These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

STOP PAYING INSURANCE FOR CONCORD KILLS
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#121 - 2011-10-16 06:47:32 UTC
Llanthas wrote:
Here we go again....

1 - the current situation annoys a huge number of players.
2 - paying insurance for CONCORD kills destroys the entire idea behind "high security systems" by facilitating suicide ganking with very little repercussion.
3 - it would improve the economy by providing a slight "isk sink" effect which stimulates more value per isk, rather than diluting it with money popping into the system from nowhere.
4 - it would help protect new players just learning the game from the darker side of Eve.
5 - it would allow high-sec industrial players to once again reach the heights of productivity - which supplies more/cheaper ships for PvP and newbie players - many advanced/faction things can only be produced in 0.0 anyway.
6 - it would help to give players the option to play as they like - PvP or PvE, rather than being forced into combat.
7 - safer newbie areas are a must for ANY online game.


1. Please provide proof of this. In your proof, make sure to include an analysis of whether more people are annoyed by the "current situation," or prefer it.
2. The removal of insurance wouldn't affect the majority of suicide-gankers.
3. Yes, you're right. However, the change will be tiny. The ratio of money injected via insurance versus money injected via rat bounties is like the limit of zero.
4. It would protect some and hurt others. Either way, suicide-gankers very, very rarely attack true newbies. A pilot in a Hulk isn't a newbie.
5. First of all, see point 2. Second of all, you're making the assumption that pvpers want cheaper ships; we don't, and you can easily verify this by talking with people who pvp. Also, everything can be produced everywhere.
6. Everyone already has the option to choose their path. However, EVE is a pvp-oriented game, and has always been one. Being forced into combat is one of EVE's core concepts.
7. Please provide proof of this. I want to see concrete evidence that your claims are correct. Simply stating that something "is" or something "must" won't cut it.

Llanthas wrote:
and on a personal note, it just kills part of the immersion with a completely unrealistic feature that no "insurance" company would ever undertake.


What about the feature of 100% lethal, instant-response police units that are completely inescapable, even by pod pilots with the fastest, strongest ships?

Llanthas wrote:
I'd also like to see it made much more difficult to regain lost security status, as well as a standings hit for committing crimes in an Empire's space. We'll just try this idea first, since it's already been proposed and debated by hundreds of Eve players (read: customers).


And this is exactly why we're fighting against the removal of insurance. Make a concession here, and before you know it, aggressive actions result in account suspension. We (read: pvpers and/or suicide-gankers) don't actually give two hoots about CONCORD insurance, as has been mentioned dozens of times by multiple people in treads of this nature. We simply don't want to set a precedent. Besides, you keep saying how hundreds are clamoring for this change; what about the hundreds who are speaking out against it? What makes the latter less important?

Llanthas wrote:
The only legitimate reason NOT to make the change? Griefer tears.


The pot calling the kettle black.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#122 - 2011-10-16 08:10:47 UTC
Remove insurance for all 0.5+ system deaths involving Concord.
- It is a stop-gap measure until the following is implemented . .can be skipped entirely if next is done first.

Remove all sec. gain from null rats. Increase sec. gain for low-sec rats to a level where time spent "repairing" is equal to now in null.
- That removes a lot more of the willy-nilly suicides than killing insurance will .. if the perpetrators have to actually risk **** after the fact rather than rat to +5.0 in absolute safety, the urge to suicide might be more easily subdued.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#123 - 2011-10-16 08:25:19 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Remove insurance for all 0.5+ system deaths involving Concord.
- It is a stop-gap measure until the following is implemented . .can be skipped entirely if next is done first.

Remove all sec. gain from null rats. Increase sec. gain for low-sec rats to a level where time spent "repairing" is equal to now in null.
- That removes a lot more of the willy-nilly suicides than killing insurance will .. if the perpetrators have to actually risk **** after the fact rather than rat to +5.0 in absolute safety, the urge to suicide might be more easily subdued.


Why should suicide-ganking be removed?

