Quote:

---

Debatable: the three top ships are caldari missile boats. And quite common for mission runners, and only the raven being considered by most to be a PvP combat ship (The frigate and cruiser can be used for it, though most seem to sneer at missiles)

Caldari also has the largest player population.

Till they can break down the mission runners from the combat players there will be a question there.

But more telling was the fact mining and industrial ships were also in the the top numbers, versus other racial combat ships finishing out the top slots.

The snapshots also showed most operated predominantly in high sec space (with a portion entering low sec), the 'safe' areas of eve. (with consideration for travel through low sec)

---

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

---

Don't trust any statistics you haven't manipulated yourself I guess. Suffice to say that I move through lowsec plenty, currently live in 0.0, yet do not want the pvp threat to be too prevalent in highsec. Because I realize a lot of people play a game not for kicks or to vent frustrations, but to relax. And that is exactly why I myself go back to highseccing from time to time, because that is the best way to play if you simply want to relax. So your great statistic would count me on the wrong side, and I am fairly certain that a lot of other characters play in a similar manner.

And not counting 0.0 miners into the carebear crowd gotta be the greatest joke ever. I find most 0.0 miners to be way worse carebears than your average CNR highsec missionrunner.

---

Originally by: Windjammer

---

Probably one of the reasons why the study found that at any given time around 80% of EVE players are in high sec.

Windjammer

---

Originally by: Draygo Korvan

---

Ashen, ever hear of the phrase: What you don't do, won't hurt you. ?

This applies here. If the nerf to insurance goes through you will see people quit the game. While if it is left alone you will see the subscription trend continue (up). Instead of finding ways of nerfing a valid way of playing, how about you focus on increasing options for the victim, that makes the game more interesting, and perhaps more fun.

Tradable killrights is such one idea, it allows you to pass off a kill right to someone (persumably you can sell this kill right for isk, lessening the isk blow of losing a ship) which increases the pvp options in the game.

Another option is to add a new type of contract called a defense contract. A defense contract is this, a player can set in the contract how long it is and the payout assuming the contract issuer does not die. In addition to a penalty if the contract issuer dies to hostile player action (not NPC's/concord/self destruct). This would be adding a mechanic to the game that allows a carebear to pay a pvper for active protection, where the pvper could end up paying for your loss if he fails.

Another idea would be to introduce modules that would actually transfer a % of your shields to the target ship, instead of healing the target ship sheilds for x amount. So you lose shield as the target ship gains shield. Obviously this module would increase the targets shield much faster than current shield transferers, but would stop working once you are out of shields yourself, it would also be expensive on the capacitor, more so than current shield transferers. This would be one step on making it possible for players to escort ships through highsec by allowing them to begin to counter the dps of the attacking ships.

Instead of focusing on making one profession's life harder, find ideas that introduce new ones and new ways to play the game. This type of thinking is what expands a game, and moves it forward. A nerfing mindset only makes people angry, one group at a time till you are left with only like minded individuals and declining subscription numbers. I'm not saying in some cases a nerf isn't valid, but in this case a nerf is definatly not needed.

---

Originally by: Mozetta

---

Quote:

---

Sorry, Mozetta, but that's just a bit off. The economic report was tracking movement of characters which it assumed were main characters. Check this quote out: "The characters that are not accessed or do not move between systems are most likely alternate characters for subscribers. We therefore assume that these jumps show us the movement of main characters on each subscription account and are therefore representative for the movement of the main population in EVE."(4th paragraph of page 4) and "49% of all pilots moved only within high security areas (high-sec)"(1st paragraph of page 5).

That means that the 49% they're talking about who never leave high sec are assumed by the report to be main characters. Like I've said before, Ki An's analysis is flawed. It contains erroneous interpretations and some of the numbers he just made up. The conclusion of such an analysis has almost no hope of being accurate in any way.

Windjammer

P.S. Here's the URL of the report if you want to check it out for yourself.
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/pdf/QEN_Q4-2007.pdf
Read it and see if what I've said above is true or not. I've referenced the quotes to page and paragraph of that report. It'll take a while to load. Unfortunately someone thought it would be cool to insert a bunch of pictures in the report and as a result it loads slowly.

---

ok I read it. nowhere does it claim that the carebears are in the majority. it doesnt claim that their in the minority either. i guess that both sides of the argument can stop using that report as back up for their arguments as it doesnt really support any of the arguments in this thread. kian did an analysis which you think is wrong. i dont really agree with the entire analysis either but i think he has a point when he sais it cant be used to show carebears are in the majority like ashen said.

---

Originally by: Avon

---

Originally by: Windjammer

---

Probably one of the reasons why the study found that at any given time around 80% of EVE players are in high sec.

Windjammer

---

Characters, not players.
Now who is twisting?

---

Originally by: Draygo Korvan

---

This applies here. If the nerf to insurance goes through you will see people quit the game.

---

Originally by: Marlona Sky

---

lulz @ all the suicide ganks getting emo rage about ccp taking away thier "You ISK is now my ISK at no cost to me" button and talking about quiting the game.

P.S. - Can I have your stuff?

