EVE General Discussion

To some extent, yes, but it also indicates that there is no reason to change it since that won't accomplish anything.
When I do that, I get called a troll. My good faith went out the window when people couldn't stand being asked why they wanted something, even though the answer is blindingly obvious.
So, here's the thing. I have done a lot of thinking about this. I used to be on the other side until I did. So now, I'm trying to make others think as well.

What I want to get to is a point where people stop hiding behind various forms of hypocritical, uninformed, unfounded, unsupported, or just randomly mind-screwy reasons and actually present their case: what it is they want to achieve? Why do they want to achieve it? How does it improve the game? How does it make the game worse? Is it at all a desirable end state? I want them to present some facts and figures to support their case. I want some kind of reasoning behind their normative stance. I want an actual argument.

The problem is that, if they do this, it inevitably ends up with a simple “I want X for the sole reason that I benefit from it, and screw everyone else because I don't care about what happens.” Of course, people do not want to go there, because that's pretty much suicide for any kind of argument, so they try to avoid answering those questions and providing the underlying reasoning — because they know it won't end well if they do. All I want is either a) honesty, if you know what it is you actually want, or b) an understanding of the effects of what you're proposing. Once we get there, we can actually start to argue the merits of the proposal.

The problem is that, just getting that first one — what it is supposed to achieve — has proving mindbogglingly difficult to squeeze out of people. Continuously asking “why” and trying to explain back to them in broader terms what it is they just said to see if they actually agree with the conclusions and results of their own proposal is just about the only way I've found to have even the slightest chance of getting there… But again, considering what the essence of the request almost always turns out to be, that chance is indeed very very slight.

I fully agree with you. I am glad that someone from the Goons is actually in favor of making hisec less safe by removing insurance payouts for people who lose their ships recklessly.

These threads all end with those who support insurance payouts for suicide ganking twisting themselves into the same ridiculous logical pretzels every time. And they always fall back on the same crutch, accusing those who point out the silliness of the situation of comparing Eve to the real world, as if all notions of common sense and reason are tossed out the window in the Eve universe and Pend insurance hired a bunch of tard-monkies for actuaries who thought that signing insurance papers with an immortal grinning Goon with explosives strapped to his vest and a history of 50 suicide shootouts with Concord is somehow a justifiable insurance risk.

If that makes sense to you, you're lying. Because that doesn't make sense to anyone with a brain. You know it. Everyone else knows it. You just want the game to cater entirely to you and your gameplay, damn the torpedoes or any common sense. Just admit it and I'd have more respect for your position.

I want 100% of Eve's resources devoted to wormholes. There I said it. It's called honesty. I'm not shovelling **** down your throat and attempting to justify it. I know it's ridiculous to expect the game to be entirely about me without regards to any other player. But I want it anyway. See? Honesty.

To those who complain about Concord's invincibility, they wouldn't have to be invincible if the alternative wasn't the total chaos that the suicide gankers (the only ones who really support this nonsense) would create. And if you want a more realistic RP reason, remove Concord and say that all ships allowed to pass through high sec gates are subject to be programmed for automated self destruction upon law violations or they can't enter. Same effect.

That even makes wardecs make more sense -- allow special agents to hack the system to allow you to destroy ships in a certain alliance or corp. But that's another thread.

Back on point: end insurance, period. Pend Insurance would be out of isk by now anyway.

just so you are aware, I was not complaining about concord's invincibility. I really don't care if they're invincible or not. what I'm getting at is that removing the insurance payout isn't going to stop people from suicide ganking. and let's be honest here... almost everyone who wants the insurance payout removed also wants to have some sort of restraint (like CCP did with bombs) so that it's impossible to suicide gank to begin with. the problem with doing that is simple and obvious. some people wouldn't be able to do what they want to do in game that has Devs, GMs, and all manor of employees stating at various times of the game's existence that part of the game is indeed suicide ganking. if you don't like the suicide ganking go back to WoW where the game mechanics actually restrict it.

This isn't WoW, it's EVE. get used to it. besides, it's a game. don't take it so serious.

