These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#21 - 2011-10-13 18:49:28 UTC
Llanthas wrote:
Argument 1: It wouldn't change anything.
Response: Ok, so what do you care? Just do it.
No. If it doesn't change anything, it's pointless to add it.
Quote:
Argument 2: It's intended to encourage PvP.
Response: There's no PvP here, shooting a defenseless opponent that can't even respond until he's half-dead.
No, it encourages the loss of ships, which is a good thing. And no, it is still PvP.
Quote:
Argument 3: CONCORD kills them, too.
Response: Yeah, CONCORD takes out your cheap pvp ship, and the miner loses half a bill in ship, modules, and production. PLUS, there are plenty of examples of exploits used to escape CONCORD.
…and have to buy them again, which is a good thing. That's why it's encouraged.
Quote:
Argument 4: It'll hurt people that make their "living" off this.
Response: You're making your in-game living off of insurance fraud? Is that really what we want this game to be?
Yes.
Llanthas
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2011-10-13 19:04:47 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Llanthas wrote:
Argument 1: It wouldn't change anything.
Response: Ok, so what do you care? Just do it.
No. If it doesn't change anything, it's pointless to add it.
Quote:
Argument 2: It's intended to encourage PvP.
Response: There's no PvP here, shooting a defenseless opponent that can't even respond until he's half-dead.
No, it encourages the loss of ships, which is a good thing. And no, it is still PvP.
Quote:
Argument 3: CONCORD kills them, too.
Response: Yeah, CONCORD takes out your cheap pvp ship, and the miner loses half a bill in ship, modules, and production. PLUS, there are plenty of examples of exploits used to escape CONCORD.
…and have to buy them again, which is a good thing. That's why it's encouraged.
Quote:
Argument 4: It'll hurt people that make their "living" off this.
Response: You're making your in-game living off of insurance fraud? Is that really what we want this game to be?
Yes.


Obvious Troll is obvious.

Can we get a serious response to this? I'm finding a lot - LOT of forum threads on this topic, and CCP said they were going to do it 2 YEARS AGO. What happened? The Goons in the CSM didn't like it? Too busy with Dust514 to consider it? How are hundreds (if not thousands) of players calling for the same thing, and not being heard??
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#23 - 2011-10-13 19:14:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Llanthas wrote:
Obvious Troll is obvious.
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it a troll, you know…
Quote:
Can we get a serious response to this?
Yes. See my responses above.
Quote:
I'm finding a lot - LOT of forum threads on this topic, and CCP said they were going to do it 2 YEARS AGO.
…and guess what? It turned out not to be needed because the last set of changes put a serous damper on the ganking in highsec — arguably too much of a damper, since we have a situation where too few ships are exploding these days.
Quote:
How are hundreds (if not thousands) of players calling for the same thing, and not being heard??
Most likely, because they're asking for something that's not needed and because in all their calls, they're forgetting to explain why it should change.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#24 - 2011-10-13 19:23:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Llanthas wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Post.


Obvious Troll is obvious.

Can we get a serious response to this? I'm finding a lot - LOT of forum threads on this topic, and CCP said they were going to do it 2 YEARS AGO. What happened? The Goons in the CSM didn't like it? Too busy with Dust514 to consider it? How are hundreds (if not thousands) of players calling for the same thing, and not being heard??
Simply because someone refutes your argument and disagrees with you, doesn't make them a troll. The fact you've jumped to that defence, says more about your lack of a real argument than anything else.

