EVE General Discussion

THIS! Exactly this! That's one serious argument to throw CCP's way. EVE is about being tough, not about getting paid by crashing mom's Volvo...

The whole risk vs reward issue is heavily slanted to favor gankers and carebear PvPrs, it's not just the insurance that matters. Although it is pretty silly and has been asked for long and PvP whiners alway come to its defense.

Yet you support people logging off to save their ships.

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. Who bloody well insures people for crime or going getting a tank blown up in war! Maybe you can only get basic premiums that cover illegal acts. Or maybe special crimianal isurance agents?

Can CONCORD make arrests, not sure how that would work, but if you get blown up by CONCORD, can they not hold you for questioning etc? Fine you, push you down some stairs etc? What is the Punishment for your crime? Could CONCORD set bounties on repeat offenders? (Although i suspect some alt abuse may happen if the bounties are high enough, 'Hey jim shot me and i'll split the bounty') Or some insentive for people to activly hunt and brutalise criminals that cant be abused with 'hey jim shoot me in the face there's LPS, Standing and ISK in it foir you'. Thats where spirit of game vs metagame come in. I used to post bounties when i started, until my veteran friend said once the bounty is high enough he jumps into a jump clone and gets a corp mate to pod him.....

Some of the problems we face are it's a game, so people play with the meta. Alts are a problem as some consqences (ie i have no ability to buy new ships because of my sec rating) go out of the window, where as if the player says i need someone in high sec i can do business with to buy ships and move them to me you suddnely have an interaction and inter depency between high and low sec, or that player needs to manufacture ships again, more interactions. Less Hate between sec ratings.

Really just throwing stuff out there, but there are some flaws in the game that unfortunatly are a reality of the game. Now before you think i'm on an alt hate thang, i have an ALT im traing frigs in so i can do some cheap faction warfare in as i dont want the corp i ceo in FW, but i want to indulge in FW. However i wont use my ALT to steal stuff and then throw it away or for convenience for my main character. Not sure where im going with this, and may have gone off piste, and policing Alts is impossible.

My 2isk

Well, and if people never hauled more than 2 billion in a freighter likely they wouldn't be ganked in hisec. And if my aunt had wheels she would be like a bike.

But so far some people gank in hisec because they are rewarded by mechanics with a nonsensical insurance that halves their loss, whereas freighters, industrials, miners and other easily gankable targets get no bonus for that risk. "Put a tank on it" is nonsense, tanks cost income (and freighters CAN'T be tanked at all) and also tanks can be overcome if the reward is high enough. There is a reason why officer-fit mission runners have become legendary: everyone talks of them but I never met one, except in the form of "whooaaa, a century ago they ganked my 5 billion whatsoever with 7 BS and I was gone in 30 seconds so I never again used officer modules". So not even tanks can keep you safe beyond certain "kill point". Removing insurances for ships killed by "the law" would rise the "kill point" of every hisec target.

But to the OP, provided how winter expansion, the ongoing devblogs, CCP's anouncement and Hilmar's interview mean that some paying customers are getting our hopes handed back to us with a nullsec turd on them, I see how it would be nice that CCP "ungriefed" us by effing PvPrs for a change. At least the scum that ganks in hisec only and exclusively because of insurance.

…yeah, that's not a reward — it's a reduction of costs. They mitigate their risks by picking the right equipment and using it correctly
All of those people can manage their own risks. Just like the gankers, they can mitigate the risks by picking the right equipment and using it correctly.
That would be nonsense if the cost of tanking it was higher than the income. It's not. Moreover, that cost can be ammortised over several uses — every time you don't get picked (or do get picked an survive) because of your tank, you have earned money back from that tiny investment.
Not directly, but you can most certainly improve on their gank survivability.
…so you make sure it isn't.

It's very simple: people keep claiming that ganking has no risk, without considering what it is that creates this situation. What generates “no risk” for gankers is that they mitigate those risks and they accept a drastic reduction of income. They ensure that the target is weak enough; that it carries enough to conceivably turn a profit; that the ship they use gets maximum oomph for the money (because no, insurance does not cover the cost). And then they wait… and wait… and wait for something that fits the profile. While waiting, they're losing income.

So the question is: why is it to blasphemous to suggest that the self-proclaimed victims do the same? Why can't they accept a loss of income just like the gankers do? Why can't they mitigate their risks by carrying sensible loads and protecting them and scouting for possible targets? It's not that ganking has no risk and hauling/mining/whatever has all the risk — it's that one party choose to mitigate their risks and accept a reduction if efficiency whereas the other chooses not to (and then refuses to blame themselves for the choices they made — it has to be someone else's fault). Stop suffering from such epic grades of entitlement-itis and start doing what the “other side“ is doing! They're doing it for a reason, you know…

I really like where you are going with this. it creates some kind of immersive answer to why suicide gankers can continue doing what they are doing.

If hisec suicide ganking is a pain in the ass, then don't do it. If hisec suicide ganking hurts your income, do things more profitable. If you can't have fun without hisec suicide ganking... well... Sane people does not have a primal urge to f*ck off other people for the sake of fun, you know?

The way I always saw it PVE is there to FUND PVP. Not just so people can do nothing but pve all the damn time. Also all I'm seeing here is another highsec pubbie complaining that his ships aren't invincible.

I LOL'ed seriously.

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