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)
Foghail Caldari Auroran PeaceKeepers	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:24:00 - [1] 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...
Thanos Draicon	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:25:00 - [2] POSTING THREADS IN ALL CAPS WILL NOT AID YOUR ARGUMENT --------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X Hey I have an idea: "Let's not endure any more of your spam for the weekend!" Enjoy your time away from our forums.
Foghail Caldari Auroran PeaceKeepers	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:26:00 - [3] Originally by: Thanos Draicon POSTING THREADS IN ALL CAPS WILL NOT AID YOUR ARGUMENT lol caught it after i posted sorry m8
Snake Doctor Paradox v2.0	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:27:00 - [4] Edited by: Snake Doctor on 02/10/2007 17:28:05 * STOP WHINING ABOUT A VALID GAME MECHANIC THAT YOU DON'T LIKE OR CANT ADAPT TO * Edit: You caught your caps. Thanks. I'm too lazy to remove mine.;) Adapt. Stop begging the devs to ruin the game for everyone else since there's portion of the game that YOU don't agree with. Rifter Flight Manual!
Foghail Caldari Auroran PeaceKeepers	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:29:00 - [5] Originally by: Snake Doctor Edited by: Snake Doctor on 02/10/2007 17:28:05 * STOP WHINING ABOUT A VALID GAME MECHANIC THAT YOU DON'T LIKE OR CANT ADAPT TO * Edit: You caught your caps. Thanks. I'm too lazy to remove mine.;) Adapt. Stop begging the devs to ruin the game for everyone else since there's portion of the game that YOU don't agree with. How is manipulating the insurance payout system a valid game mechanic?
Thanos Draicon	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:31:00 - [6] Originally by: Foghail How is manipulating the insurance payout system a valid game mechanic? Hardly any manipulation going on. You buy the ship, you insure it, and then it gets blown up, resulting in you getting the payout. You can argue that it's not a good mechanic, but not liking how it works doesn't mean it's being manipulated. --------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X Hey I have an idea: "Let's not endure any more of your spam for the weekend!" Enjoy your time away from our forums.
Tek'a Rain Gallente Isis Technologies	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:31:00 - [7] *my god, its all full of asterisk stars!* 1.meh 2.meh 3.don't compare "real" anything to Eve anything (though I personally agree in the no insurance pay) 4.the totally disposable alts that are too-often used as the trigger pullers don't care about their sec status. ps. salvaging your wreck isn't stealing from you, so there, period.
Ray McCormack hirr	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:33:00 - [8] Originally by: Snake Doctor Adapt. Stop begging the devs to ruin the game for everyone else since there's portion of the game that YOU don't agree with. How would it ruin the game for everyone else? Inquisitive as to your thoughts on why his request would do this. Ask me about Secured ISK Loans from the BMBE.
Snake Doctor Paradox v2.0	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:35:00 - [9] Originally by: Foghail Originally by: Snake Doctor Edited by: Snake Doctor on 02/10/2007 17:28:05 * STOP WHINING ABOUT A VALID GAME MECHANIC THAT YOU DON'T LIKE OR CANT ADAPT TO * Edit: You caught your caps. Thanks. I'm too lazy to remove mine.;) Adapt. Stop begging the devs to ruin the game for everyone else since there's portion of the game that YOU don't agree with. How is manipulating the insurance payout system a valid game mechanic? High sec ganking is in NO WAY manipulating the insurance system. Pend insurance offers blind loss contracts. That is what you pay for. It doesn't matter how you lost the ship. It's just something that some people don't like. Just like nanos. Just like cloaks. Just like Cyno-DD's. People *** and moan until it gets changed and the rest of us are sitting around thinking "Aw hell. The devs nerfed X because of a bunch of poor sports whined about it until they gave in. Eve was really fun 3 years ago before they started doing that." Work harder and devise a strategy to overcome your problem, just like the rest of the playerbase. If you don't want to get ganked in high sec, put your crap in a container, get yourself a tank, and work towards transports. CCP already fixed hauler ganking. They gave you T2 industrials.** Rifter Flight Manual!
