EVE Search - To all the people that want to remove concord death insurance

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

To all the people that want to remove concord death insurance

» 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)
spiderppig Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:26:00 - [1] You have a few falws in most of your arguements with implementing this. First off there is no protection for newer players that accidently shot someone in hi-sec. Which if implemented ill predict that the EVE General Discussions forum will be filled whith whines of "CONCORD Ganked me in Hi-sec and i dont know why?!?!". Second part of this is the goal of it is to stop suicide gankers buy making them losse money. Current normal gank brutix 21-23 million for the ship + platnium insurance(8-9 million unsure the exact ammount) + mods(7 million at the most) - insurance payout 25 million = about a 12 million isk lose per gank attempt. With the insurance change 21-23 million for the same brutix + 7 million isk for the mods - zero payout = 30 million isk lose per gank attempt. Now i ask the carebears is it worth it to cause less then 20 million in extra cost per gank or to have the added protection just in case you CONCORD yourself. PS: if im off on some of my numbers please do share them with me as to the insurance cost and payouts. PPS: IM HONGKONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Overwhelmed Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:30:00 - [2] Because resurrecting this topic is surely the best way to make carebears stop whining. ---------------------------------------------------------- Posting And You Disclaimer: This is a meta-game alt for meta-game discussions.
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:31:00 - [3] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 09/04/2008 03:32:03 Boo hoo that a new player would lose their Atron and not get insurance. They learn a valuable lesson in the process (since they clearly stopped paying attention during that part of the tutorial.) They can mine 20k ISK in their rookie ship in a relatively short timespan to replace their loss. Don't think of your Brutix example as "costing less than 20 mil extra" per gank, but rather "the Brutix pilot loses almost three times as much ISK if he ganks someone in High Sec when he gets no insurance payout." That 2-3x loss adds up, especially if people are ganking with battleships. Also it isn't just carebears asking for this change, it's anyone who wants risk v. reward balanced a little bit more.
spiderppig Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:31:00 - [4] LOL they have stopped whining allready?!?!?! Never would have noticed
Drykor Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:34:00 - [5] Right.. On your first argument: Newbies get a warning before shooting stuff in high-sec On your second argument: People don't get concorded on accident that much. I think it's definitely worth adding that amount of cash to the loss, then suicide ganking would stop being worth it at even a cheaply filled hauler/ship and instead the target would have to be really worth it.
Overwhelmed Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:41:00 - [6] Originally by: spiderppig LOL they have stopped whining allready?!?!?! Never would have noticed All "removed insurance for CONCORDed ships" chants fell off the front page as far as I can see, but I wouldn't feel bad. A post was "due" ---------------------------------------------------------- Posting And You Disclaimer: This is a meta-game alt for meta-game discussions.
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:41:00 - [7] ahahhahah spiderpig was taken ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
KeeperOf Truth Hedion University	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:41:00 - [8] How often do you concord yourself by mistake? Once a day, once a week? I say it doesn't happen regularly. If a new player do something to get concorded in highsec having an insurance wont stop it. So players running to forums saying "CONCORD Ganked me in Hi-sec and i dont know why?!?!" wont happen more than it is happening now. New players are in T1 frigates which doesn't cost much, and even a new player can easily replace his frigate with less than an hour mining if he really goes broke, so it hurts suicide attackers wallet more than it hurts new players getting concorded by mistake. Just pointing flaws in your argument..