Also they stated this:

CSM-CCP meeting 18-20.02.2010 wrote:
The CSM brought up the issue of suicide ganking and feels it is too easy. The main problem is that this
is in effect subsidized by insurance. CCP is aware of the issue and has discussed it at great length in-house. CCP feels it absolutely needs to compensate newbies that attack players by mistake in high-sec.
This may get changed in the future but not in the summer expansion. It was made clear that suicide
ganking is an accepted game mechanic.
So not only did they say no change, I've given you the actual link to that fact. Whereas you have yet to provide any proof, for your wild claims in this thread.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Llanthas
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2011-10-13 19:24:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Llanthas wrote:
Obvious Troll is obvious.
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it a troll, you know…
Quote:
Can we get a serious response to this?
Yes. See my responses above.
Quote:
I'm finding a lot - LOT of forum threads on this topic, and CCP said they were going to do it 2 YEARS AGO.
…and guess what? It turned out not to be needed because the last set of changes put a serous damper on the ganking in highsec — arguably too much of a damper, since we have a situation where too few ships are exploding these days.
Quote:
How are hundreds (if not thousands) of players calling for the same thing, and not being heard??
Most likely, because they're asking for something that's not needed and because in all their calls, they're forgetting to explain why it should change.


Seriously. You're just being snarky. Giving a smart-ass answer like you're talking to your dad about homework doesn't constitute a productive response. In my first post, I detailed the exact reasons why/how this should be done. If you don't have anything to add other than "that's stupid", then go troll another thread please.

Your one coherent response has been that high-sec ganking helps drive the Eve economy, so I'll respond to that: Srsly?
You just finished saying that removing the insurance payout for CONCORD kills would have no effect. If that's true, then why are you against it? Obviously, you are a ganker, and are defending the money you make when your pew-pew ship gets popped by the in-game police. You can't have it both ways - either it doesn't matter, or it drives the economy. I won't even bother pointing out that the Eve economy involves trillions of isk being moved every day, and that a couple mining ships don't make much of a difference in inflation or pricing.

Now please. Go away and let the adults talk for a bit.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#26 - 2011-10-13 19:32:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Llanthas wrote:
I won't even bother pointing out that the Eve economy involves trillions of isk being moved every day, and that a couple mining ships don't make much of a difference in inflation or pricing.
So if it's only a couple of mining ships a day, with your idea in place 90% of them will survive?

Edit: Also if it is only a couple of mining ships, why even bother changing this mechanic?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#27 - 2011-10-13 19:37:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Llanthas wrote:
Seriously.You're just being snarky.
Yes. Very. And no, not at ll. In that order.
Quote:
I detailed the exact reasons why/how this should be done.
No. You've stated that “it's wrong” and “it's illogical” and that's about it. You've not explained why it's wrong, and why it needs to be “fixed”, and you've (quite accidentally, presumably) given plenty of examples that show why it shouldn't.
Quote:
If you don't have anything to add other than "that's stupid", then go troll another thread please.
Good thing that I haven't said anything of the sort, and that I've added quite a bit more than that, then… Less good is that you have chosen not to respond to it.
Quote:
Your one coherent response has been that high-sec ganking helps drive the Eve economy, so I'll respond to that: Srsly?
Yes.
Quote:
You just finished saying that removing the insurance payout for CONCORD kills would have no effect.
No, you're confusing me with you. You're pretty much the only one that has said that so far. Oh, I suppose that Fluffers said something that might be interpreted that way, but you're still confusing the meaning of that answer with what I'm saying. He's saying that, no, people will still get ganked. I'm saying that insurance encourages the loss of ships. If anything, they need to encourage it more.

So, again, let's see if you can actually answer the question: why should they stop paying insurance for CONCORD kills?
Llanthas
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2011-10-13 19:38:14 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Llanthas wrote:
I won't even bother pointing out that the Eve economy involves trillions of isk being moved every day, and that a couple mining ships don't make much of a difference in inflation or pricing.
So if it's only a couple of mining ships a day, with your idea in place 90% of them will survive?