Sixtina KL	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:36:00 - [10] 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. __________________________________

Snake Doctor Paradox v2.0	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:39:00 - [11] Originally by: Ray McCormack Originally by: Snake Doctor Adapt. Stop begging the devs to ruin the game for everyone else since there's portion of the game that YOU don't agree with. How would it ruin the game for everyone else? Inquisitive as to your thoughts on why his request would do this. It's happened before. The players devise a strategy that is totally valid ingame. It's not an exploit, but a valid, working strategy, but it would leave some players at a disadvantage. The disadvantaged players whine and cry about it until the devs "fix" it (read: suckify the game). Eve is about that strategy. It's about player interaction and new tactics. I've been hauler-ganked too. I've been nanophooned to death. I AFK cloak and have been AFK cloaked. - I learned to adjust my play style and come up with some sort of counter-tactic to this, just like everyone else. Darwinism. It's how it was promised at the alpha stage, its what we got. Stop trying to change it 4 years into release. Rifter Flight Manual!
Foghail Caldari Auroran PeaceKeepers	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:39:00 - [12] Originally by: Thanos Draicon Originally by: Foghail How is manipulating the insurance payout system a valid game mechanic? Hardly any manipulation going on. You buy the ship, you insure it, and then it gets blown up, resulting in you getting the payout. You can argue that it's not a good mechanic, but not liking how it works doesn't mean it's being manipulated. The system currently doesn't separate police kills from generic NPC (Gurista's Etc)what i am looking to see if is there is support for that being enacted. Umm and anyone tolling saying i am whining, give it a rest. Its a simple look to see if there is support for the idea.
Snake Doctor Paradox v2.0	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:43:00 - [13] 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. That's not even on point. Eve's just a game and the insurance contracts are (as i said) not based on the circumstances of your loss. The only reason REAL LIFE doesn't function with blind payouts like that is that insurance companies are out to MAKE money. This type of contract LOSES money. If this were real life, PEND would be filing for bankruptcy on DAY ONE, as well as answering a LOT of questions to whatever local tax authority they fall under. Rifter Flight Manual!
Sheriff Jones Amarr Please Enter Password	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:44:00 - [14] Even without commenting on the request itself, how would you suggest this be implemented in the code so that that the insurance still gets paid in "non scam" ways? My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit.
Foghail Caldari Auroran PeaceKeepers	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:48:00 - [15] Originally by: Snake Doctor Originally by: Ray McCormack Originally by: Snake Doctor Darwinism. It's how it was promised at the alpha stage, its what we got. Stop trying to change it 4 years into release. Well said and if you look at my employment history you will see I've been around since Beta before you preach about how the game has changed so much. I am not asking for empire ganking to be removed, in case you missed that in my original post. What i am asking for is to see if people think pirates should be able to attack you in a lossless challenge insurance plus what they get from you (loot or insurance not both). There should be concord like in the old days where you could actually challenge them and if you got away you headed to low sec for a few days to fix you sec status and headed back out.
Venko Trenulo Wakizashi Renaissance	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:48:00 - [16] Why not get rid of insurance altogether? Or if that's deemed to rough on newbies, perhaps offer insurance only for Tier 1 or Tier 2 frigates.
Foghail Caldari Auroran PeaceKeepers	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:50:00 - [17] Originally by: Sheriff Jones Even without commenting on the request itself, how would you suggest this be implemented in the code so that that the insurance still gets paid in "non scam" ways? ID Flag on the group, concord (faction police) exists in the killmail, no insurance. Faction warfare will then at least be on the move.
Foghail Caldari Auroran PeaceKeepers	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:51:00 - [18] Originally by: Venko Trenulo Why not get rid of insurance altogether? Or if that's deemed to rough on newbies, perhaps offer insurance only for Tier 1 or Tier 2 frigates. now theres an idea, but then again mission runners who put it all on the line and lose, would quit in alot of cases.