spiderppig Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:42:00 - [9] Originally by: Erotic Irony ahahhahah spiderpig was taken it was and it made me sad then i ganked a iteron V with a thorax filled with a Moros's fittings and rigs
Alski Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:48:00 - [10] Mehi don’t even see the point of discussing this topic, because as I said in another thread: Originally by: Alski People generally are uninformed self-centric sheep, one person says “ZOMG THIX NEEDZ CHANGEIN” and a whole bunch of people will follow purely because it serves there own selfish interests and can’t see past there own experience as to what other effects a change will bring. If/when I see a well written post that actually uses something vaguely resembling logic that points out the greater secondary effects of such a change and why these changes wouldn’t be bad for game, and how other aspects of the game (example: alliance X owning 20+ dysprosium moons, and alliance Y having next to none, therefore making removal of insurance no issue for alliance X but dramatically shifting the balance of power away from Y) would come into play with such a change and how these could be mitigated… then maybe it’d be worth putting some thought into… Whereas all I’ve seen for the people who want to remove insurance can be boiled down to “I want more risk, I want the people I blow up to hurt more” - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
Marcus TheMartin Tuxedo.	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:48:00 - [11] Originally by: Erotic Irony ahahhahah spiderpig was taken Peter Porker should Still be available
spiderppig Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:50:00 - [12] Originally by: Marcus TheMartin Originally by: Erotic Irony ahahhahah spiderpig was taken Peter Porker should Still be available out of my thread noob
Marcus TheMartin Tuxedo.	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:52:00 - [13] Originally by: spiderppig Originally by: Marcus TheMartin Originally by: Erotic Irony ahahhahah spiderpig was taken Peter Porker should Still be available out of my thread noob pot meet kettle
spiderppig Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:54:00 - [14] Originally by: Marcus TheMartin pot meet kettle[/quote
Erotic Irony	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:56:00 - [15] Originally by: spiderppig Originally by: Marcus TheMartin pot meet kettle[/quote now you know what is to be owned ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
spiderppig	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:59:00 - [16] Originally by: Erotic Irony Originally by: spiderppig Originally by: Marcus TheMartin pot meet kettle[/quote now you know what is to be owned its quite allrite i have marcus's corpse in some hanger somewhere
Tek'a Rain	Posted - 2008.04.09 04:02:00 - [17] Originally by: Alski Whereas all IÆve seen for the people who want to remove insurance can be boiled down to ôI want more risk, I want the people I blow up to hurt moreö Sorry hun, Have to poke at this a Little bit. When I see people advocating the removal of insurance for Concord-destroyed ships (suicides really, but would likely mechanicly require all concord-kills to go without insurance) I, personally, see people with limited options trying to impose a shred of equal risk or at least equal investment and lose on the aggressor they are tormented by. When a "suicide gank" is barely a lose with insurance, the threshold for the gankbear's profit is set far too low. This leads to foolish situations like freighters being too risky to fly when they have more then a fraction of their capacity inside, no matter the careful steps one might take to protect it. Speaking for myself alone, I am in favor of limiting the isk payout to suicides, even if it hurts the occasional new player. The former, while possible, shouldn't be so easy and the latter requires good tutorial presentation and showing new folks that they really should read all those little pop ups. I am, however, not in favor of the overall removal of Insurance, whether that means people in 0.0, wars or any other situation where a ship goes plop. Its a slight safety net for a careful pilot in risky situations (though I still, on some level, dislike the inherent isk-faucet nature of it) As always.. $00.02 Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Kerfira	Posted - 2008.04.09 07:28:00 - [18] Originally by: spiderppig First off there is no protection for newer players that accidently shot someone in hi-sec. Which if implemented ill predict that the EVE General Discussions forum will be filled whith whines of "CONCORD Ganked me in Hi-sec and i dont know why?!?!". You are of.c. completely ignoring the very noticeable warning put in by CCP just for this very reason.... Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Firkragg	Posted - 2008.04.09 07:29:00 - [19] Dont nerf suicide ganking nerf those pesky people who ship things in tough enough ships Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Tommy TenKreds	Posted - 2008.04.09 07:55:00 - [20] Just remove insurance altogether. It makes people careless and allows them to recoup ship losses far too easily. This prolongs nabness. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Bandures > Tommy, you like a cowboy harry )
