Player Features and Ideas Discussion

IMO this is entirely irrelevant. The main reason to fix this is that paying ship insurance to a suicide criminal is simply stupid
This change, as all changes, would have consequences but people will always adapt.

No, it's stupid for RL and it's stupid for any game too. If insurance is granted and equally to every single player in all situations then just remove the insurance and make the ships cheaper.
IMO this thread is about finding a way to avoid ABUSE of that insurance. If you have 20 ships destroyed every day then you should pay much more for the same insurance leven than a person who loose 1 ship a month. If you suicide your ship to the local authorities it's obvious that you shouldn't get any money from insurance, that's just the way any insurance works. Otherwise there should be no insurance, just make the ships cheaper and that's it...

The main things is this.. Suicide gankers wont be stopped by not having insurance.
But you will help new people who make a mistake and concord kills them and they need the isk to keep going.

Altho someone might say those new people should be in a corp that could help them if they run out of isk cause they got concorded and lost everything. Which for some reason I don't think it would be many.

I'm not sure if I'm for or against. But I don't think it'd change much if you stopped insurance on death by corcord.
Wouldn't they still get the base amount you get when you lose a non insured ship just not the insurance isk? or do you want no isk back?

Here's a stupid idea...

...Remove Insurance for any player-corporation belonging member, when shot by concord.

Basically, all the newbies who don't have a corporation get to keep their ISK, while players who belong to a greater plyer-run corporation have to rely on their corp mates funding their suicide ganking.

In essence...

IF PLAYER_CORP = NPC AND CONCORD_KILLED

THEN

PAYOUT = INSURANCE

ELSE

PAYPOUT = 0

END IF

There, thats...

7 lines of code. Problem fixed. (Aside from NPC Corporation members suicide ganking...)

Oh but that reason is entirely adequate to me. The fact that you don't agree is another thing, but fortunately I don't need your approval to express my opinions
There better and smarter ways to encourage the destruction of ships. That is no excuse to have a flawed insurance system which is so idiotic that keeps paying suicides time after time to destroy their ships on pourpose.



Really?? That's your argument??
There's no gamble for people who suicide their ships. They already know the ship is going down! Remember we're not talking about anyone else's here, only of those who suicide their ships to Concord.



It's already stablished. People who suicide their ships to Concord get's free isk. And people do this many times a day, or you really doubt that? No matter how you call it, it's happening. See Gizznitts's questions if you have any doubt, according to him this change would "stop 90% of the suicide gankers". So it's happening and the insurance is getting abused.



No, again we're talking about people who gets killed by Concord here, and most of those people already know they're getting killed. There's no gambling involved here, there's no risk, just a simple fact: I pay 1 they give me 10.Always and no questions asked. And that's just ****** up.
If you get your ship killed 20 times a day of course you'll have to pay more than someone who doesn't! No need to be a rocket scientist to understand that... But at the same time you shouldn't get any insurance at all because you have broken the law and that was the reason your ship was destroyed. The insurance company should be "smart" enough to realize that.




These questions are focused on suicide ganking. This thread is focused on fixing the insurance system. These things are related but are not the same, so he (or you if you want) should open a new thread to discuss this stuff, then I'll be happy to be part of that discussion, but IMO this is not part of this thread.
I'd like you to understand that should not be an isolated fix. We'd need to change many other things to achieve some balance, but no need to mix everything on a single thread.
BTW I'm aware that newbies could loose their ships to Concord, but that shouldn't happen more than one time for each person. And not getting insurance in those kills it's a good way to learn anyway.

Insurance pays on all losses of ships. The current system doesn't care about how the ship was destroyed. It even pays on SELF Destructs... which you don't seem to care about. The main issue in this topic is insurance payouts to suicide gankers. Hence why I approached this topic from that angle.



The "stop 90% of the suicide gankers" is a quote from the OP... I'm using it to make a counterpoint... I think this change would have a significant impact on hi-sec ganking... although my estimate is closer to 60%, not 90%. My estimate is also only based on a hunch, and I can offer no factual evidence to back it up.



These questions are focused on suicide ganking. This thread is focused on fixing the insurance system. These things are related but are not the same, so he (or you if you want) should open a new thread to discuss this stuff, then I'll be happy to be part of that discussion, but IMO this is not part of this thread.
I'd like you to understand that should not be an isolated fix. We'd need to change many other things to achieve some balance, but no need to mix everything on a single thread.
BTW I'm aware that newbies could loose their ships to Concord, but that shouldn't happen more than one time for each person. And not getting insurance in those kills it's a good way to learn anyway.
[/quote]

OP TITLE: STOP PAYING INSURANCE PAYOUTS FOR CONCORD KILLS


The OP clearly shows that empire ganking is being addressed with this change. So my questions are valid.

