EVE Search - Self Destruct should void Insurance!

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Self Destruct should void Insurance!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Omo Men	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:36:00 - [1] If you self destruct your ship it should void the insurance. If someone self destructs their ship while warp scrambled, it should give a kill mail to the one(s) who have them warp scrambled. Too many cowards these days are self destructing their dreadnaughts, battleships, and what not in order to rob the one killing them of the kill. It should void the insurance, which makes total sense. At the very least you shouldn't be able to self destruct and get paid for it. Insurance is to help players stay fighting when they're ship is lost. It's a bit of a gamble like any insurance. People shouldn't be able to build a battleship and blow it up to make more ISK then the market value. Also the insurance shouldn't change with the market rates. The best insurance should pay basically the full cost of the ship or dang close as it does not... just if it self destructs there should be no insurance paid out at all. After all repackaging voids the insurance (I know why, it's programming) logically self destructing should void it.
Tmarte Caldari BODA-BOOM	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:39:00 - [2] Edited by: Tmarte on 03/01/2008 17:40:13 /signed Afterall, if you burn your car to the ground with a gallon of gasoline and a match, don't expect your insurance company to pay for it. Negligence. If you take your car to a track and wreck it they won't pay for it. You need special insurance for a track car. `
Saris Dadra	Posted - 2008.01.03 18:59:00 - [3] So you want your kill-mail, and your target not to get insurance on self destruct? That's asking a little much I think. If a ship is going to be destroyed why should the insurance company care if an aggressor or scuttling destroys it? If anything the insurance company would prefer you to scuttle the ship, and remove some of the incentive from the aggressor. A pilot who initiates a self destruct is cutting their losses and denying their enemy a kill-mail, and loot. Its a final insult to your enemy, not a cowardly act. I have nothing against you getting your kill mail. This could even be a fairly simple change since the mechanism already exists in game to do so (a NPC landing the final blow). But what your asking for almost totally removes the incentive to scuttle a ship for nothing more than a little e-peen stroke. ---------
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.01.03 19:00:00 - [4] yes and so should dying to Conchord. pink supporter! Future art director at CCP! or texture guy, either or :P http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Drop Was in class with these folks :P
Tmarte Caldari BODA-BOOM	Posted - 2008.01.03 19:21:00 - [5] Originally by: Saris Dadra So you want your kill-mail, and your target not to get insurance on self destruct? That's asking a little much I think. If a ship is going to be destroyed why should the insurance company care if an aggressor or scuttling destroys it? If anything the insurance company would prefer you to scuttle the ship, and remove some of the incentive from the aggressor. A pilot who initiates a self destruct is cutting their losses and denying their enemy a kill-mail, and loot. Its a final insult to your enemy, not a cowardly act. I have nothing against you getting your kill mail. This could even be a fairly simple change since the mechanism already exists in game to do so (a NPC landing the final blow). But what your asking for almost totally removes the incentive to scuttle a ship for nothing more than a little e-peen stroke. That's the point though, removing insurance being distributed this way would stop people from self destructing to stop the killer from getting the evemail. It's an embarrassment thing. Somebody who's a vet, and pilots cap ships doesn't want his name in the evemails because he's afraid people will doubt his manhood. WTF die gracefully, take insurance off of self destructs.
Jurgen Cartis Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2008.01.03 20:18:00 - [6] If we're going to go with realistic insurance, it shouldn't exist at all. No sane insurance company insures anything that is going anywhere near a war zone, and for all practical intents and purposes, all of Eve is a war zone. Also, anyone who honestly believes you can make a profit building ships from scratch for the sole purpose of blowing them up, should try it. FRAPS it too, we'll enjoy the explosions. Tired of these self-destruct whines, if you can't kill them in under 120 seconds, bring more firepower next time. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth
Tmarte Caldari BODA-BOOM	Posted - 2008.01.03 20:21:00 - [7] **** the way some people drive you'd think it was a warzone.
