs don't have to worry about carrying some of their first expensive cargo and being suicide ganked as they aren't yet in the profitable range to suicide.
RedLion Caldari Caldari Navy II	Posted - 2007.10.03 00:24:00 - [39] People who say learn to addapt are generally a bunch of fails. (who can't learn to addapt a valid situation themself.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Gallenteans must be destroyed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Captian Internet Lead Bricks	Posted - 2007.10.03 04:39:00 - [40] just remove all insurance ffs Changes to Local,War ,Navigation Shortcuts

redwing487	Posted - 2007.10.03 09:14:00 - [41] want to act like a criminal you should be treated like a criminal.. removing insurance from concord kills will make the gankers look for more profitable targets. giving the new guy with his t1 hauler more of a chance to make his 1st few million isk. a risk v reward thingy people keep on about. at the moment it is a reward v reward which to my mind doesn't make sense for being a bad guy. so remove there insurance and make them work a bit harder like the rest of us.
Sheriff Jones Amarr Please Enter Password	Posted - 2007.10.03 09:18:00 - [42] Edited by: Sheriff Jones on 03/10/2007 09:19:17 Actually removing insurance from CONCORD kills would be logical. Since we can petition if it was an "accident". BUT...that would mean we'd need some form of "criminal blueprints" to make weaker ships, like scrapyard ships(not minmatar ships ) or an actual suicide ship. My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit.
Captian Internet Lead Bricks	Posted - 2007.10.03 09:35:00 - [43] Originally by: redwing487 want to act like a criminal you should be treated like a criminal.. removing insurance from concord kills will make the gankers look for more profitable targets. giving the new guy with his t1 hauler more of a chance to make his 1st few million isk. a risk v reward thingy people keep on about. at the moment it is a reward v reward which to my mind doesn't make sense for being a bad guy. so remove there insurance and make them work a bit harder like the rest of us. Clicking autopilot is hard work? Changes to Local,War ,Navigation Shortcuts
Plentimon Amarr Amarr Tech Defense Industries	Posted - 2007.10.03 09:36:00 - [44] Edited by: Plentimon on 03/10/2007 09:43:04 Edited by: Plentimon on 03/10/2007 09:42:19 Originally by: redwing487 removing insurance from concord kills will make the gankers look for more profitable targets. giving the new guy with his t1 hauler more of a chance to make his 1st few million isk. a risk v reward thingy people keep on about. Exactly. I don't think anybody believes that removing insurance payouts for being popped by Concord will bring an end to high-sec suicide ganking. But it will make the gankers be more selective with their targets. Under the current situation given that gankers essentially can't lose anything but 15 minutes of their time even if the target gets away, pretty much anyone carrying anything in their hold is a viable target, it's just a matter of how much money you want to make off a given kill. Originally by: Coran Ordus Furthermore, you punish newbies. No high sec insurance, or no insurance for being killed by concord, is going to be a lot harder on someone who made a dumb mistake than a pirate. It's not worth the trade-off as far as I'm concerned. Well, to be honest, if you're flying around in something more expensive than you can make back with a few missions/mining runs/trades, and you're still doing the kinds of things that get you Concordokkened when a warning window pops up when you try it, maybe not getting insurance from it will serve as a valuable lesson.
Winters Chill Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2007.10.03 09:41:00 - [45] Originally by: Foghail Edited by: Foghail on 02/10/2007 17:27:01 1. This is not a Hate Thread for Empire Ganker's you guys provide a Darwin approach to the game. 2. If you have enough rocks in your head to put 100m+ isk work if stuff in a t1 hauler you get what you deserve. 3. Insurance companies do not pay out if you destroy your property by police, so why does Pend Insurance / Eve Cental bank when Concord kills you. 4. I'm thinking the three strike rule should come in here, you do it 3 times in empire and welcome to -10.0 you want to be a bad ass criminal and rip people off for what they have, you get caught by concord every time so here it is. Its not stopping empire ganking but making it what it is a truly criminal act. p.s. Salvaging my wreaks is stealing from me, so why isn't ccp flagging the guys that are doing it so i can have more pew pew... 1. hmmmm 2. Agreed 3. Because pend is a megacorp, they don't care who they insure so long as they get your cash. Pend isn't some earth bound corporation bound by the laws of the government of the country they are based in. If one of the governements decide to force Pend to behave a certain way, they would just leave and go live in syndicate...oh...wait. 4. no because pend are megacorp outside the auspices of the four major powers etc (read above) Another thing your forgetting, pend supply you with "something slightly better than a Pod" when you die, what you are suggest would really hurt new players.
Cyberman Mastermind	Posted - 2007.10.03 10:18:00 - [46] Originally by: Winters Chill Another thing your forgetting, pend supply you with "something slightly better than a Pod" when you die, what you are suggest would really hurt new players. The free rookie ship is not tied to insurance. You get it whenever you dock (in pod) without having a ship on the station. -------------------------------------------------- I'm a rich person. How I know? I can afford to be a miner.
Lucre STK Scientific M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.03 10:27:00 - [47] In my early days in Eve - a long long time ago in a galaxy very far away (or at least very different) from the one we have now! - I was flying a Vexor on missions. It was my only cruiser and represented over 90% of my assets. In those days there were gate rats in Empire and I shot at a couple. They got too close for railguns however - no problem, I thought and hit the smartbomb, not noticing how close I was to the gate... Suddenly there was this machine-gun sound and my shields, armour and hull started vanishing at an alarming rate as the sentries splattered me for bombing the jump-gate! And a few seconds later I was sitting in a capsule, thanking fate that I'd finally got around to buying insurance the previous day! (And there was no 40% default back then either!) Those were my n00b days, and insurance saved me from losing almost everything I had to one stupid mistake. And I'll bet it's doing exactly the same for today's new players. So how do we preserve the payouts for those who make that one dumb mistake, but stop them for those taking advantage of the system to gank for free? I don't know, but insurance was put in for a reason and it still needs to be able to provide that role.
Plave Okice 5hockWave Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.03 10:42:00 - [48] I'm not going to read all the replies in this thread, I don't need to, I've read them before in many threads. Fact of the matter is removing insurance will not stop suicide ganking. As it stands with insurance my fitted Brutix will cost me 2-4 mill to suicide, without insurance it will cost me about 27 mill. The worst loot I have grabbed from a suicide gank is 80 mill, the norm is 120-200 mill, a number of times it has been 600 mill +. So will it stop me or others form doing it? No of course it won't, what would stop us doing it is people actually playing the game not thinking they can AFK their way around anywhere they want and not have to even sit at their PC to make ISK.
Cyberman Mastermind	Posted - 2007.10.03 12:22:00 - [49] Originally by: Lucre Those were my n00b days, and insurance saved me from losing almost everything I had to one stupid mistake. Todays ships aren't that expensive anymore. Nowadays everyone should know that you don't use dumbbombs(smartbombs) in empire. Originally by: Plave Okice Fact of the matter is removing insurance will not stop suicide ganking. So? Who is asking for that? (I would, but I don't. The OP doesn't either.) Quote: As it stands with insurance my fitted Brutix will cost me 2-4 mill to suicide, without insurance it will cost me about 27 mill. Then without insurance, ships will suddenly be at least 5 times more safe than before, in High-Sec.
Jowen Datloran Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2007.10.03 13:58:00 - [50] Suicide ganks are great for EVE. But: Originally by: Mirirar "no insurance payout for people who loose ships to concord" Yes, please. ---------------- Mr. Science & Trade Institute

Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.10.03 14:06:00 - [51] Better yet, remove concord ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Extra Dry	Posted - 2007.10.03 14:39:00 - [52] Will the "Suicide Gankers" please stop vilifying and denigrating your victims. It is that very thinking that made possible all the worst events of mankind's history. Stop trying to role it in sugar, you are the perpetrator!. Furthermore the availability of victims will never justify predatory behavior and is no more Darwinian or Gladiatorial than the junky who waits outside a retirement village to teach old folks not to carry to much money on them. ôOh but Its a legitimate game mechanic for making ISKö some have argued, but so was the 1 billion isk Hulks and the rest of the T2 monopoly. Likewise this has proved to be an unfair game mechanism as well and is not in keeping with the ôspirit of the gameö. I would like to see CCP go one step further than not paying the insured criminal but instead giving the ISK to the victim in a ôVictim's of Crime ô deal like that which in place the world over. Now while that may address the current double reward system for Ganker's it does not deal with the little to no risk aspect of this nefarious activity. Clearly the only way to ramp up the risk is to make Kill Rights transferable. Incorporate it into the defunct Bounty System so that Kill Rights could be sold and then perhaps the mocking laughter surrounding the Bounty System will subside. We may then get some real Combat-Player V Combat-Player going on in Empire not the current "Combat V Industrial" so many Jellyfish loosely term PVP. Just think of the added excitement of never knowing who has your ticket !