---

Originally by: Hamfast

---

Originally by: Xaen

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

Alex (CSM Bane Glorious) said that most suicide gankers already thought of ratting to regain security status as painful.

---

It's extremely painful. It takes about four dedicated hours of ratting in 0.0 to regain the sec hit from a single ship kill. And there's no guarantee you even got anything from the ship kill.

---

I am going to assume that Xaen is correct and 4 hours (average) in 0.0 space will clear the hit of 1 kill... My question is why would any amount of ratting in 0.0 space raise your security standing with Concord that totally ignores security hits in 0.0? If Killing and Podding another player in 0.0 space will not lower your standing with Concord (a correct function I might add), then ratting in that system should have no affect as well...

Modify all security hit's or bumps by the posted security level of the system (For Concord only)... now those who commit criminal acts will be paying with more then a few hours of ratting in (with sovereignty and control) relative safety, to counter the security hit on suicide ganking...

etc.

---

Originally by: Avon

---

Originally by: Marlona Sky

---

lulz @ all the suicide ganks getting emo rage about ccp taking away thier "You ISK is now my ISK at no cost to me" button and talking about quiting the game.

P.S. - Can I have your stuff?

---

Nice summary of the whole thread.
Now maybe you should actually try reading it.

I'll clue you in on the general theme:
"I personally do not like playstyleX, and therefore I think it should be made harder. I do not think it is fair that someone should be able to interact with me without my explicit consent. I want to play Eve in a bubble, and anyone who tries to burst it must be punished. My style of play is correct because it is in line with some moral code which I am unable to step outside of in a game where it really does not apply."

I wonder how the thread would go if it was asking CCP to stop insurance payouts for people who declare war, because it is unfair on the victim?
Or stopping insurance on self destructed ship?
Or at gates in low-sec?
Or in 0.0?

Insurance should not be based on what some players think fair or unfair, because in all honesty it is a stupid enough mechanic already. It should apply to all players equally.
If suicide ganking is an issue, tackle it (although I'd be interested to see how many ships are killed per day with the attackers subsequently being killed by Concord). Tackle the heart of it. Don't slap a stupid knee-jerk bandage on it and hope for the best.
The problem is, people don't want to face up to the underlying problems, because that may mean things that they think favorable to their playstyle being ajusted too, and that would never do.
They aren't after fairness and balance, they want vengence.
If only they'd take that spirit and do something with it, rather than crying for CCP to do it for them.

---

Originally by: Ashen Angel

---

To repeat: it's high risk insurance.

And before you ask the question again(with the vagueness that makes it no yes or no answer): a soldier, police officer, or anyone commits a criminal act (determined by the courts with legal jurisdiction over them) and is killed, then it is not paid to the beneficiaries.

---

Originally by: Avon

---

Originally by: Ashen Angel

---

To repeat: it's high risk insurance.

And before you ask the question again(with the vagueness that makes it no yes or no answer): a soldier, police officer, or anyone commits a criminal act (determined by the courts with legal jurisdiction over them) and is killed, then it is not paid to the beneficiaries.

---

So, all I have to do is claim I am a soldier interdicting covert enemy supply lines in a black-ops mission, and then the insurance will pay out because I was killed by a hostile police force whilst on active duty?
Seems fair.

At the same time we can stick anyone who self destructs a ship in to e-prison for a few years, because fraud is bad.

Yeah?

Or we can accept that insurance in Eve is a game mechanic buffer open to everyone equally, because it is far simpler and fairer than making judgement calls on each claim.
But then I guess you 'd be happy for that to happen, so long as it was you making the calls.

---

Originally by: Draygo Korvan

---

First post in thread:
Posted - 2008.07.10 14:13:00

Last post in thread
Posted - 2008.07.21 16:52:00

That is over 11 days and only 33 supports putting this thread at 3 supports per day.

It will be years before this thread will meet the 25% of voters minimum threshold at this rate.

And Ashen Angel, nearly half the posts in this thread are yours. Do you really think rehashing the same idea over and over again is a good idea and will help you gain support for your cause? Obviously it isn't working.

Also you have such bad tunnel vision you completely ignored my last post only to reply on specifics about isk insurance instead of taking the other ideas into consideration. Instead of using your brain, which you hopefully have, to find an acceptable solution to most parties you are pushing an issue only acceptable to a small minority of people, and ignoring all other ideas. Instead you continue page after page rehashing the same arguement to make sure those ideas get buried in the middle of the thread where no one will read them besides the ones that have been keeping up with your blurf.

---

Quote:

---

it was considered to move criminal offenders out of the NPC corporations into Pirate NPC corporations if they committed too many crimes.

---

Originally by: Ashen Angel

---

Trading kill rights are one of the options already listed as being looked into

The module wouldn't help very much with many suicide attacks (since they are aimed at the lone ships or unsupported. Instead they pop the logistics ships since their tank is being ported away by expensive modules)

The last is a basic merc contract, with terms on payment.