Let us look at some additional questions focusing on insurance then:
1.) In RL, insurance is used to mitigate the risks of a contingent, uncertain loss. In EvE, insurance is used to mitigate the loss of a ship, regardless of how certain that loss is. In RL, insurance premiums are based on risk assessment, determined by historical pressidence, overly paid actuaries, and advanced statistics and probability theory. In EvE, there are no mechanisms to assess the risk of loss, so premiums are static, with a more-less static payout. In RL, there is a huge legal system to address the complex rules and regulations surounding the system. In EvE, insurance is highly simplified... You lose your ship, you get paid... My question, why should CCP bother with more complicated rules regarding death by concord, self-destructs, and/or varying insurance premiums? If its more like RL, does that really make it better for the game?

2.) Currently, people can mitigate the loss of a ship regardless of how they lose it. There are many ways to purposely destroy your own ship. Which methods are unacceptable, and why? I suicide it into concord, I suicide it into an enemy gatecamp, I eject it into space and blow it up myself, I have a corp mate blow it up, or I fly it into an anomaly and let the NPC's destroy it?

3.) If we're using the "its stupid" argument, compared to RL its stupid to offer insurance on ANY combat vessels in combat. However, I'd argue the PRIMARY focus of EvE insurance is to encourage the risk adverse to to try riskier activities (PvP). Do you disagree with this assessment, and if so, what is the primary purpose of insurance in EvE then?

3. conintued) I personally started my PvP career in t1 budget fit frigates pwning inty pilots. I can provide many, many other examples of pvp'ers that started the PvP side of the game using budget fit frigates, cruisers, and BCs. Insurance significantly reduces the ecomimic hurdles to starting PvP. So, while insurance might be stupid in the RL sense, its working very well as a game mechanic to encourage ship losses. Suicide ganking is not only an acceptable EvE activity, CCP and a large portion of the EvE community encourage it (Hulkageddon). Why should suicide ganking not be one of the risky eve activities encouraged by insurance?

First of all - i agree with op - i mean - lets get serious:

Any ganker will make it clear:
Risk vs Reward.

Now, with the current payout - there is no risk - only reward. And sec status loose ? - get real.. there are constantly ppl "bending" that - even -10 sec status ppl that runs around in high sec ganking away - and while beeing blatant and open violations of "so called RPing" - CCP wont care - they never have.

So - we are actually discussing "Should Gankers Like EVERYONE ELSE - as they always claim - be at risk when ganking - since they have the opportunity of a fat reward - my response is - yes.. (insert any and all reasons gankers ever put forward to blow up peaceful industrials) - exactly the same can be argumented towards removing insurance for gankers.

And i will put a little sugar on the Ops original suggestion by adding.
Let Concord POD gankers once they go below -5.0 sec status.

NOW we can talk about the gankers truly follow theyre Risk vs Reward - which they ALL know today is utterly b***s*** - since theyre never at risk... sec status ? - pah, can be worked around, abused etc, and CCP wont care... ship loss? - they get repaid what they spent on it... So - what exactly ARE at risk for a ganker??

The entire insurance payback for concord kills are laugheble at best. Since they havent altered, it raises the question: What does CCPs own ppl actually do when they play EVE.. ?

In the end, i find it .. sad that so great a deal of EVE is focused on what a small group of ppl do (Griefers), to a much larger group (industrials) - CCP only favoring the first group, but not the second..

Patently false.

The current payout does not cover the full cost of the attack, and the reward is uncertain and random.

No. Podding is entirely the domain of players by design. As it happens, you can already pod people who go below -5.0, so that change isn't even needed. Just go ahead do it yourself.

Its not false - i asked the question:
WHAT IS AT RISK for a ganker - u never responded - i can only take it as you know there is no/aptheticly low risk, thus ure avoiding the question. A hulk pilot avg makes 7-10 million/hour in high sec. And risk random ganking. - a new hulk is 170-200 million (depending on market etc etc).
A ganker makes 100-300 mio easily (from a ganker in a recent system, which went into great details how much he was earning pr day)
His costs: when loosing his brutix for each time he gets concorded... very little

Oh. and just for the record - sec loss? - he was -10 - with a NPC neut in a orca - trust me, that didnt stop him, since he flew out in his pod (concord dont react), grabbed the ganker ship, shoot the hulk, ran in again once concorded..

So - i raise the question again - WHERE IS THE RISK FOR THE GANKERS? - bcause there are NONE... soo.. what risk ? - cmon, everyone knows there must be risk vs rewarrd.. u get 50 mio for that nice gurista shield thingy, u lost 1 million after insurance payout - and u commited by all RL means, a crime.. gankers risks NOTHING - time to fix that - remove insurance payout for concorded ships.

So we're supposed to feel bad for the ganker possibly losing 20-30 mil on their ganking "investment", while destroying a 200+ mil investment of the miner? Riiiiight.