SN3263827 The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2007.10.03 14:44:00 - [53] I fully support the idea of removing insurance payouts from the NPC insurance system for losses to Concord/Faction Police. But only if a workable player insurance contract is worked into the contracts system, so that suicide gankers/pirates can get insurance, even if it comes from another player at a ludicrous price. _____________________________________________ My Wishlist
Shanur Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2007.10.03 14:52:00 - [54] Originally by: Coran Ordus Conversely... removing the insurance just alters the bottom line a little. Do people really think it'll make much of a difference? With freighters and haulers full of billions of isk of goods, tweaking the cost of the gank by a few hundred million isn't going to matter. Moving the bottom line up a little is all that's needed. The problem is not that people who are foolish enough to fly an itty V with an expanded hold full of Zydrine are ganked, it's that just about any industrial flying near Jita has a high risk of being ganked even if they only carry half a hold full of Dense Veldspar. Making high sec pirates actually having to consider if a victim will drop enough loot to make up for the cost of ganking it will on one hand reduce the risk for the haulers that use an industrial for what it was made for (hauling high volume low cost goods) as well as allow careful haulers to tweak their tank so that pirating them isn't just a matter of stacking enough ships, but actually increases the cost to gank. In short it will actually improve the game for everyone as it increases the strategic options haulers and pirates can consider in plying their trade. As for newbie mistakes leading to them suffering uninsured losses, a real newbie has little to lose that isn't replacable with just a few hours work, there is always petitioning and if anything, it underlies one of the cardinal rules of EVE when they still won't lose billions due to ignoring it: Don't fly what you can't afford to replace!
Lucre STK Scientific M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.10.03 14:55:00 - [55] Originally by: Cyberman Mastermind Originally by: Lucre Those were my n00b days, and insurance saved me from losing almost everything I had to one stupid mistake. Todays ships aren't that expensive anymore. Nowadays everyone should know that you don't use dumbbombs(smartbombs) in empire. Sure, they're cheaper. Vexor's are now around 4M compared to probably 7M when I lost mine. But so what? To you or I, 4M for a cruiser may be fiddling small change, but to a new player it's a hell of a lot of isk. As for the second comment about "everyone should know", sure they should. UNLESS THEY'RE A NEW PLAYER. And n00bs make n00b mistakes. I surely did, and I'll bet most others did too. And one of the key reasons for insurance is to keep those n00bs playing after they make those mistakes.
Cyberman Mastermind	Posted - 2007.10.03 15:06:00 - [56] Edited by: Cyberman Mastermind on 03/10/2007 15:07:26 Originally by: Lucre As for the second comment about "everyone should know", sure they should. UNLESS THEY'RE A NEW PLAYER. And n00bs make n00b mistakes. I surely did, and I'll bet most others did too. While I generally agree, I fear I've been too much on this forum. The "whatever happens, it's your fault" mentality has finally hit me... Still, you are (now?) usually warned before firing on someone you shouldn't. Not sure how it is with smartbombs - I think I saw that message there as well. Usually I'm not one to propose the sacrifice of innocents, but I fear in this case there are no true innocents. If the warning is ignored, or willfully deactivated, then the player should have reached the stage where he is no longer a noob. However, how about changing it so that you will get insurance as long as you don't shoot another player (or his possession) ? That would cover accidental shooting of stargates or stations, while still giving more protection to players(noobs as well) and forcing high-sec gankers to carefully choose their victims. -------------------------------------------------- I'm a rich person. How I know? I can afford to be a miner.
Terminus adacai Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.03 15:31:00 - [57] /signed Why should insurance payout if you committed a criminal act in high security and were concorded? It shouldn't, plain and simple. If someone is hauling goods to make it worthwhile for a criminal to attack them and take the loot, so be it. But to get an insurance payout as well for a criminal act is insane. Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Plave Okice 5hockWave Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.03 15:41:00 - [58] Originally by: Cyberman Mastermind Quote: As it stands with insurance my fitted Brutix will cost me 2-4 mill to suicide, without insurance it will cost me about 27 mill. Then without insurance, ships will suddenly be at least 5 times more safe than before, in High-Sec. Doesn't work like that does it, as stated above the worst loot I've ever got was worth 80 mill, just means I'd make a little less, I still would have attacked the exact same haulers, making it as safe as it is now, ie not very.
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.03 15:59:00 - [59] Originally by: Laboratus Better yet, remove concord I agree with this guy. Concord doesn't do what it what the players feel it should, it's a failure. Instead of waisting time programming the AI in hopes of creating some perfect officer, it should be done away with altogether. You can't program what people are smart enough to do themselves. We can provide security for ourselves. We can have player provided police forces, earning pay from killing thugs via transferable kill rights system +bounties from those kill rights. These players could receive faction fitted police ships, scan for smugglers, etc. Their rank within the Police force could determine what size ship they're provided for free to help curb abuse, you'd have to be a proven peace officer to get the largest of ships.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2007.10.03 16:19:00 - [60] Originally by: Foghail ... 3. Insurance companies do not pay out if you destroy your property by police, so why does Pend Insurance / Eve Cental bank when Concord kills you. SCREAM!!!!!!!!!! STOP REPEATING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN 3. Following this logic - Real life Insurance companies wouldnt insure you if you drove your car throguh a war zone also. So all you 0.0ers should get NO insurance if your ship dies in 0.0 Its not real lie. Its an internet space game so dont expect the same logic to apply SKUNK Originally by: Jeximo I also like how your cat only managed to hit the enter button when he/she jumped on your keyboard.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.