Part of.

But suicide gankers don't want it to be part of high sec. They want it to be a virtual norm of high sec because they're bored of low and null and want easy targets to pad killboard e-peens. They're like the worst kind of immigrant - the kind that leaves their rathole of a country complaining what a terrible pile of **** it is -- then demand their new home be just like the crap-pile they just left and no one wants to go to.

High sec isn't a playground for bored low sec/null sec players to take over, drop their pants, and poo all over the place like a public bathroom in Tijuana. It has to have a level of normalcy and safety. Doesn't mean totally safe. But it certainly doesn't mean subsidizing suicide ganks with insurance payouts either.

And given what happened with subscriptions over the summer, I'm not sure CCP wants to high sec dwellers "going back to WoW." Because guess what? They will. And I want them here paying for Eve's development so CCP can make more wormhole things.

And Eve is real. Don't you pay any attention to marketting?

if there's really such a problem with high sec suicide gankers, why have none of my 3 hulk toons (on seperate accounts) gotten suicide ganked for the past ... 4 years or so? I'll tell you the answer. I don't do my industry within 3 jumps of the major hubs where over 90% of suicide ganks take place. high sec is a very very very very very very large place. I have been in entire constellations that have had maybe 1 or 2 other people in it tops besides my toons... and they had 0.5 and 0.6 sec systems with nice belts. if you don't get what I'm hinting at, then you're an idiot. I am not one of the suicide gankers. to be honest, I don't even like combat, which does include missions. also, what makes you think suicide gankers don't want to be a part of high sec? I know people who have employed small corporations to suicide gank former WT's when the war targets would only run and hide. hell, I've paid 1 specific merc corp to suicide gank a few specific corps to get them to leave the area I wanted for my buddies and myself. so yes, suicide gankers do indeed want to be in high sec. it's why they do a lot of 0.0 ratting and/or missions to get their sec status up to be able to fly in high sec. also, if there weren't suicide gankers, high sec would really be totally safe (except for the potential corp spy) as only an idiot flies a substandard ship with or without a substandard fleet for pve.

Oh please. If you can't afford to lose something you shouldn't fly it. Stop being such a whiner and make such ridiculous statements. You give more tears than a carebear. No insurance payout for acts that invoke Concord or self-destruction. Now cry some more, please.

But making comparisons of a game mechanic, with RL insurance isn't ridiculous? Amirite?

No. I think the majority of those opposed just wants to get rid of something illogical and nonsensical.

Suicide ganks will still happen, they will just have to target slightly more profitable targets.

I think what the majority of the opposed want is to have CCP put restrictions on suicide ganking, but aren't bold enough to say it. Someone above asked something or stated something about low sec pvp.... how it would die if you didn't get insurance when you were the first to aggro... I can think of a number of ways in which aggroing your aggressors first can often save your ship (not all the time though). still, even if you aggro pirates/pvpers first in an attempt to either get them to back off or at least do some damage to them since they're going to pop you anyway, shouldn't you (the target who struck first in self defense) still get insurance for your lost ship even though you took GCC? i mean, weren't you the victim?

and suicide gankers don't have to find more profitable targets... they just have to cut costs which is actually quite easy in most circumstances.

EDIT:
I implied in an above statement to the roadkilled guy that they merely insure their ships just as the suicide gankers do. I think I'm beginning to realize something that no one has yet touched on, mainly the fact that t2 ships are worth much more than the insurance gives them credit for, as the insurance reward is based on a mineral cost, which excludes moon goo and moon goo products as well as gas products (gas products in reference to the t3's) while at the same time they insure capital ships that are made from mineral products (cap ship construction components).

I propose to stop arguing about taking away insurance from suicide gankers (since this will get you no where as suicide gankers don't need to be reimbursed for their losses from Pend since they target ships that will pay for their losses without getting reimbursed by insurance) and instead focus on the issue that your ship doesn't get adequate insurance with how insurance currently works.

there... I'm stepping above and looking at this supposed 'problem' from a different point of view.