As an aside note, gaining security status in low, if the gains were made equivalent to those of 0.0, would actually be nicer, since there are no bubbles to worry about. This would make multiple-system chaining much more effective. So, I actually support this idea.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#124 - 2011-10-16 08:41:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Llanthas wrote:
Here we go again....
Again? You have never offered any explanaiton.
Quote:
1 - the current situation annoys a huge number of players.
2 - paying insurance for CONCORD kills destroys the entire idea behind "high security systems" by facilitating suicide ganking with very little repercussion.
3 - it would improve the economy by providing a slight "isk sink" effect which stimulates more value per isk, rather than diluting it with money popping into the system from nowhere.
4 - it would help protect new players just learning the game from the darker side of Eve.
5 - it would allow high-sec industrial players to once again reach the heights of productivity - which supplies more/cheaper ships for PvP and newbie players - many advanced/faction things can only be produced in 0.0 anyway.
6 - it would help to give players the option to play as they like - PvP or PvE, rather than being forced into combat.
7 - safer newbie areas are a must for ANY online game.
1. Prove it. Also, prove that those annoyed outnumber those who are amused. Finally, prove that those annoyed are simply not playing the wrong game.
2. No it does not. The systems are still high security. You are confusing “high” with “complete”. Highsec is not meant to be safe — just safer than the alternatives, and it is. Insurance is not even a factor.
3. No, it would not. It would reduce an ISK faucet, but at the same time lead to reduced production.
4. This already exists in form of the newbie systems, and as it happens, you are asking for a removal of one of the mechanisms that help new players.
5. All of what you just listed is bad. Highsec already has a vast overproduction capability and things are already at zero margin. If anything, things need to be made more expensive — that would allow said industrialists to earn more money. You are asking for something that will reduce their income.
6. They already have that option.
7. Safer newbie areas already exist.

By the way, the reason I reject you “again” is because here, you start blabbing about newbies (which, in fact, are helped by the things you want removed, and which are already afforded the protections you are asking for) when they have not been the subject of discussion previously. Until now, everyone has been banging on about some supposedly poor little innocent hulk miners… you know, those who have reached the very end of the mining profession? I.e. not newbies? This is a classic case of Malcanis' Law: you are hiding behind some uninformed and idiotic “oh poor newbies” rhetoric without even the slightest connection to reality just because you want to gain advantages for yourself — not for them — and because you are utterly and completely unable to provide even the slightest shred of argumentation for why you need that advantage.

Oh, and just so you know, newbies would not be protected by removing insurance. The cost of ganking a newb is zero, with or without insurance.
Quote:
The only legitimate reason NOT to make the change? Griefer tears.
Wow. You really are an ignorant and illiterate little thing, aren't you? False.

So you've explained and proven beyond any doubt that you are not that familiar with the game or its economy. Good for you.
Now, if you could be so kind as to respond the actual questions that need to be answered:

Why should CCP stop 90% of the suicide ganks that currently happen?
Why are the current consequences not enough?
Why should CCP auto-minimize the risks for you?
How do you propose to increase the inherent risks of highsec activities if the risk of ganking is reduced?

Or, put another way, what's the problem?
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#125 - 2011-10-16 10:02:16 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Why should suicide-ganking be removed?...

It shouldn't, but in its current form there is literally no downside to what ought to be a rather frowned upon/ criminal act .. being a bad guy should not be so much easier and lucrative than being a good guy.

In Eve one can actually benefit greatly by going into a shopping mall .. shoot people in face, rob their corpses and then take a weekend off in the country after which the police is mellowed out again .. how does that make sense?
We are so damn adamant when it comes to risk/reward in all other areas of Eve and it is the primary (if not only) ammo used by the "nerf highsec Lvl4's" lobby .. but for some reason suiciding is exempt from being subject to that very simple balancing tool.