Snake Doctor Paradox v2.0	Posted - 2007.10.02 17:55:00 - [19] Originally by: Foghail Originally by: Snake Doctor Originally by: Ray McCormack Originally by: Snake Doctor Darwinism. It's how it was promised at the alpha stage, its what we got. Stop trying to change it 4 years into release. Well said and if you look at my employment history you will see I've been around since Beta before you preach about how the game has changed so much. I am not asking for empire ganking to be removed, in case you missed that in my original post. What i am asking for is to see if people think pirates should be able to attack you in a lossless challenge insurance plus what they get from you (loot or insurance not both). There should be concord like in the old days where you could actually challenge them and if you got away you headed to low sec for a few days to fix you sec status and headed back out. Before we start a contest on who's been here longer, let's just simply agree that lately any time 10+ people pipe up and complain about something, CCP changes it. A great example is Privateers. Here's a group of people who use a valid game mechanic to develop a play style to kick some ass, whether you like it or not. They band together and use this playstyle to become sort of an empire mafia. And you guys ruined it. I've already said it and I'll say it again. T2 Industrials. That should be the end of the conversation, yet it's not. Rifter Flight Manual!
Venko Trenulo Wakizashi Renaissance	Posted - 2007.10.02 18:02:00 - [20] Originally by: Foghail Originally by: Venko Trenulo Why not get rid of insurance altogether? Or if that's deemed to rough on newbies, perhaps offer insurance only for Tier 1 or Tier 2 frigates. now theres an idea, but then again mission runners who put it all on the line and lose, would quit in alot of cases. Don't most serious mission runners have modules worth far more than the base ship value?

Shari Vegas Minmatar Ctrl Alt Elites	Posted - 2007.10.02 18:02:00 - [21] It's the EVE universe. I don't know why you people insist on always comparing to the real life situations. Originally by: CCP Wrangler I have no clue.
Foghail Caldari Auroran PeaceKeepers	Posted - 2007.10.02 18:11:00 - [22] Originally by: Snake Doctor I've already said it and I'll say it again. T2 Industrials. That should be the end of the conversation, yet it's not. This thred has nothing to do with just industrials, i am talking about everything from a bombergeddon ganking miners in a belt, to a discophoon black screening people at stations. The insurance should not be paid to those who use the ship in the commission of a crime, and thereby are destroyed by concord. I wouldn't say its a legit game mechanic, more like a implementation oversight by CCP. Again this isn't a hate of for the Empire gankers, they keep stupid people poor which i am all for. Just in that "Roll of the Dice" as ccp puts it. Should be just that, you luck out and get something juicy from the guy you down, right on, if not well suck to be you, you shouldn't get 90% replacement of the ship and insurance plus what you scavenge from the wreak.
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar mUfFiN fAcToRy	Posted - 2007.10.02 18:16:00 - [23] Edited by: Surfin''s PlunderBunny on 02/10/2007 18:17:09 Edited by: Surfin''s PlunderBunny on 02/10/2007 18:16:50 Because they Devs said so You lose Rematch? Oh, you lost again! Originally by: Liz Kali Tic Toc Tic Toc , time is ticking Originally by: TheDagda click For the love of the jovians stops necroing
Foghail Caldari Auroran PeaceKeepers	Posted - 2007.10.02 18:26:00 - [24] Originally by: Snake Doctor A great example is Privateers. Here's a group of people who use a valid game mechanic to develop a play style to kick some ass, whether you like it or not. They band together and use this playstyle to become sort of an empire mafia. And you guys ruined it. Me? I didn't support the action against Privateers, all they needed to do is leave Jita alone.
Cortana Autumn	Posted - 2007.10.02 18:26:00 - [25] Originally by: Venko Trenulo Why not get rid of insurance altogether? Or if that's deemed to rough on newbies, perhaps offer insurance only for Tier 1 or Tier 2 frigates. Its not mission runners that insure ships, why are ppl blind to this. I never insured my ship when running missions as I ddnt do the missions i know i couldnt do. Removing insurance will destroy PVP for good as no-one would be able to afford to replace their ships after a while so just stop that idea there
Detrol Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.02 19:02:00 - [26] 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. Think about, yeah think about it really hard.... this... is....a....game.... You want to move fast to your parents house. You call em up... say "hey, I'm linking my clone to your house. Warm up the coffee, I'm on my way". Then you step outside, take a gun and bam... shoot yourself in the head. Good lucking waking up at your parents house.
Vyyrus An Eye For An Eye Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.10.02 19:05:00 - [27] o/ foghail longtime no see. How's APK?
Dirk Magnum Red Light Enterprises Eastern Star Federation	Posted - 2007.10.02 19:14:00 - [28] Originally by: Foghail 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... Everyone's already commented on the insurance bit fairly well, so I'll add my two cents with this: salvage is by definition up for grabs. It's wrecked crap that goes to the first person willing to recover it, both in Eve and the real world. I seriously hope CCP isn't considering flagging for salvaging.
Sheriff Jones Amarr Please Enter Password	Posted - 2007.10.02 19:56:00 - [29] Originally by: Sheriff Jones Even without commenting on the request itself, how would you suggest this be implemented in the code so that that the insurance still gets paid in "non scam" ways? Look at what you did! Made me quote myself with your ignorance of my post My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit.
Zacharie Le'Fromage	Posted - 2007.10.02 20:27:00 - [30] 1. Use a transport ship, like a impel. Put a few EANM II on it 2. Never worry about another suicide ganker unless you carry more than 1 billion or so at a time in your cargohold 3. ??? 4. Profit!

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.

Terminus adacai Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.03 16:56:00 - [61] Then maybe that is another good reason just to get rid of insurance all together. Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Manny Tanato Kool Kidz Black Sheep Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.03 16:56:00 - [62] What about making it so that if the loss of the ship involves a sec status loss, then no insurance payout? This way, if someone looses their ship to NPCs, there will be payout. But if they do naughty things in empire, then no payout. -=[ I huff and I puff and nothing falls... ]=-
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.10.03 17:06:00 - [63] doy, because then you have the same problem with n00bs doing something stupid, having nothing left in the game, and quitting? Originally by: Akita T No, it's a trap ! I can tell from some of the modules and from seeing quite a few traps in my time...
Alz Shado Ever Flow FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.03 17:42:00 - [64] 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. So since it would only alter their bottom line "a little" then why should they care if they get their insurance at all? They obviously shouldn't care, if as Plave says, they're making their money back 2-10 fold anyway. And since she never indicated if she'd ever gotten ambushed herself, why not add a reward for the plucky hauler who might turn the table and make life "interesting" for the gankers? 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. I'm not advocating removing hi-sec insurance, but I think anyone who makes a "dumb mistake" should be penalized accordingly. If a hotshot in his brand new cruiser thinks it's funny to set off a smartbomb at the gate, then he deserves what he gets. After all, if that "dumb mistake" costs someone else their ship, they don't get to petition it.
Amaron Ghant Caldari Ascent of Ages Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.03 18:15:00 - [65] Originally by: Le Skunk 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 Fine, lets just get rid of insurance completely then. Sick to death of this particular argument. Its polarised. people are on one side of it or the other. No amount of "logic" will change anyones mind, so lets just do away with it completely.
happomaagi Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.03 19:58:00 - [66] Omg, another one! 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. Try telling your insurance company that you were just sunday driving in your spaceship and there were a pirate camp on the other side of the Amamake star system jumpgate. Think about that, think about it real hard. Did they nerf nano-phoons because real battleships cant do 10km/s? EVE isn't a spaceship simulator game, it's a game with spaceships. You can argue all you want about insurance and suicide ganks, but please for the love of god leave real life analogies out of it. Why? Because real life has nothing to do with balancing a game with internet spaceships.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.03 20:01:00 - [67] I have to agree with the OP especially item number 4. Criminal acts or killed by Concord should never be reimbursed by insurance. They should get what they deserved. Don't do the crime if you don't want to do the time. --------- 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.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Blood Corsair's	Posted - 2007.10.03 20:30:00 - [68] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire I have to agree with the OP especially item number 4. Criminal acts or killed by Concord should never be reimbursed by insurance. They should get what they deserved. Don't do the crime if you don't want to do the time. I'll go one better: Remove all insurance. For anything. Ever. Lose a BS? Poof, you've just lost 100m+ ISK. No uninsured half-payout. No insurance what so ever. Nothing. How would you carebears like that? Bellum Eternus [Vid]Blood Corsairs - Day One
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.10.03 20:43:00 - [69] Just make concord standard rats that hang around at gates and shoot at ppl who have negative standings or a flag. None of the BS they are now. Or remove them completely. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Zacharie Le'Fromage	Posted - 2007.10.03 20:44:00 - [70] Originally by: Extra Dry 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. It's a game. Stop comparing it to RL. You can easily avoid becoming the victim of suicide ganking. I just gave you four easy steps earlier in the thread.

Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.03 21:07:00 - [71] Bellum, I won't mind that if you could suggest me an anti-griefing idea. Insurance is a safety net for legit players losing ships. Insurance is not supposed to be a griefing tool. Losing a ship through Concord and receiving insurance is a slap on the face because it is aiding griefing. --------- 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.
Foghail Caldari Auroran PeaceKeepers	Posted - 2007.10.03 23:31:00 - [72] -Daily Bump- Ok so heated on both sides, Like i said before, this isn't a hate thread for Empire ganking its in an effort to provide a suitable solution for a very real overlooked plague that is happening. Some very interesting twists have been added, no insurance if your sec status takes a hit during the loss of the ship seems from a coders point very easy to implement. The transferable bounty and kill rights I am REALLY liking. I would say this could be an interesting idea but needs a twist to prevent the Pirate from offing himself with an Alt. (Currently the best way to get your bounty cashed out and costs a jump clone.) Pirate attacks and kills someone no insurance is paid to them as their sec status took a hit, NPC bounty is placed on that pirates head (Pirates 40% uninsured value of the ship you are using gets stacked as a bounty against you, when your terminated, 50% goes to the contractor who took your pod the other 50% is distributed to your victims) thoughts?
Foghail Caldari Auroran PeaceKeepers	Posted - 2007.10.04 12:21:00 - [73] -daily bump-
Cyberman Mastermind	Posted - 2007.10.04 13:34:00 - [74] Originally by: Plave Okice 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. What I meant is that the minimum requirement of dropped loot will be higher than before. You'd not attack someone who'll drop only a few million if you can't be sure you'll get at least your investment back. -------------------------------------------------- I'm a rich person. How I know? I can afford to be a miner.
Plave Okice Gallente Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.04 13:41:00 - [75] Edited by: Plave Okice on 04/10/2007 13:43:44 I know what you meant, but it doesn't really change it all, I look for 100mill worth of cargo as a minimum and hope for at least half to survive, I've actually never had one as low as that though. Should I lose 28 mill instead of 3 mill, I'd still look for 100mill worth of cargo with at least half to survive, it's still comfortable profit. And this is not named at you, but for those calling this "griefing", grow up, according to CCP in their notes about concord and safety, suicide or kamikaze attacks are a legitimate means of playing the game and earning an income, it's not griefing. Originally by: CCP Some players are willing to lose ships and their good standing with Concord for the hope of quick profit from a juicy loot drop. The ôkamikazeö attackers usually work in pairs or groups. They scan the cargo holds of bypassing pilots flying easily destructable ships until they see something worthy of a ship loss. They then blow up the ship and and while Concord do what they do best, a second character picks up the loot from the shipÆs wreck. This is not seen as an exploit of the intended game mechanics and there is no compensation or reimbursement to be had for losses caused by attacks in secure space. https://support.eve-online.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=341
Gaven Blands	Posted - 2007.10.04 13:59:00 - [76] Originally by: Plave Okice The final arguement in the war on insurance. Yesterday I typed what you typed. But didn't post it. I read it and thought it was so obvious that anybody who didn't know it didn't deserve the reply. It really is the final word in the insurance arguement. Except for.... The thread. The thread we've ALL been waiting for. CONCORD should POP suiciders, then FINE THEM! \| Jenny Spitfire \| 0 \| 0 \| 2007.10.05 07:52:00 by: Jenny Spitfire -- Any views or opinions expressed are only the ones I want to ram down your throat.
Khamal Jolstien Caldari Lucky Hydra Corp SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.04 14:10:00 - [77] This is yet another attempt to change the game, rather than play the game as it was intended. Insurance works the way CCP wants it to. Adapt to the conditions like everyone else who are playing the game.
Cyberman Mastermind	Posted - 2007.10.04 15:33:00 - [78] Originally by: Khamal Jolstien This is yet another attempt to change the game, rather than play the game as it was intended. Since every other thread contains at least one iteration of "this game is a big sandbox, there are no intended ways of playing, so adapt"(usually as a reply, when someone is killed by a new method), it's kind of hard to differentiate between intended game mechanics, and innovative new ways that the devs didn't think of, but stil accept. -------------------------------------------------- I'm a rich person. How I know? I can afford to be a miner.
Nicholai Pestot Gallente Havoc Inc	Posted - 2007.10.04 15:55:00 - [79] Removing insurance from losses to concord will (other than hurting those that make silly mistakes) causes one real change. Reducing the profit margin for a hi-sec suicide gank. Reducing the profit margin for suicide ganks has a whole sleuth of knock-on effects, the main one being reducing the number of viable hi-sec targets. How far this reduction would go would need to be investigated before any change to insurance. What is the typical value in goods of a Freighter? How many ships (isk amount) are required to suicide kill one? What is the typical value in goods of a Transport ship?How many ships (isk amount) are required to suicide kill an average fitted example? What is the typical value in goods of an Industrial ship?How many ships (isk amount) are required to suicide kill an average fitted example? Ideally the average cost to kill a type of ship should be around 20% lower than the value of the average cargo of that ship (as some stuff always goes down with the ship). Joe blogs or neddy the noob are then effectively immune to hi-sec suicide ganks, as with their average or below average cargo they are not worth the effort.Those who wish to carry high-value cargo need to make some very tough choices about fittings,escorts and scouts. Conversely those involved in suicide ganking would need to pick their targets carefully and take on a fair bit of risk. Insurance levels and concord response can then be tailored to attain this goal. As for those making an argument on some strange 'real life' comparison......gameplay > realism every time.
Cpt Fina Blood Corsair's	Posted - 2007.10.04 16:04:00 - [80] Removal of insurance would be a step in the right direction. Freighters still need the ability to fit for tank or haul though imo.

Terminus adacai Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.04 19:06:00 - [81] Originally by: Khamal Jolstien This is yet another attempt to change the game, rather than play the game as it was intended. Insurance works the way CCP wants it to. Adapt to the conditions like everyone else who are playing the game. If that were entirely true, why does CCP nerf previously seeded items? Simple, player FEEDBACK. You unfortunately don't seem to have any. I support the op's ideas. Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Elvarda	Posted - 2007.10.04 20:58:00 - [82] just make cargo scanning an agressive act, why should someone "friendly" scan your cargo?So it would give the Attacker just some seconds to check if its worth it or just attack targets at random which is not that profitable. Insurance works like it has to. So Empire ganking still works and wtf u complain about getting profits afking? Hauling is actually spending time where u cant run missions / mining / griefing and so it is earning money while doing it. New ways of killing people and we shall adapt? What a useless comment.


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.