Just the ones in HIGH SEC. 0.0 space and lowsec are there specifically for open PvP. There's no reason that the economy would be affected whatsoever, other than less highsec ganking. That means more ships available, more research done in POS's, and more advanced industry play.
And before you cry "inflation", the insurance payouts are only adding to that. So, if you want to drive the eve economy, get into 0.0 and pop some alliance ships, or gank the heck out of anything that moves in lowsec. There's no reason that should be rewarded in high-security systems by a free payout from an "insurance company" that would never survive paying out intentional losses. I don't have a way to look at the net isk movement of the Pend Insurance Co, but I'd imagine it's a couple trillion in the red by now.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#29 - 2011-10-13 19:42:18 UTC
Llanthas wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Llanthas wrote:
I won't even bother pointing out that the Eve economy involves trillions of isk being moved every day, and that a couple mining ships don't make much of a difference in inflation or pricing.
So if it's only a couple of mining ships a day, with your idea in place 90% of them will survive?


Just the ones in HIGH SEC. 0.0 space and lowsec are there specifically for open PvP. There's no reason that the economy would be affected whatsoever, other than less highsec ganking. That means more ships available, more research done in POS's, and more advanced industry play.
And before you cry "inflation", the insurance payouts are only adding to that. So, if you want to drive the eve economy, get into 0.0 and pop some alliance ships, or gank the heck out of anything that moves in lowsec. There's no reason that should be rewarded in high-security systems by a free payout from an "insurance company" that would never survive paying out intentional losses. I don't have a way to look at the net isk movement of the Pend Insurance Co, but I'd imagine it's a couple trillion in the red by now.
Before we go on, any chance you can provide proof of the 'facts' you are so readily providing us.

So far you've stated 90% will stop, people actually live off the insurance payout, it's only a couple of mining ships per day anyway and it will have little to no effect on the economy. Just wondered where you're pulling this information from.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#30 - 2011-10-13 19:42:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Llanthas wrote:
[There's no reason that the economy would be affected whatsoever, other than less highsec ganking.
…and you have yet to explain why that's needed or, indeed, even a good thing.
Quote:
There's no reason that should be rewarded in high-security systems by a free payout from an "insurance company" that would never survive paying out intentional losses.
Sure there is: so that ships explode, even in highsec.

Oh, and…
Quote:
Just the ones in HIGH SEC. 0.0 space and lowsec are there specifically for open PvP
…as is highsec. The only difference is that in highsec, aggression comes at a cost.
Llanthas
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2011-10-13 19:53:59 UTC
Mag's wrote:

Before we go on, any chance you can provide proof of the 'facts' you are so readily providing us.

So far you've stated 90% will stop, people actually live off the insurance payout, it's only a couple of mining ships per day anyway and it will have little to no effect on the economy. Just wondered where you're pulling this information from.


Ummmm I think with my brain?


If you need more reasons:

1 - CCP's only reason for NOT doing this has been "we need to pay back newbies that screw up", but it's ok for them to work hard, buy their first shiny new mining barge with all the fittings and get it blown up in "high security space" for no freakin' reason than another player wants to make them frustrated. Great business model.

2 - CONCORD insurance payouts create inflation. It's pretty freakin' obvious that injecting money out of nowhere lowers the value of that money. Example: The Federal Reserve. The last 100 years of economics. You both say ships need to blow up so that the economy moves. Well, paying both sides back when something is destroyed doesn't make anything move.

3 - What the heck's the point of having "high security space" if you're MORE vulnerable to getting blown up there? In lowsec, I can target and destroy someone BEFORE they blow up my buddy's mining barge. In highsec, he's half dead before I'm allowed to open fire.

4 - It's annoying a huge amount of players. Believe it or not, this game runs on a voluntary payment basis. We are customers. If customers quit buying/paying for a product, it dies.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#32 - 2011-10-13 20:00:08 UTC
Llanthas wrote:
Mag's wrote:

Before we go on, any chance you can provide proof of the 'facts' you are so readily providing us.

So far you've stated 90% will stop, people actually live off the insurance payout, it's only a couple of mining ships per day anyway and it will have little to no effect on the economy. Just wondered where you're pulling this information from.


Ummmm I think with my brain?
So you made them up and they are not in fact, facts. OK.