The low-sec idea was first aired by Mashie Saldana of Veto if I recall and it just makes all sorts of sense. Adds combat/target ships to low-sec and fulfils the risk portion of being a bad guy, plus it removes the horrible oversight of null not giving sec. losses but tons of gains which is just silly.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#126 - 2011-10-16 10:16:11 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
It shouldn't, but in its current form there is literally no downside to what ought to be a rather frowned upon/ criminal act .. being a bad guy should not be so much easier and lucrative than being a good guy.
…and then people come and say that insurance payouts for ganks do not make sense. So much for consistency. Blink
Quote:
We are so damn adamant when it comes to risk/reward in all other areas of Eve and it is the primary (if not only) ammo used by the "nerf highsec Lvl4's" lobby .. but for some reason suiciding is exempt from being subject to that very simple balancing tool.
…aside from the fact that ganks most certainly have risks, no matter how much people want to ignore them because it ruins their argument, and aside from the other fact that one of the risk factors is other players keeping them from ganking people, which means that you are the one lowering their risks.
Quote:
plus it removes the horrible oversight of null not giving sec. losses but tons of gains which is just silly.
Why is it an oversight? It's what defines nullsec.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#127 - 2011-10-16 11:46:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Hirana Yoshida
Tippia wrote:
…and then people come and say that insurance payouts for ganks do not make sense. So much for consistency. Blink

It doesn't make sense, not even the slightest, but CCP can't/won't change it since newbs apparently get blown up by Concord in staggering numbers and the rookie's need all the aid they can get (until they become abusers of shoddy mechanics like the rest of us).
What CCP ought to do is remove it for everyone with more than three months to their name, banning the character recyclers will take care of the rest.
Tippia wrote:
…aside from the fact that ganks most certainly have risks, no matter how much people want to ignore them because it ruins their argument, and aside from the other fact that one of the risk factors is other players keeping them from ganking people, which means that you are the one lowering their risks.

What risk is involved, pray tell. Buy ship at mineral price +/-1% .. fit with T1 modules .. gank .. loot and cash in. After a few you become hunted in high-sec but can then retreat to the near 100% safe ratting grounds in null and not only make loads of ISK but get all your sec back in a few hours (dependent on area).

There are no repercussions associated with suiciding at all .. insurance covers ship loss (and more depending on ship/fit) and any sec loss can be repaired by doing semi-afk ratting. It is too damn cushy to be considered anything but broken in Eve.

Other players you say; you expect your fellow pilots to be pre-cogs and thus able to predict when/where a seemingly random group of ships decide to aggress some poor sod and somehow manage to prevent the act when even the mighty Concord doesn't have the firepower/speed to do so?
Theoretically it could be done by an absurd amount of ECM in conjunction with the pre-cog vision of the act ..

So again, what risk is there that is high enough to justify the ease with which it can be done ad nauseum?
Tippia wrote:
Why is it an oversight? It's what defines nullsec.

Makes me sad to read it but unfortunately too true. Null is indeed defined by the only place in Eve where one can have ones cake and eat it too .. where something can be had for nothing.
Even the immense tedium of many of the operations isn't enough to deter the sheep living there, because the benefits are just that damn good.
Adunh Slavy
#128 - 2011-10-16 12:34:40 UTC
I agree, having insurance paid out when destroyed by concord is silly.

Nope, never been a victim

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#129 - 2011-10-16 12:37:06 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
It doesn't make sense, not even the slightest
You didn't get the comparison, I take it?

For one, it's not supposed to make sense. It's a game mechanic, not a business. It makes as much sense as CONCORD, and yet I would hazard to guess that you don't want to remove that one…

Anyway, my point is that complaining about how this game mechanic (that has no connection to reality) does not make any sense, and in the same breath say that being bad should not be easier and more lucrative than being good, is very contradictory.
Quote:
What risk is involved, pray tell.
It would help if you actually read the thread, you know…

But ok, since I'm a nice guy: ~10M investment plus the risk of not finding a suitable target plus the risk of the target surviving plus the risk of the cargo not surviving. And that's not even going into the risk of just being shot due to low sec status (but then again, the people who might actually have some interest in enforcing this risk choose not to, and then complain that the risk isn't there… go figure).
Quote:
There are no repercussions associated with suiciding at all
Then why aren't you doing it? It's supposedly risk free and apparently earns you bazillions. So why aren't you doing it? Why aren't everyone?
Quote:
Other players you say; you expect your fellow pilots to be pre-cogs and thus able to predict when/where a seemingly random group of ships decide to aggress some poor sod and somehow manage to prevent the act when even the mighty Concord doesn't have the firepower/speed to do so?
They're not random. They're a rather small, easily spotted and easily tracked number of individuals and/or corps. You already have tons of tools to be “precognisant” of their whereabouts.
Quote:
Makes me sad to read it but unfortunately too true.
Why is it unfortunate? Nullsec is the place where you make your own law. If you want protection there, you have to add it and enforce it yourself — no magic instagib force from above to keep you safe. Adding sec losses here would remove the purpose of having nullsec to begin with. It would be as sensible as removing the same thing from highsec. And no, something can't be had for nothing in nullsec because you actually have to earn everything you do there, unlike in highsec, where it's given for free.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#130 - 2011-10-16 12:58:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Zarnak Wulf
Profit off of market speculation was more then enough to compensate for suicide ganking losses even before insurance is calculated. Flawed argument. Twisted
Llanthas
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2011-10-16 14:26:52 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:


Remove all sec. gain from null rats. Increase sec. gain for low-sec rats to a level where time spent "repairing" is equal to now in null.
- That removes a lot more of the willy-nilly suicides than killing insurance will .. if the perpetrators have to actually risk **** after the fact rather than rat to +5.0 in absolute safety, the urge to suicide might be more easily subdued.


I love this idea. Great post!
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#132 - 2011-10-16 14:34:29 UTC
Llanthas wrote:
Hirana Yoshida wrote:


Remove all sec. gain from null rats. Increase sec. gain for low-sec rats to a level where time spent "repairing" is equal to now in null.
- That removes a lot more of the willy-nilly suicides than killing insurance will .. if the perpetrators have to actually risk **** after the fact rather than rat to +5.0 in absolute safety, the urge to suicide might be more easily subdued.


I love this idea. Great post!



Haha. Look at this pubbie thinking sec status will prevent people from suicide ganking.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#133 - 2011-10-16 15:02:31 UTC
Llanthas wrote:
I love this idea. Great post!
Why is it that you always love posts that have no connection whatsoever to the realities of the game and which would break it?

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, you don't actually want to play EVE? After all you have everything that defines it and sets it apart from other games. If you want gameplay like in those other games, why not play them instead?
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#134 - 2011-10-16 15:21:57 UTC
How does moving sec. gain to low-sec break the game? Mind elaborating on that, because I don't see it.

What it does is add consequence to tanking ones sec. rating which is quite honestly sorely needed. Personally don't give a rats arse about suiciders but I do loathe the 3.0+ weekend pirates in LS who spend all week ratting deep in null and then bring their FoTM ship to gank people in entirely lopsided fights for a few hours at zero risk and with no inconvenience to them at all.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#135 - 2011-10-16 15:42:35 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
How does moving sec. gain to low-sec break the game? Mind elaborating on that, because I don't see it.
It's the idea that wily-nilly ganking is somehow a problem, and that it needs to be fixed that breaks the game. You're advocating the removal of perfectly legit gameplay for no adequately explained reason. That is game-breaking pretty much by very definition.
Quote:
What it does is add consequence to tanking ones sec. rating which is quite honestly sorely needed.
Why?
Quote:
Personally don't give a rats arse about suiciders
So what's the problem? What are you trying to solve here?

Your suggestion will do one thing: it will make people not tank their sec rating so they can grind it back up again while still in highsec, thus further removing the risks they would otherwise have to face (if someone could be arsed to enforce them). So all you're doing is reducing the risk for people who have an insignificant impact on the lives of highsec dwellers. For what?

I also find it hilarious that Llanthas likes an idea that has absolutely no effect on the people he's having trouble with, while at the same time doing the exact opposite of what he wants to see… Or, rather, I find it hilarious that he doesn't notice this, and thus supports the idea.
Quote:
I do loathe the 3.0+ weekend pirates in LS who spend all week ratting deep in null and then bring their FoTM ship to gank people in entirely lopsided fights for a few hours at zero risk and with no inconvenience to them at all.
Have you tried… you know… shooting them? Delivering some risk? Blowing up their FoTM ships? Inconveniencing them by podding them and creating travel and clone costs? Have you tried anything other than just laying on your back and taking it?
Psilocin
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#136 - 2011-10-16 16:33:45 UTC
I will soon be able to fulfill my dream of swimming in pubbie tears.

Please direct them to this funnel.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#137 - 2011-10-16 17:27:28 UTC
Tippia wrote:
...You're advocating the removal of perfectly legit gameplay for no adequately explained reason. That is game-breaking pretty much by very definition.

Tippia wrote:
Why?

Must have been unconscious then and now because I have done no such thing nor can I find any indication of ever doing it. What I do want is to have consequence added to breaking the law .. being flashy and getting message spammed in high-sec hardly constitutes a drawback. Suiciding will still be very possible and very lucrative but the random ganker might think twice if he knew that he would probably meet armed hostiles while repairing his sec. status.
Standings (includes sec. rating) in general are FUBAR with either no realistic hope of recovery (factions) or so easy as to be irrelevant (sec. status), former needs to be easier and latter harder .. LS ratting sorts the latter.
Tippia wrote:
Your suggestion will do one thing: ...

What part of sec. gain in LS did you not understand? There will be nothing but ISK/loot and faction standings for high-sec and null, if you want security rating you HAVE to go to LS .. do the crime, do the time. Pest control labour in service of the Empires.
Tippia wrote:
Have you tried…

You are not actually reading any of the stuff I write are you, or perhaps you do not know the words and have misplaced your dictionary?
Lopsided fights means that one side outguns the other to such an extent that you might as well spam warp from the get go to get the pod out .. or do you have such awesome piloting skills that you can defeat a Tengu in a Zealot or a Daredevil with a Rifter?
Null weekend warriors are a cowardly breed for the most part, so they will very rarely engage anything that has even a remote chance of fighting back, and with them never being flashy for more than the duration of the GCC (which they often sit out in station) you get zero warning .. they can do this with impunity because the next day they are behind a bazillion bubbles in bot-land making cash while repairing sec.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#138 - 2011-10-16 17:42:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
What I do want is to have consequence added to breaking the law .. being flashy and getting message spammed in high-sec hardly constitutes a drawback.
It would be if people didn't ignore it.
That's not a flaw in the mechanics, but with the people who are supposed to provide the additional risk not doing so (and then complaining that the risk they didn't provide doesn't exist).
Quote:
Suiciding will still be very possible and very lucrative but the random ganker might think twice if he knew that he would probably meet armed hostiles while repairing his sec. status.
Again, no, because the ganker will simply avoid getting so low a sec rating that he can't do it in highsec. Highsec dwellers need to be able to build their sec rating too, for various reasons, you know… Or maybe you don't, in which case we're back to the whole “break the game” part again.
Quote:
What part of sec. gain in LS did you not understand? There will be nothing but ISK/loot and faction standings for high-sec and null
Oh, sorry. You're quite right, I missed the “in highsec” part. That means sec rating will essentially be a massive buff to gankers, since they would be the only ones who could build up a buffer and blow people up for fun, whereas those who occasionally need to blow someone up for utility or to protect their highsec activities will be penalised.

As for your weekend warriors, the question remains: have you tried shooting them? Delivering some risk? Blowing up their FoTM ships? Inconveniencing them by podding them and creating travel and clone costs? Have you tried anything other than just laying on your back and taking it?

If you choose not to provide any risk, then you forfeit the right to complain that there aren't any risks.
Quote:
or do you have such awesome piloting skills that you can defeat a Tengu in a Zealot or a Daredevil with a Rifter?
Yes. It's the awesome piloting skill called “friends” and “traps”. It's lowsec — shoot them. If they have high sec rating, rat yours back up and shoot them again. Hell, it's lowsec — why the hell do you need to maintain your sec rating? Just kill them on sight.
Quote:
they can do this with impunity because the next day they are behind a bazillion bubbles in bot-land making cash while repairing sec.
You can still hunt them, you know…
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#139 - 2011-10-16 18:26:54 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:

Null weekend warriors are a cowardly breed for the most part


If only they had the e-honor of the great Hirana Yoshida.

Its a game dude. Get over it.
Llanthas
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#140 - 2011-10-17 00:15:41 UTC
XXSketchxx wrote:
Hirana Yoshida wrote:

Null weekend warriors are a cowardly breed for the most part


If only they had the e-honor of the great Hirana Yoshida.

Its a game dude. Get over it.


lol Pwnd. Nice post, Hirana.