| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Attrezzo Pox
Corp 1 Allstars
Insurgency
   |
Posted - 2008.03.27 16:11:00 -
[31]
In regards to your sig. What do the souls whisper to you? Cause I have a bet with a friend that they say lol.
*-------------------------*
This is not a good sig. |
Soulita
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 16:27:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Soulita on 27/03/2008 16:27:54
 Originally by: Attrezzo Pox
In regards to your sig. What do the souls whisper to you? Cause I have a bet with a friend that they say lol.
Hehe, well, I see you like my sig. But dont derail the thread please. If you would like to wildly speculate about what the souls tell me, why not open a thread about it in the "out of pod" section in these forums. Might be an amusing read, and I encourage you to do so. My beloved old friend and forum nOOb Tarmac, erm Tarmaniac... bah.. I mean Tarminic or whatever... would surely love it as well.
Now back on topic please, Mr. Corp 1 Allstar!
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 16:30:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Soulita
It is a very strong proposal which would solve many problems.
Except it really wouldn't solve any problems.
Worse, thinking it will stops people thinking of genuine solutions.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Soulita
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 16:34:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Soulita
It is a very strong proposal which would solve many problems.
Except it really wouldn't solve any problems.
Worse, thinking it will stops people thinking of genuine solutions.
Why would the removal of insurance payout not be a good solution?
This time you will need to bring some more arguments.
|
Avon
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 16:50:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Soulita
Why would the removal of insurance payout not be a good solution?
This time you will need to bring some more arguments.
I have lost track of how many times I have argued this point this week.
People who are determined to gank hulks whilst pretending to be on a Jihad would continue to do so because the real reason for doing it is worth the isk loss - which isn't great anyway.
People who gank industrials for profit will just have to factor ship cost in to the equasion, which as a proportion of the potential gain is almost insignificant anyway.
However, people who remote rep the wrong guy on a mission, or pops the wrong can by mistake, or shoots a friend in a lagged up encounter - they are the people paying the price.
Frankly I'd rather there was no insurance at all for anyone, but if it is to remain in game then it needs to be an equal safety net for all.
If you start down the road of insurance exceptions the whole thing just becomes a bunch of judgement calls based on what one or other group thinks is valid gameplay, or realistic risk.
Anyone in 0.0?
No
Below 0.5 .. well, the pop-up does warn you, maybe your insurance company wouldn't be happy with the extra risk.
In a mission ... they are full of ships shooting you, and yout you decide to go there in search of reward .. not sure my insurance company would be happy with that either.
Not gone to the effort to protect your hauler .. no, don't cover that either...
... it just goes on, and ultimately it makes nothing better, or fairer - it just detracts from possible solutions to what are quite probably real issues.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Empyre
Domestic Reform
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 16:53:00 -
[36]
i just wonder how insurance companies in eve stay in business. personally, i'd stop insuring someone after they tried to collect on a suicide a couple times.
maybe the caldari government keeps bailing them out in the name of stabilizing the economy.
You're doing it wrong. |
Soulita
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 17:13:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Avon
People who are determined to gank hulks whilst pretending to be on a Jihad would continue to do so because the real reason for doing it is worth the isk loss - which isn't great anyway.
People who gank industrials for profit will just have to factor ship cost in to the equasion, which as a proportion of the potential gain is almost insignificant anyway.
However, people who remote rep the wrong guy on a mission, or pops the wrong can by mistake, or shoots a friend in a lagged up encounter - they are the people paying the price.
Frankly I'd rather there was no insurance at all for anyone, but if it is to remain in game then it needs to be an equal safety net for all.
If you start down the road of insurance exceptions the whole thing just becomes a bunch of judgement calls based on what one or other group thinks is valid gameplay, or realistic risk.
Anyone in 0.0?
No
Below 0.5 .. well, the pop-up does warn you, maybe your insurance company wouldn't be happy with the extra risk.
In a mission ... they are full of ships shooting you, and yout you decide to go there in search of reward .. not sure my insurance company would be happy with that either.
Not gone to the effort to protect your hauler .. no, don't cover that either...
... it just goes on, and ultimately it makes nothing better, or fairer - it just detracts from possible solutions to what are quite probably real issues.
Well argued, Avon.
What I can come to agree with you is that probably removing insurance payout for concordoken will not remove the entire problematic of suicide ganking.
But as I said before, it realy depends on what you define as probelatic about suicide ganking.
Some people would like to see it disappear alltogether, I am not one of those.
To me, making suicide gankings more pricey for the attackers is a step in the right direction.
It will not hinder people to suicide gank, but it will make some more people think twice about it.
I do think suicide ganking should remain possible if people are willing to bear the higher costs assosiated with it.
In addition, an idea for concord protection posted in this thread sounds fairly interesting to me. Implementation of this might be tricky, but it might be a good package to introduce this "hired" concord idea and the stop of insurance payout for concordokens.