Julia Newmatar	Posted - 2008.04.09 08:04:00 - [21] Edited by: Julia Newmatar on 09/04/2008 08:06:05 Originally by: spiderppig Edited by: spiderppig on 09/04/2008 03:35:45 You have a few flaws in most of your arguements with implementing this. First off there is no protection for newer players that accidently shot someone in hi-sec. Which if implemented ill predict that the EVE General Discussions forum will be filled whith whines of "CONCORD Ganked me in Hi-sec and i dont know why?!?!". you get your noob ship back for free, most noobs don't have insurance to begin with, and why would the lack of insurance suddenly make noobs dumber, there will be no increase in forum posts about it because there will be no more/less instances of this happening, this is a really weak argument. Originally by: spiderppig Second part of this is the goal of it is to stop suicide gankers buy making them losse money. Current normal gank brutix 21-23 million for the ship + platnium insurance(8-9 million unsure the exact ammount) + mods(7 million at the most) - insurance payout 25 million = about a 12 million isk lose per gank attempt. With the insurance change 21-23 million for the same brutix + 7 million isk for the mods - zero payout = 30 million isk lose per gank attempt. You forgot to mention the "hard core" pirates motto "it's all about risk vs reward", regardless of how much/little the loss will be without insurance the point is that with insurance the risk is virtually null, and standings that can be grinded back in an hour does not count as a risk. right now suiciding has no risk with the potential of high rewards. You also forget that not every suicide returns a reward, it takes a number of attempts to finally hit paydirt, with insurance paying out every tim, it's simply a case of try and try again, but without insurance the loss starts adding up after every unsuccessful suicide, in other words if it takes 10 attempts to hit a loaded ship, the loss becomes much higher now we are looking at 10 x 30 million = 300 million , no multiply that by the number of ships needed to gank the target and we finally have a risk. Originally by: spiderppig Now i ask the carebears is it worth it to cause less then 20 million in extra cost per gank or to have the added protection just in case you CONCORD yourself. yes, absolutely. Originally by: spiderppig PS: if im off on some of my numbers please do share them with me as to the insurance cost and payouts. PPS: IM HONGKONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
spiderppig	Posted - 2008.04.09 08:16:00 - [22] where did u pull the 1 out of 10 suicide attempts nets a profit?? only time ive missed out was a target with 1 item in the cargohold that is worth enough to go for even if it does blow up. (carrier blueprints now where it was a bpo or bpc i will never know) when im ganking im quite deliberate with my targets unless its really slow and i want to goto bed then i just try and gank all the haulers on the gate when there is 3+. (record so far is 2 extended out badger mark II's) Also what i meant by noobs im not talking fresh from a signup still on a trial in there noob ships. Its much harder for a new player to lose there first frigate cruiser or BC then it is for some ganker to miss out on a insurance payout. changing the payout doesnt change the risk vs reward ratio 1 bit gankers will keep on ganking and afking carebears whill keep on afking and then whining.
Cissnei	Posted - 2008.04.09 08:19:00 - [23] the fact that many of you are rolling new alts, suicide ganking till you arent allowed in high sec, deleting them and doing it again really is counter productive to an mmorpg anyway. actually it's downright ******** while those that do it can sit back and say 'yay i ruined someone's day today, so now my pitiful life doesnt seem so bad in comparison sips yoohoo', or 'yay i'm one step to helping the goons destroy Eve by making them quit and not come back at all' (as quoted by your very ceo in Wired), the reality is you are abusing the ease at which anyone can be up to a battlecruiser level with a new character in this game today those changes were implemented to make new people's lives easier, not make it easier for conceited ****ers to churn out suicide alt after alt after alt. if insurance is removed from concord kills it wont make an immediate impact. the suicide gankers will need to start running out of money that they feed their suicide chars with their carebear toons. then they'll have to either turn to more profitable marks only or play their carebear toon for a while to make the cash back it will only slow the process, not halt it. however at this point every little bit helps. it wont stop dumbasses can baiting in 1.0 space as i saw in perimiter today, but every little bit that grows this game in subscribed accounts helps
spiderppig	Posted - 2008.04.09 08:25:00 - [24] Originally by: Cissnei the fact that many of you are rolling new alts, suicide ganking till you arent allowed in high sec, deleting them and doing it again really is counter productive to an mmorpg anyway. actually it's downright ******** while those that do it can sit back and say 'yay i ruined someone's day today, so now my pitiful life doesnt seem so bad in comparison sips yoohoo', or 'yay i'm one step to helping the goons destroy Eve by making them quit and not come back at all' (as quoted by your very ceo in Wired), the reality is you are abusing the ease at which anyone can be up to a battlecruiser level with a new character in this game today those changes were implemented to make new people's lives easier, not make it easier for conceited ****ers to churn out suicide alt after alt after alt. if insurance is removed from concord kills it wont make an immediate impact. the suicide gankers will need to start running out of money that they feed their suicide chars with their carebear toons. then they'll have to either turn to more profitable marks only or play their carebear toon for a while to make the cash back it will only slow the process, not halt it. however at this point every little bit helps. it wont stop dumbasses can baiting in 1.0 space as i saw in perimiter today, but every little bit that grows this game in subscribed accounts helps Who mentioned the goons in this thread neways? As for the suicide alts i agree its quite lame id regularyly tell corpmates to gank with their mains and stop being gheys using alts.