Neither of the last two affect the cost/risk of shooting empty haulers without even bothering to scan to see if there is cargo. (An empty hauler with certain named cargo expanders is worth it depending on the ships used)

---

Originally by: Avon

---

Originally by: Marlona Sky

---

lulz @ all the suicide ganks getting emo rage about ccp taking away thier "You ISK is now my ISK at no cost to me" button and talking about quiting the game.

P.S. - Can I have your stuff?

---

Nice summary of the whole thread.
Now maybe you should actually try reading it.

I'll clue you in on the general theme:
"I personally do not like playstyleX, and therefore I think it should be made harder. I do not think it is fair that someone should be able to interact with me without my explicit consent. I want to play Eve in a bubble, and anyone who tries to burst it must be punished. My style of play is correct because it is in line with some moral code which I am unable to step outside of in a game where it really does not apply."

I wonder how the thread would go if it was asking CCP to stop insurance payouts for people who declare war, because it is unfair on the victim?
Or stopping insurance on self destructed ship?
Or at gates in low-sec?
Or in 0.0?

Insurance should not be based on what some players think fair or unfair, because in all honesty it is a stupid enough mechanic already. It should apply to all players equally.
If suicide ganking is an issue, tackle it (although I'd be interested to see how many ships are killed per day with the attackers subsequently being killed by Concord). Tackle the heart of it. Don't slap a stupid knee-jerk bandage on it and hope for the best.
The problem is, people don't want to face up to the underlying problems, because that may mean things that they think favorable to their playstyle being ajusted too, and that would never do.
They aren't after fairness and balance, they want vengence.
If only they'd take that spirit and do something with it, rather than crying for CCP to do it for them.

---

Originally by: Red Raider

---

Is recieving an insurance payment for losing your ship while ganking reducing the ISK risk involved with ganking to near zero?

---

Originally by: Hamfast

---

Ki An,

Have you changed your mind on the Stupidity tax?

Read 2 posts, 248 (mine) and 256 (Your reply)

Getting rid of the insurance pay out on ships killed by Concord is a tax on the stupidity of the pilot that lost the ship...

Just like getting Suicide Ganked could be called a tax on a stupid pilot who had too much value in/on a ship and was not paying attention...

Being the Ganker and not getting the loot (or no loot) = Stupid (Poor planning) Taxed the cost of your ship + Sec Loss...

Being the Ganked and not getting away = Stupid (you did put your self in the position to get ganked) you get taxed the lost Cargo (and perhaps part of the cost of the ship)...

All of the NPC Corp items have no place in this thread, they are a red herring, while there are issued with NPC Corps, they have no bearing on the requirement of a Stupidity Tax for Suicide Gankers.

All the posts about people who like or don't like PVP Combat, or the market, or missions have no bearing on a Stupidity Tax on Suicide Gankers.

---

Originally by: Marlona Sky

---

Avon, everytime this topic comes up you fly in with 100 post in each thread trying to highjack it.

Its done, its over with. Accept the fact that you wont be able to suicide gank for free anymore.

Your extreme arguments are virtually always dismissed because you take the topic and keep spinning it and spinning it till it doesn't even resemble what it once was.

Cancel your sub to Avon-Online and try playing EVE-Online more...

---

Originally by: Red Raider

---

How about we break the arguments down into a simpler question.

Is recieving an insurance payment for losing your ship while ganking reducing the ISK risk involved with ganking to near zero?


For the purpose of this response pretend this has absolutely zero to do with risk/reward of anyone else. Anyone is welcome to respond but I am especially interested in responses from our key contributors here. Ki An, Draygo(has been getting into it), WindJammer, Ashen, Mozetta, Avon, Leandro, and me. This should be a simple yes or no.

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

Originally by: Red Raider

---

How about we break the arguments down into a simpler question.

Is recieving an insurance payment for losing your ship while ganking reducing the ISK risk involved with ganking to near zero?


For the purpose of this response pretend this has absolutely zero to do with risk/reward of anyone else. Anyone is welcome to respond but I am especially interested in responses from our key contributors here. Ki An, Draygo(has been getting into it), WindJammer, Ashen, Mozetta, Avon, Leandro, and me. This should be a simple yes or no.

---

I'm sorry, but it's close to 1AM here, and I'm a bit tired. Could you rephrase the question? Not sure what you're getting at.

---

Originally by: Farrqua

---

Ki its a set up question. She/He/It is reaching.

---

Originally by: Red Raider

---

Originally by: Red Raider

---

Is recieving an insurance payment for losing your ship while ganking reducing the ISK risk involved with ganking to near zero?

---

YES

---

Originally by: Avon

---

Originally by: Red Raider

---

Originally by: Red Raider

---

Is recieving an insurance payment for losing your ship while ganking reducing the ISK risk involved with ganking to near zero?

---

YES

---

Look at you forgetting to switch character. Oh dear.

There are few ships where the insurance payout = cost of ship + mods + insurance premium; or even close to it.

Lower the cost, sure. Mitigate it, no.

The real question is: would removing insurance on concord kills stop or significantly reduce suicide ganking?

I don't think it would. And if it wouldn't, is the call for it an attempt at balance, or a way to lash out because they feel powerless?

---