Cypher V Minmatar Industrial Services INC	Posted - 2008.01.03 21:12:00 - [8] /signed Minmatar suck? Shoulda done my research -_-
Shereza	Posted - 2008.01.03 21:43:00 - [9] Quote: Too many cowards these days are self destructing their dreadnaughts, battleships, and what not in order to rob the one killing them of the kill. How is it cowardice to give someone the EVE equivalent of "the bird" when they know they're going to lose the ship anyways? Quote: It should void the insurance, which makes total sense. At the very least you shouldn't be able to self destruct and get paid for it. Insurance is to help players stay fighting when they're ship is lost. It's a bit of a gamble like any insurance. People shouldn't be able to build a battleship and blow it up to make more ISK then the market value. If the ship is going to be destroyed no matter what happens then why should one manner of destruction void the insurance when another doesn't? The ship is destroyed either way and the player might need that help to "stay fighting when (their) ship is lost" which means on that ground alone they're just as eligable for the insurance as someone who lets you kill their ship. Quote: Also the insurance shouldn't change with the market rates. The best insurance should pay basically the full cost of the ship or dang close as it does not... Um... Dude, insurance is based on the ship's CCP assigned value. My ishtar takes 5m to insure with a 17m payout. My machariel pays out lower than a raven. Heck, when they were first released the t3 (t for tier, not T for Tech) battleships and t2 battlecruisers the insurance payouts were often a good bit lower than the actual cost of the ships. Assigned ship value which insurance is based on is static and does not take market value into account and, quite honestly, it should because it would make it a little easier, not necessarily less painful, to take faction ships, and T2 ships, into combat. Quote: But what your asking for almost totally removes the incentive to scuttle a ship for nothing more than a little e-peen stroke. Agreed and penalizing people for engaging in psychological warfare is just plain wrong. PvP isn't just guns and missiles. Quote: That's the point though, removing insurance being distributed this way would stop people from self destructing to stop the killer from getting the evemail. I rather doubt it would, not entirely. Quote: It's an embarrassment thing. Somebody who's a vet, and pilots cap ships doesn't want his name in the evemails because he's afraid people will doubt his manhood. WTF die gracefully, take insurance off of self destructs. So what if they just don't want the people killing them to profit off of their kill? Should they just die gracefully to? Is it right to penalize them along with the people who don't want to show up in killmails? Somehow I get the idea that there's more to it than your overly simplistic view of the situation and that there are more people in the game, not just current capital ship pilots, with differing opinions/views on reasons to self-destruct than ones that match your scenario. ____________________ "Titans were never meant to be cost-effective. It's a huge ****." - Some dev(?).
ViolenTUK Gallente Vindicated Exiles 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.03 21:50:00 - [10] I think you should keep your insurance if you self destruct. If we were were to stop payouts in this manner then this would discourage pvp due to the consequences. www.eve-players.com
Jaketh Ivanes Amarr Do Or Die And Live Or Try The Kano Organisation	Posted - 2008.01.03 22:08:00 - [11] If the ship is lost, denying you your fix, is a good revenge. Insurance or no insurance. So, in short: No, killmail goes to the killing blow, not the scrambler. Insurance, well you can have that
Marcus Right Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.01.08 22:44:00 - [12] I say that you shouldn't get the kill mail but neither should the person self destructing get the insurance. Opportunity cost. If you want to flick off the people and rob them of a kill mail, you shouldn't get rewarded with insurance. Eve is about opportunity cost. As for the person who said people would stop PvPing if they stopped giving insurance payments out for self destructing, then those people can stop PvPing Eve doesn't need them. Why should they get rewarded with kill mails for killing people who are honorable but their oppoents put all the effort into killing them but don't get the kill mail? How is that fair? Why should they be able to brag that they don't get killed when they lose more ships then the other side? After all Eve is about bragging rights right? So the guy who self destructs is a lying coward and the honorable side the worked hard for the titan kill should get the reward of the titan kill. Period. It's no easy task to form together a larger fleet of people and pin down a ship that can't be E-Wared. Then sit there for an hour fighting a large battle... for HOURS! Just so the jerk can set self destruct 5 minutes before he knows he's going to die and rob all those hundreads of people their honor and glory for killing the titan? Just so the guy can collect a fat insurance check and "give them the bird". They're giving him the bird has he blows up. Both sides are giving each other the bird. Shouldn't the side that succeeded be rewarded? - Right - People who don't like it when other people ask questions fear the trueth. www.eve-search.com
Omo Men	Posted - 2008.01.08 22:59:00 - [13] That's a good point. Why should people not get a kill mail for something that takes an hour to kill? Just cause it takes a long time to kill doesn't mean they didn't kill it. They shot at it for over an hour, why should he be able to self destruct it in 2 minutes after all that?
Abbassidian	Posted - 2008.01.08 23:37:00 - [14] Originally by: Omo Men That's a good point. Why should people not get a kill mail for something that takes an hour to kill? Just cause it takes a long time to kill doesn't mean they didn't kill it. They shot at it for over an hour, why should he be able to self destruct it in 2 minutes after all that? to deny your enemy the spoils. same as sinking your new fleet of warships at the end of ww2 because you dont want htem falling into enemy hands... if your going ot die anyway why should your enmy gain somthing? but i do agree that killmails should be given to the ritefull people....
Kara Nerevar	Posted - 2008.01.09 02:38:00 - [15] How about this. The last person to hit you before you self destruct gets the kill mail. You shouldn't be able to rob the kill and get insurance. I think self destruction should only prevent the enemy from looting your wreck. Or another option, when you click self destruct, a window should pop up giving you a choice to either give the kill mail to the last person that hits you before you self destruct and you get insurance or you give no one the kill mail and get no insurance. What do you value more? Your kill board, or you ships insurance pay out? I like the first idea better, but people like options.
Doug LeSaurus	Posted - 2008.01.09 03:15:00 - [16] agreed. Kara brings up a good alternative aswell
Nu Tone	Posted - 2008.01.09 03:58:00 - [17] Edited by: Nu Tone on 09/01/2008 03:58:43 i agree with this thread there does need to be change on this issue, i think i like karas idea best so far.. =D /signed and approved
Rilder Caldari Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.01.09 04:56:00 - [18] ITT: People who only care about their k/d ratio.