Llanthas wrote:
If you need more reasons:
Not sure more made up facts or reasons would help tbh.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Llanthas
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2011-10-13 20:02:37 UTC
I never claimed to have any "facts" about the exact percentage effect of these changes. I used "90%" as a gross estimation. Apologies if that confused you. This sniping reminds me of watching Fox News. Excellent diversionary tactic when you lose a debate.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#34 - 2011-10-13 20:11:56 UTC
Llanthas wrote:
If you need more reasons:
Well, you haven't really provided any, so that would be good…
Quote:
1 - CCP's only reason for NOT doing this has been "we need to pay back newbies that screw up" but it's ok for them to work hard, buy their first shiny new mining barge with all the fittings and get it blown up in "high security space" for no freakin' reason than another player wants to make them frustrated.
Yes. Welcome to EVE. Oh, and do you have any kind of source for that being their only reason?
Quote:
2 - CONCORD insurance payouts create inflation.
Not really, no. As far as ISK faucets go, it's waaaay behind bounties and mission payouts, so if they wanted to fight inflation, they would go after those instead (which would have the added benefit of spreading the reduction out over more people, making each of them feel it a whole lot less).
Quote:
3 - What the heck's the point of having "high security space" if you're MORE vulnerable to getting blown up there?
You're not. The point of having highsec space is to provide an area where you can gamble on the hope that the enforced cost of aggression will enough to dissuade people from attacking you. That is all it is, though: a hope and a gamble. They may still attack you for a number of reasons and just because you're in highsec space and taking that gamble doesn't mean that you are completely safe and that you shouldn't take precautions.
Quote:
4 - It's annoying a huge amount of players.
Not enough to make them quit. Moreover, it is only annoying if they're being stupid about it and not minimising their exposure. Yes, if they forget what game they're playing, they might end up paying for it (but previous changes have made the chances for this so small so it's not much of a risk anyway), but just because they're accidentally careless doesn't mean that the game needs to adopt to their clumsiness. Quite the opposite: they need to adopt (or, more accurately, remove) their clumsiness to adopt for the game.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#35 - 2011-10-13 20:12:54 UTC
Llanthas wrote:
This sniping reminds me of watching Fox News. Excellent diversionary tactic when you lose a debate.
Well, if you had any kind of argument and/or reasoning behind why there needs to be any change, you wouldn't have to resort to those kinds of diversions…
Mag's
Azn Empire
#36 - 2011-10-13 20:16:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Llanthas wrote:
I never claimed to have any "facts" about the exact percentage effect of these changes. I used "90%" as a gross estimation. Apologies if that confused you. This sniping reminds me of watching Fox News. Excellent diversionary tactic when you lose a debate.

Diversionary tactic? So asking for clarification on statements, you've made to back up your idea, is diversionary?

It's not just the 90% I could point at, what about your claim that CCP said they would fix this 2 years ago? Or the one about people living off the insurance payout?

Surely for any argument to hold water it needs to be based on facts, rather than made up at the moment thoughts.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#37 - 2011-10-13 20:21:33 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Llanthas wrote:

1 - CCP's only reason for NOT doing this has been "we need to pay back newbies that screw up", but it's ok for them to work hard, buy their first shiny new mining barge with all the fittings and get it blown up in "high security space" for no freakin' reason than another player wants to make them frustrated. Great business model.


Isn't it? It's the reason I fell in love with the game and stayed. Twisted

Llanthas wrote:

2 - CONCORD insurance payouts create inflation. It's pretty freakin' obvious that injecting money out of nowhere lowers the value of that money. Example: The Federal Reserve. The last 100 years of economics. You both say ships need to blow up so that the economy moves. Well, paying both sides back when something is destroyed doesn't make anything move.


Not too long ago, a DEV posted some very interesting numbers regarding "inflation" in EVE. Over the course of a week only 100-something billion ISK was injected into the EVE economy through insurance... which was off-set a bit by insurance premiums (took away a third of the injection I believe).
The BIGGEST culprit of inflation in EVE turned out to be NPC bounties (i.e. ISK from missions rats, plex rats, sanctum rats, and belt rats)... which totaled up to almost a TRILLION ISK.

