EVE General Discussion

Ganking people in hisec isnt exactly pvp, dont be all offensive towards pvpers. Taking out insurance payouts for anyone with concord on a lossmail is common sense, brought up time and again. Your post is nothing new, though the buthurt, crying manner in which you posted is fairly amusing.

For the same reason you get paid when you lose a ship.

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. Supporting the current system is closet communism.

Everybody gets a starter ship if they dock in pod, so real newbies are covered, if they fall foul of this in a more expensive ship then harsh lessons are best learnt early.

But lazy AFK auto piloting in flimsy ships with semi/very expensive cargo should be rewarded. amirite?

All in all an insurance is a contract, and contracts got exceptions. I paid for my insurance so I must get it if **** happens, yet if i cause **** to happen then insurer is not obliged.

There was a time when some people made fortunes by self destructing their ships due to insurance paying more than they costed to build... currently is not that silly, fortunately, but insurance could get some work out and be nerfed or removed when ti's obviously against good sense.

Not at all. You said that the current insurance model is a subsidy for the idiotic and lazy. I was merely using the same argument in regards to the idiotic and lazy AFK APers.

Are you now saying that your argument is also fail?

Its about Risk vs. Reward.

Currently there is very little risk involved with suicide ganking. Even after the insurance change you can still break even or just lose a few mil isk. From looting your own ship+insurance and thats not even including drops on the target. However the reward can be high if you pick your targets right, and even if you don't you still lose very little.

Even losing sec status isn't that much of a downside, since the Orca was released as well as using alts to dump ships in SS it makes being -5+ not even a burden.

It being a safe gaurd for new players doesn't even hold water really. When you initiate aggression you get a obvious warning stating that you will get blown up if you do this, all that needs to change is add in "This action will void any insurance". If a new player still does not heed the warning, then in all honestly they deserve to get screwed over and needs to chalk it up to another lesson learned.

Removing insurance payouts for Concord deaths won't kill the ganking profession, all it will do is cause those who wish to do it to be more picky over who they gank. Right now you can gank anything with a pulse and doesn't really effect much. Especially with how easy Isk is to get nowadays.

So you're making assumptions.

Many that honour ransoms, do so because that is how they make ISK. It's not sensible to kill a ransom target after a ranson is made, as it will affect income at a later date.
In this regard, an argument could be made that it may even increase ransoms and decrease pod loss if it is known what implants they tend to wear.

But there will always be those that dishonour ransoms, because they like the tears.
It's up to you to know those that honour and those that don't. Whether you pay or not, makes no difference either way.
Those that want tears will still pod you no mater what, those that want to live of honouring ransoms, will not when one is paid.

And remember, highsec is safer, NOT safe.

Edit: Non-constructive part removed, CCP Phantom.

I don't understand why suicide ganking should get its profitability topped up by CCP. If the target value is lower than the cost incurred in attacking the target, then there is no economic sense making the attack. If the only way of making certain attacks economically viable is to have a subsidy from CCP then I'm not sure those attacks should really be encouraged in the name of mindless PvP. Taking away insurance payouts wouldn't stop ganking, it would just mean that if you are ganking purely for the purposes of griefing lazy APers with worthless cargos then you will have to pay for your fun. If you attack an economically viable target then insurance won't matter and a more thoughtful approach to this form of PvP will develop.

Whilst arguments from reality are not really applicable, arguments from consistency are. Just as insurance fraud was pretty immersion breaking, so is the idea of a profession aimed at destroying ships that is propped up by the insurance industry, i.e. by the people who suffer from the destruction of ships. That aside, there is also clearly too much isk in the economy already and insurance payouts add new isk into the economy 'out of thin air' so to speak.

I don't really have an axe to grind on either side. I like the fact that suicide ganking takes place as it's one of the things that adds spice to the game for an industrialist like me (and believe me, there are few enough causes of excitement in this game for my profession). But I would like a system that makes sense and that doesn't make me cringe every time I consider the details. I would also like suicide ganking to be a less indiscriminate profession where people are encouraged to pick their targets carefully and where the gankers risk substantial losses, just as their targets do. Getting rid of insurance payouts seems to offer a lot towards making ganking more challenging and more consistent with the game world.