Julia Newmatar	Posted - 2008.04.09 08:30:00 - [25] Edited by: Julia Newmatar on 09/04/2008 08:31:48 Originally by: spiderppig where did u pull the 1 out of 10 suicide attempts nets a profit?? only time ive missed out was a target with 1 item in the cargohold that is worth enough to go for even if it does blow up. (carrier blueprints now where it was a bpo or bpc i will never know) when im ganking im quite deliberate with my targets unless its really slow and i want to goto bed then i just try and gank all the haulers on the gate when there is 3+. (record so far is 2 extended out badger mark II's) That's the point,right now you don't have to be deliberate with your targets, if you are so careful when choosing targets then not having an insurance payout will have very little effect on you, but there are groups out there that will suicide every hauler they can find in high sec until their sec rating has dropped too low, then go grind it back and start all over again, this is the kind of suiciding that halting insurance payouts will have an affect on. Originally by: spiderppig Also what i meant by noobs im not talking fresh from a signup still on a trial in there noob ships. Its much harder for a new player to lose there first frigate cruiser or BC then it is for some ganker to miss out on a insurance payout. Ok, that may be a valid argument, but to be honest, by the time he has his first cruiser never mind battlecruiser he really should know better. Originally by: spiderppig changing the payout doesnt change the risk vs reward ratio 1 bit gankers will keep on ganking and afking carebears whill keep on afking and then whining. Yes and no, for smart suiciders, it will change nothing, you will still choose good targets, get good loot most of time and your profits will only be marginally smaller, but for the many out there who treat it as nothin more than a free lunch, it will hurt. and that's the point, not to stop suiciding, in fact I'd hate to see it go away.
FarScape III	Posted - 2008.04.09 08:35:00 - [26] Edited by: FarScape III on 09/04/2008 08:35:45 No one says remove it completely in the 1st place. IMO it just needs to makes sense to be more fun though. Like to not be given after your ship got blown up by Concord or something close to that if that does not work out some how. It has nothing to do with the hi sec ganker blowing anyone up and them being mean, they are fine, let them keep doing it, it is fine. Just the insurance is mind numbingly stupid. And messes up the economy. ***
spiderppig	Posted - 2008.04.09 08:40:00 - [27] Id like to thank you all for making my last nite of work this week go by so much faster I dont mind the idea of voided insurance payouts but there is a few things overly generalized by this change. Bc in Hi-sec you can still gank a hauler in a untanked thorax and die to the gate guns befor concord arrives. Technically u should fall under the voided insurance but no concord on the mail. So CCP would have to include sentry guns on a mail as voided insurance. Which in turn affects low sec piracy with the gate guns with the potential of completly destroying low sec of its only redeeming value as a pvp playground. comments are much appreciated aswell as sugestions as to what would work to fix this.
spiderppig	Posted - 2008.04.09 08:44:00 - [28] Originally by: FarScape III Edited by: FarScape III on 09/04/2008 08:35:45 No one says remove it completely in the 1st place. IMO it just needs to makes sense to be more fun though. Like to not be given after your ship got blown up by Concord or something close to that if that does not work out some how. It has nothing to do with the hi sec ganker blowing anyone up and them being mean, they are fine, let them keep doing it, it is fine. Just the insurance is mind numbingly stupid. And messes up the economy. Now ive hered of this isk faucet you are referring to know as insurance. But how is it actually a isk faucet anyways seems more like someone is repeating someone elses unfounded and bass ackwards thoughts too me.
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2008.04.09 08:44:00 - [29] Anyone smart enough to insure a ship should be smart enough to click "No" when asked if they are sure that they want to perform a criminal act. Anyone dumb enough to toggle that confirmation box off gets exactly what they deserve. And the whole idea is to give suicide ganking some actual cost, since there really isn't any at the moment. You can almost profit from some T1 gank setups now, even after modules, and that's just wrong. But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Julia Newmatar	Posted - 2008.04.09 08:53:00 - [30] Originally by: FarScape III Edited by: FarScape III on 09/04/2008 08:35:45 No one says remove it completely in the 1st place. IMO it just needs to makes sense to be more fun though. Like to not be given after your ship got blown up by Concord or something close to that if that does not work out some how. It has nothing to do with the hi sec ganker blowing anyone up and them being mean, they are fine, let them keep doing it, it is fine. Just the insurance is mind numbingly stupid. And messes up the economy. This has been discussed a lot in the past, please try not to re-post someone else flawed arguments about insurance, insurance has been proven to take money out of the economy and introduce none, what it does do is mitigate the amount of isk leaving the economy during a ship loss, nothing else.

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.