You want to put a serious dent in inflation... nerf NPC bounties. Twisted

Llanthas wrote:

3 - What the heck's the point of having "high security space" if you're MORE vulnerable to getting blown up there? In lowsec, I can target and destroy someone BEFORE they blow up my buddy's mining barge. In highsec, he's half dead before I'm allowed to open fire.


The "point" is that high-sec space is "safer" and "not safe"... and that any illegal aggressive actions you take have consequences. Unfortunately for you, the gankers have already accepted the consequences and so no one is really safe around them.

Llanthas wrote:

4 - It's annoying a huge amount of players. Believe it or not, this game runs on a voluntary payment basis. We are customers. If customers quit buying/paying for a product, it dies.


Believe it or not... it's only annoying to people who don't like the idea of acting/adapting reflexively/defensively because the situation being beyond their control.
Part of the reason so many like this game is because the gameplay is centered in other players... and dealing with other players is inherently unpredictable.

How did you Veterans start?
Vizvayu Koga
#38 - 2011-10-13 22:10:07 UTC
First of all sorry if I placed an offtopic response before. I'm creating a new topic about that.

I agree that ships destroyed by Concord shouldn't get any insurance at all. It's the logical thing to do, even obvious IMO. Real world comparisons are completely relevant, because most of the systems EVE has are based on real life. I'm not even talking about suicide gankers nor economy, those are only consequences and not the main issue here IMO.

I'd also like to link another topic very related to this one, where we discussed the issues with ship insurance: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=147825
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2011-10-13 22:12:50 UTC
we'd still murder you for funsies

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#40 - 2011-10-13 22:22:19 UTC


By voiding insurance payouts to Hi-Sec gankers, you deny them a fair amount of isk: Thorax (+3m); Brutix (+18m); Battleship(+40-70m).

If you want to make an argument for voiding hi-sec ganker insurance payouts, I suggest answering the following:

1.) By the mere existence of these penalties suggests CCP wants there to be reprecussions for aggression in Hi-Sec. If these penalties are NOT severe enough, that's tacit approval by CCP that they WANT suicide ganking to be part of the game play. (They also blatantly stated such.) Why should CCP stop 90% of the suicide ganks that currently happen?

2.) Currently, the agressors get a Security Status hit, they ALWAYS lose their ship (avoiding concord is bannable), AND you get killrights to gank them at a time of your choosing. The aggregate of these consequences are pretty severe, why is this not enough?

3.) Concord response varies by security status. By operating in a 1.0 system, the aggressor has very little time to kill you before they become destroyed by concord, whereas they have 30ish seconds to do so in 0.5 system. So a player can thwart many dangerous situations by primarily staying in 0.8+ systems. Additionally, there are many options to players for fitting their ships (ship types, rigs, tanking mods), not to mention remote repair and courier services exist to help thwart assaults. The point is, there are many ways a player can protect their assets, albeit at the cost of performance, isk, and time. For the ganked, how much of their loss is their own responsibility? If they heed forum warnings, watch local, pay attention to ships on grid, fleet up, etc.... can't most of these losses be avoided within the current mechanics? In a game centered around the risk of loss, why should CCP auto-minimize the risks for you?

4.) What are the risks to Hi-sec miners, transporters, and all empire-bears for that matter? By financially thwarting the majority of suicide gankers, are there adequate risks to empire to justify the large amounts of isk thats generated there? For example, if you make it very unprofitable to gank hi-sec ice miners, thereby reducing their risks to near zero, shouldn't there also be proportional reduction in the income they can earn? If you make autopiloting a hauler across empire risk free, shouldn't their travel time be significantly increased (autopilot warping to 50km, increased align times, etc)?

This is whow I've interpretted your suggestions so far: I really want is for CCP to punish people for suicide ganking my ship. I think its wrong that they blew up my precious, and I think they need more severe punishments.

Harden The **** Up, you need to take some responsibility for your ship losses. Quit relying on some mythical space police to always protect you.

In EvE, crime is not prevented; at best, its mildly punished.