Dr Slaughter Rabies Inc.	Posted - 2008.01.09 11:24:00 - [19] Only if the insurance company can't try to recover the stolen ship or it's costs from the ships destroyers... It's a shame the insurance industry doesn't actively recover, or pursue, the cause of it's losses. :) CCP this is not the nerf you are looking for...
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.01.09 13:49:00 - [20] Insurance on self destruct is a nonsense. I think the closest thing to the eve corps in real life are the gangs... That's why I'll take this example : Two gangs fight over some car transporting drugs (because they aren't too much in the legal stuff, yes eve corps are more in the legal stuff). If the car is wrecked in an accident, they will get the insurance (see this as NPCs shooting you). Here, you could get back the drug. If the car is attacked, drug robbed, the insurance should pay (if you're insured for that, we ar in eve). Here you lost the drug. If you see the other gang, burn the car so they don't get the drug, well, what do you expect? You sacrificed the insurance so they don't get the drug! (Ok, I take weird examples!) In fact, you sacrificed everything so your opponents have no benefit. Now, in eve. Why people autodestruct ships? For their ennemies not to get your very expensive officer fittings on your carrier. But the cost of not giving the loot is the insurance because you destroyed it yourself. If self detruct is used for killmail griefing, I say let the kids fight on their peace of paper, you still won this fight. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
Cyberman Mastermind	Posted - 2008.01.09 15:31:00 - [21] Originally by: Eleana Tomelac Insurance on self destruct is a nonsense. As is insurance on being destroyed by concord. Remove one and the other, or neither.
Shaemell Buttleson Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny	Posted - 2008.01.09 15:52:00 - [22] Signed. I also think no payout should be made for any criminal activity and only partial payouts should be made for ships lost in 0.0. A no claim bonus might be a good thing as well to reward those who manage to keep a ship longer than the 3 months or whatever it is. Might be harsh but it would be the same for me and I wouldn't complain.
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2008.01.09 16:12:00 - [23] Originally by: Shaemell Buttleson Signed. I also think no payout should be made for any criminal activity and only partial payouts should be made for ships lost in 0.0. A no claim bonus might be a good thing as well to reward those who manage to keep a ship longer than the 3 months or whatever it is. Might be harsh but it would be the same for me and I wouldn't complain. Insurance bonus and malus, the more ships you loose, the more expensive it is. The les ships you loose, the less expensive, or the longer will be the insurance. Maybe the duration of insurance should be increased for people not loosing ships, lowering the price would make buying 100 ships, insuring them at low cost and them blowing all of them a way to make isk. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Assault Frigates MK II
Cassius McQueen	Posted - 2008.01.09 17:21:00 - [24] /signed That EVE insurance is stupid enough to ensure ships in a warzone is one thing... however, it helps people who are new to the game since they tend to invest all they have into a good ship. So you sacrifice realism for gameplay reasons. But an insurance that pays when you burn down your own house?... If there was any reason for the insurance payout in terms of gamplay improvement - but the self destruct feature should be a luxury. You rob your opponent of loot and killmail, so it should come with a cost. Thus: not give insurance. If there should be a killmail even for a selfdestruct is something open for debate. But insurance for a selfdestruct is quite obviously nonsense.
Shaemell Buttleson Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny	Posted - 2008.01.09 20:48:00 - [25] Eleana a "no claim bonus" means you only get cheap insurance if you don't suffer a loss and would only be usable with the ship you insured the first time. So in effect when you renew the insurance it won't cost as much as it did the first time you insured it and it wouldn't be transferable to another ship. If anything it would encourage ppl not to self destruct the ship because if they did it would cost more to insure the next one than it would the old one that had survived.
Rouleau	Posted - 2008.01.10 00:03:00 - [26] If i blew up my car in real life I don't think the insurance company would credit me, so why should the game?
The Djego Minmatar FORTES FORTUNA ADIUVAT CORP. The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.01.10 00:43:00 - [27] The Problem is if you self destruct your ship you not only prevent the Killmail you also prevent your Mods to fall into enemy hands and has no drawbacks. If you want to do this fine(actualy not, but CCP grads this Option) at least People should pay for it in form of the lost Insurance. Also I agree that the Killmail should go to the last Agressor since they put affrod in it and People would not self Destructs in Battles they could win. The only result of self destruct shuld be to prevent the Enemy from looting, nothing less. If People had to pay for this they would think twice. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Arana Tellen Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2008.01.10 01:01:00 - [28] Originally by: Rouleau If i blew up my car in real life I don't think the insurance company would credit me, so why should the game? Because it's not RL? --------------------------------- Oh noes!
Seiji Hannah	Posted - 2008.01.10 05:33:00 - [29] /Signed I belive CCP put the self destruct button in there for laughs and not as any kind of strategic maneuver performed for the sole purpose of indulging your selfpitty, denying credit to the agressor because its "no fair im being killed in pvp" ?

Pages: [1] :: 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.