The point you seem to agree on with me is that suicide gankings are getting out of hand, so action needs to be taken to bring it back into reasonable dimensions.
|
Siresa Talesi
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 17:14:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Soulita
Why would the removal of insurance payout not be a good solution?
This time you will need to bring some more arguments.
I have lost track of how many times I have argued this point this week.
People who are determined to gank hulks whilst pretending to be on a Jihad would continue to do so because the real reason for doing it is worth the isk loss - which isn't great anyway.
But the cost of this behavior would be greater than it currently is, requiring that they either restrict their actions to targets of enough value, or they have to spend time doing other actions to fund their efforts, leaving them less time to be out suicide ganking. Either way, they hit fewer ships.
Originally by: Avon
People who gank industrials for profit will just have to factor ship cost in to the equasion, which as a proportion of the potential gain is almost insignificant anyway.
So what? This idea is not to put a stop to this kind of ganking, only to give it a more proportional risk/cost appropriate to the activity.
Originally by: Avon
However, people who remote rep the wrong guy on a mission, or pops the wrong can by mistake, or shoots a friend in a lagged up encounter - they are the people paying the price.
EVE is a cold, harsh universe, or so we are frequently told. Why should it be any softer to someone who makes a stupid mistake? Better to have a consequence so that a lesson is learned well and the mistake not repeated.
"Space is filled with countless hours of boredom...punctuated by moments of abject terror."
- Capn. James T. Kirk, Starfleet Academy |
Lrd Byron
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 17:15:00 -
[39]
Why don't they make it like real insurance? Keep losing your ship and the premium shoots up, and eventually they simply won't cover you. Price based on ships lost in the past month or something.
|
Nik W
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 17:16:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Empyre
i just wonder how insurance companies in eve stay in business. personally, i'd stop insuring someone after they tried to collect on a suicide a couple times.
maybe the caldari government keeps bailing them out in the name of stabilizing the economy.
This is sort of the way I was thinking. In real life, if you're a bad client, insurance costs you more. If you're a REALLY bad client, they cut you off completely and you have to go buy high-risk insurance which often costs more than the worth of your car.
To complete the thought, in case of accident your insurance covers the other guy if it's your fault -- but that doesn't apply in Eve -- ganking isn't an accident.
Of course, in real life (where I live anyway) it's also illegal to drive without insurance.If your insurance costs are too high or no one will insure you, you don't drive or you risk going to jail.
I think the idea of a sliding scale for cost of insuring high risk clients is pretty good. You could make insurance required to fly in high sec, and eventually it becomes unprofitable to gank in high sec.
That said, there needs to be some risk of getting killed no matter where you are.
I don't envy CCP trying to balance this...
|
Overwhelmed
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 17:35:00 -
[41]
Realism doesn't work for insurance. It's a very fair assumption that the empires would subsidize the insurance companies in order to keep their pilots at the front lines.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.03.27 17:38:00 -
[42]
EvE "insurance" is not insurance as we know it.
Think of it more like a salvage contract or something.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Silent Z
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 00:43:00 -
[43]
Suicide ganking is good. Concord is evil.
Criminals are good. Carebears are evil.
Good prevails over evil.
All are happy.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Tuxedo.
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 00:44:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Soulita
Insurance payout after whoops I died?
My oh my, what a loving and caring world.
Makes my heart go soft.
Same argument different situation
dine in a fire
|
Khanid Kutie
I R Teh Poasting Alt Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 01:07:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Soulita
Insurance payout after Concordoken?
My oh my, what a loving and caring world.
Makes my heart go soft.
ITT: OP lost a deadspace fitted CNR, when all he REALLY needed to run level 4 missions was a T2 fitted Raven. Then Comes to forums and cries like a whiny ***** because he thinks he should be safe in empire.
____________________________________________
Originally by: Thargat
They should change the name of CAOD to EvE Zoo. Please to not feed the animals.
|
heheheh
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 01:17:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Soulita
Originally by: Rawr Cristina
Yay, cause we really needed another thread on this 
A change is overdue. Until then, whatever.
Im curious to see what you think this change will achieve.
|
Steve Hawkings
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 01:18:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Attrezzo Pox
In regards to your sig. What do the souls whisper to you? Cause I have a bet with a friend that they say lol.
lol
10 on 10
|
Soulita
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 01:27:00 -
[48]
Originally by: heheheh
Originally by: Soulita
Originally by: Rawr Cristina
Yay, cause we really needed another thread on this
A change is overdue. Until then, whatever.
Im curious to see what you think this change will achieve.
You realy can not figure this out yourself?
Removing insurance payout makes suicide gankings more expensive. Simple realy, isnt it?
|
Marc Zhorr
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.03.28 01:30:00 -
[49]
Insurance payout for concord killed ships is stupid.
Nuff said.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |