These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Give with one hand, take away with the other

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mashie Saldana
V0LTA
OnlyFleets.
#61 - 2011-10-23 12:05:59 UTC
Elson Tamar wrote:
Couple of ideas which will be unpopular, but are kinda intersting maybe in a what if kind of way.

I dont think that you should get insurance when you get blown up by concord, or infact if engaged in factional warfare.

Maybe it is the navies the FW people are fighting for that cover the insurance cost as a thanks for the pod pilots doing their dirty work?

How to win EVE
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#62 - 2011-10-23 12:31:44 UTC
If this is done, then you shouldn't receive an insurance payout if you're blown up while mining/hauling in a high-risk system.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Dyner
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2011-10-23 12:37:58 UTC
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Tres Farmer wrote:
Needs better/different arguments - not the silly and often heard "proliferation of crime is unfair" thing you got going there. Cause you know, you're talking about Eve here, right?


I wasn't there to tell, but maybe insurance was introduced as a universal feature to prevent PvP from complaining that PvE got it when they were killed by NPCs.

Today insurance is a feature old enough and PvPers have got many free rides and it's time to remove some of their privileges.

CCP should do something for PvE each now and then, aside from spoiling their fun with scannable mission sites and removing Lvl5 from hisec, or keep them replaying the same old Lvl4 for years.



EVE was never a PVE game; it's always been Player-driven.

I also, don't see how showing what implants got blown up is a boon for PVPers. I mean...you [victim]still got dead.
Tanya Fox
Doomheim
#64 - 2011-10-23 12:38:19 UTC
Bronden Neopatus wrote:

Also lately PvP have been handed a treat that will ruin many people's living... namely implants in killmails, which mean that now there will be a serious reason to pod everyone, with or without a ransom. Good-bye piracy, btw.


Don't see why that would ruin piracy, just increase the ransom.


Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Remove insurance for concordokken ships.


Agree with you here as most contracts would have a clause where you would forfeit the payout if engaged in anything illegal. That does not mean there can't be another system where they could get insured although it's likely to be at a slightly higher premium.





Bronden Neopatus wrote:
That will effectively raise the cost of every ship used for suicide ganking


Suicide ganking has no real RP element, they mainly do it for laughs, so some will still do it.
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#65 - 2011-10-23 12:41:28 UTC
I understand the arguments on not reinbursing ships that where used in a crime and I fully and I agree with them.

But I highly doubt it would solve suicide ganking. From my experience, payout of insurance is 30-90 million, depending of your ships offcourse. People who suicide gank a "juicy" target don't know what will drop so they run a risk on occasion of not coming up with profit.

Therefore it is my understanding that even suicidegankers don't just gank anything on the radar but pick their targets carefully and expect to be amply rewarded by their ganks dropped cargo. Losing 30-90 million might be a problem, but in the high sec ganks I don't think that changes alot in practice since the potential targets must have a big profit margin to be attacked to begin with.

I never suicide ganked so I might be wrong. I think the only real problem with this measure is it would make suicide ganking purely for tears/strategic reasons (like the ice mining thing) more expensive, but tears shouldn't be cheap to come by. They should be earned :).

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]
pussnheels
Viziam
#66 - 2011-10-23 12:50:10 UTC
uummm 2 thingd

First implants on killmails is cosmetic sure it pleases the hardcore griefer ; but then again podkills in highsec by suicide ganks are rare , i think
on the other hand if you get podded you lose those implants no matter if they show on killmaill or not, nor does the suicide ganker have any idea what implants you got

the new BC or how i like to call them the pocket battleshipsSmile sure they seem to be the suicide gankers dream
But atleast if you see one warping into your belt you know for 90% he is out for a kill same if you see several of them camping the perimeter / jita gate; only makes it easier to spot the suicide gankers

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
Zamoria
Gammler Gmbh
#67 - 2011-10-23 12:53:25 UTC
Bischopt wrote:
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship.


Because everyone else does as well. If gankers stop getting insurance so should everyone else. They paid for it, they got it.
And if you're gonna start a thread try to have some arguments ready, not just some hate because someone blew you up paired with insults at everyone who disagrees with you. Nobody's taking this thread seriously anymore.


Thats no reason. If i burn my own house i paid insurance for, who will give me money? right no one!
Big Bad Mofo
Doomheim
#68 - 2011-10-23 12:55:55 UTC
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
I've been reading the fears that the new BCs will be used as the perfect suicide gankers due to their pew-pew... so that should be countered in some way.

Also lately PvP have been handed a treat that will ruin many people's living... namely implants in killmails, which mean that now there will be a serious reason to pod everyone, with or without a ransom. Good-bye piracy, btw.

That makes +2 for PvP, so I am going to suggest CCP to give a -1 to PvP to keep the fair play.

My suggestion is:

Remove insurance for concordokken ships.

That will effectively raise the cost of every ship used for suicide ganking, shiny new BCs included, and will fulfill a venerable old demand of many players who feel outraged by such a ludicrous thing as rewarding criminals for their crimes.

If someone has got the "galls" (cough, cough) to be a ganker, there is no point rewarding him for so. If being a ganker is not rewarding enough, he should stop being a ganker.

So that's it. Give PvP their shiny new ganker BCs and the implant killmails, BUT remove insurances when they are killed by the law.

Give with one hand and take away with the other, CCP.

BE FAIR.


tbh if you suicide gank, then yes you should not get insurance..i dont know why ccp still havent implemented this. I would like to know why
Mag's
Azn Empire
#69 - 2011-10-23 12:59:41 UTC
Cassina Lemour wrote:
Another strawman to miss-represent what I said.
OK let's revisit what you said.

Cassina Lemour wrote:
Eve is a libertarian dystopia, suicide ganking can only be justified when it is supported entirely on it's own economic merit. The current welfare model of insurance is a subsidy for the idiotic and lazy. Removing this welfare payment would require suicide ganking to pay it's own way just like other eve activities.
Why and how so? For these arguments to stand, wouldn't the same need to apply to both sides equally? (The point you missed.)
The no concord insurance payment side want to fit there ships for full cargo or full mining output. Why don't they have to accept some cost v reward? Why shouldn't they fit their ships or be active when transporting cargo, in order to mitigate the chance of being ganked? Surely the same economic argument should apply?

Cassina Lemour wrote:
Supporting the current system is closet communism.
I didn't take this seriously, sorry.

Cassina Lemour wrote:
Proof, I think that, that you do not have a legitimate rebuttal.
You need to show proof, to back up your original statement.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#70 - 2011-10-23 13:01:03 UTC
Insurance should not be paid to concordokken ships. I agree with that.

I don't usually insure my thrashers at any rate...

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.
Klandi
Consortium of stella Technologies
#71 - 2011-10-23 13:12:22 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Klandi wrote:
I am for the concept of erasing insurance on ships that suicide gank - and the definition in the kill mail will have concord as the greatest damage dealer.

The reason why I would support this change is simple. Actions have consequences. You decide that you want to take out a target that you are not at war with - you get slapped for your impetuosity by concord and you get fined.

However - lets take this one stage further.

I would ask that the victim gets the isk. Regardless of the insurance taken out by the victim, they also receive insurance isk from the perpetrators ship death. That should make the replacement funded by the ganker.

Then there would be tears LolLolLolLol


I LOL'ed seriously. LolLolLol

It would be too CRUEL to have EVE's Crime & Punishment behave as in RL... Twisted


But ironic and dare I mention it - fair.
Cruel is these peoples sense of fun - let them have it two-fold

I am aware of my own ignorance and have checked my emotional quotient - thanks for asking
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#72 - 2011-10-23 13:57:29 UTC
Tippia wrote:
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Maybe provide some counter arguments. Payments for ships blown up by concorde makes no sense to me and I've never seen a single argument which I can objectively see as a valid point as to why insurance payouts are made for ships killed by concorde.
Because it provides an incentive to blow ships up, and ships blowing up is is what keeps the wheels of EVE in motion.

Moreover, if you want to go for the “makes no sense” line of reasoning, remember that the same nonsense is what provides you with an teleporting, instagibbing, omniscient, unavoidable, undefeatable (RAAARRRR) police force… Do you want that removed as well?


Blowing ships up in wars, low sec and null is what keeps eve in motion. high sec ganking isn't some work around of the war Dec mechanic or anything to do with pvp, its a cheap way of making money by suiciding people transporting stuff with a get out of jail free card and a payment to cover things if it goes wrong. It's not pvp by any stretch of the imagination. Not saying stop suicide ganking, I'm saying remove the payment for doing it. After all, this is eve, its a harsh place, unless you're a suicide ganking alt.

Re: concorde, theyre the space police, part of high sec. Want to do crime with no police presence, that's what low sec is for.
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
#73 - 2011-10-23 14:33:13 UTC
I just got back 400k on my Thrasher? U crybabies Mad?
Esagila
#74 - 2011-10-23 15:03:32 UTC
Klandi wrote:
I am for the concept of erasing insurance on ships that suicide gank - and the definition in the kill mail will have concord as the greatest damage dealer.

The reason why I would support this change is simple. Actions have consequences. You decide that you want to take out a target that you are not at war with - you get slapped for your impetuosity by concord and you get fined.

However - lets take this one stage further.

I would ask that the victim gets the isk. Regardless of the insurance taken out by the victim, they also receive insurance isk from the perpetrators ship death. That should make the replacement funded by the ganker.

Then there would be tears LolLolLolLol


That would be seriously epic. However, I doubt that'll ever happen, it just makes too much sense.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#75 - 2011-10-23 15:19:54 UTC
Esagila wrote:
Klandi wrote:
I am for the concept of erasing insurance on ships that suicide gank - and the definition in the kill mail will have concord as the greatest damage dealer.

The reason why I would support this change is simple. Actions have consequences. You decide that you want to take out a target that you are not at war with - you get slapped for your impetuosity by concord and you get fined.

However - lets take this one stage further.

I would ask that the victim gets the isk. Regardless of the insurance taken out by the victim, they also receive insurance isk from the perpetrators ship death. That should make the replacement funded by the ganker.

Then there would be tears LolLolLolLol


That would be seriously epic. However, I doubt that'll ever happen, it just makes too much sense.


Well, the whole point of EVE is about how fun would be to be a criminal if civilization was prevented from dealing with it...

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#76 - 2011-10-23 15:29:48 UTC
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Blowing ships up in wars, low sec and null is what keeps eve in motion. high sec ganking isn't some work around of the war Dec mechanic or anything to do with pvp
Yes it is. It's how you get to parts of the war effort that are hidden in NPC corps or throw-away corps that will be dismantled at the first whiff of a wardec.

It's also pretty much the only way certain ships ever get blown up, since no-one would ever be nuts enough to bring them into a war zone. These things need to be lost as well to keep some kind of demand up.
Quote:
It's not pvp by any stretch of the imagination.
Of course it is. Unless NPCs have suddenly started to suicide gank you…
Quote:
Not saying stop suicide ganking, I'm saying remove the payment for doing it.
Why?
Killstealing
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2011-10-23 15:39:30 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship.
i am babbyCry

100% chance to lose your ship if you suicide gank. Not my fault miners fit hulks to have 5k EHP Lol
Killstealing
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2011-10-23 15:45:55 UTC
David Grogan wrote:

i am a dummy and think miners can't fit a tank or have any defenses

damage control, invulnerability field, EM shield rig, orca nearby

You are now almost invulnerable unless they bring enough alpha to kill your orca (you can store ship in orca if you get ganked) in which case you should have watched local you big doofus!

But please do keep fitting your retrievers to have 1k EHP and your hulks to have 5 Lol
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2011-10-23 15:53:06 UTC
Vachir Khan wrote:
On one hand I agree that current suicide mechanics are "a bit silly" but on the other I will defend EVE's bloodthirsty Darwinism to the last breath.

How about bringing in a more realistic insurance idea; introduce both reduced payouts as diminishing payouts within a certain time frame. Counted from the last offence, a certain amount of time afterwards there would be lower payouts, actual numbers are open for discussion ofcourse but this is how it could look.

First concordoken: 80% payout
second within a month of last concord loss: 50%
third: 20%
fourth: 0%

That way newbies (the eternal reasoning to not remove insurance) aren't hurt much at all but repeating offenders get "blacklisted" and have a reduced payout, if they keep out of trouble for that timeframe (a month in this example) then they'll be back at step 1. Again, actual numbers or "parole time" is up for discussion but I do believe this system would work fine; taking care of the repeat offenders and giving them a "time out" unless they agree to heavier losses.


This is not a bad approach, if insurance must be maintained.

But to your first sentence there. You can do both. Because what we have now isn't bloodthirsty Darwinism. We have an NPC corp that by any reasonable expectation would be bankrupt by now being used to subsidize suicide ganking. That's not Darwinism. That's outright dependence. The suicide gankers are suckling at the teet of an NPC corp on one hand while on the other telling people they should HTFU. The hypocrisy makes me blush with embarrassment.
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#80 - 2011-10-23 15:54:49 UTC
Bronden Neopatus wrote:
fair play.


Theres your first mistake

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes