These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

I don't understand the hate for removing insurance pay outs on Concorded ships.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mirima Thurander
#1 - 2011-10-29 22:13:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirima Thurander
I don't understand the hate for removing insurance pay outs on Concorded ships.


I want to know why you the gank masters of eve have so much hate for having your ability to only lose a small amount of isk when you gank something removed.


Any post that can be summed up as "" because ganking wont be free any more"" is not valid.

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#2 - 2011-10-29 22:15:52 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:
I don't understand the hate for removing insurance pay outs on Concorded ships.


I want to know why you the gank masters of eve have so much hate for having your ability to only lose a small amount of isk when you gank something.


Any post that can be summed up as "" because ganking wont be free any more"" is not valid.


Removing the insurance payout reduces the possible return on investment. No good business person likes to see that happen.

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
Mirima Thurander
#3 - 2011-10-29 22:16:46 UTC
MeestaPenni wrote:


Removing the insurance payout reduces the possible return on investment. No good business person likes to see that happen.



Any post that can be summed up as "" because ganking wont be free any more"" is not valid.



NEXT!

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.
Bloody Wench
#4 - 2011-10-29 22:51:18 UTC
There is no decent argument for it.
However be prepared to be reported, have some mystery person report you as a bot and isk spammer on some trial account.
Or have people complain silently about your post by reporting it.

The removal of insurance due to a Concord loss is really the way to go.

It's not going to stop very many gankers, it may curtail the casual ones, but I doubt it.
It's certainly not going to stop entites like the Udema crew or Goonswarm. One probably makes too much money out of it to care, and likewise the other has too much money to care from the start.
The difference between an uninsured and insured Brutix is what? I don't know. I'm confident GSF can afford it regardless.

It's a broken game mechanic and should be fixed.

[u]**Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote: **[/u]  CCP should not only make local delayed in highsec, but they should also require one be undocked to use it. Then, even the local spammers have some skin in the game. Support a High Resolution Texture Pack
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2011-10-29 22:54:54 UTC
well i am not aware of any hate lighten by "concord insurance payout"

Just those who do suicide ganking trying to point out that it wont change anything, actually there are many pilots who dont insure their ship even for "regular" roam gang where is 100 percent chance that you are not returning home ..

in short it will change nothing.
foxnod
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2011-10-29 23:04:41 UTC
Why don't people just take responsibility for properly fitting and flying their ships? If they did then suicide ganking would probably drop by 80%. All the so called fixes I've seen are exploitable and in the long run would solve nothing. Basically most of the fixes proposed are trying to protect failbears who don't want to take the initative and harden themselves against ganks.
Cassina Lemour
Staner Industries
#7 - 2011-10-29 23:14:47 UTC

It steals the bread from the mouths of pirate babies.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#8 - 2011-10-29 23:15:34 UTC
becuase noob players would do stupid things and lose a ship to concord.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#9 - 2011-10-29 23:27:25 UTC

The problem with 'removing insurance' for gankers, is that it would make high-sec ganking less common.

High-sec ganking and corp infiltration are the only ways remaining to attack hi-sec industrial assets, as wardecs are broken and easily avoidable.

The problem with OP's thread is that it assumes that ganking needs a nerf. It doesn't.
The Apostle
Doomheim
#10 - 2011-10-29 23:32:51 UTC
foxnod wrote:
Why don't people just take responsibility for properly fitting and flying their ships? If they did then suicide ganking would probably drop by 80%. All the so called fixes I've seen are exploitable and in the long run would solve nothing. Basically most of the fixes proposed are trying to protect failbears who don't want to take the initative and harden themselves against ganks.

Lordy lordy. Where DO you people come from?

So do you fit your PvP ship to be a freighter? Is your Loki a PI logistics vessel?

So it's actually wrong that a mining vessel should be setup to be, oh, I don't know, a mining vessel?

The IQ is getting lower and lower and lower............ Including mine for having to respond and read to this garbage.

He was asking why removing insurance is a problem... Roll

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Tanya Fox
Doomheim
#11 - 2011-10-29 23:36:54 UTC
MeestaPenni wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
I don't understand the hate for removing insurance pay outs on Concorded ships.


I want to know why you the gank masters of eve have so much hate for having your ability to only lose a small amount of isk when you gank something.


Any post that can be summed up as "" because ganking wont be free any more"" is not valid.


Removing the insurance payout reduces the possible return on investment. No good business person likes to see that happen.




They also know it's a ridiculous system and as gankers (most gankers are just griefers) they like to rub salt into the wound so to speak.
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2011-10-29 23:58:12 UTC
I support removing insurance as a whole or converting it to contract based player driven business model.

I don't support removing it only from deaths related to some specific entity like concord.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2011-10-29 23:59:57 UTC
I support removing the insurance payout for ships killed by Concord. The howling from people who think that will stop suicide ganking will be music to my ears.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#14 - 2011-10-30 00:04:31 UTC
Troll thread.


There is no reason for the removal of concord insurance, either remove insurance completely or leave it how it is I don't really care which.


You can happily set-up any mining ship to avoid ganks, simply fit it how you want to and actually pay attention! Check local, mash d--scan and keep aligned! Very few gankers fit a cov-ops cloaking device.
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#15 - 2011-10-30 00:05:12 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
So do you fit your PvP ship to be a freighter?


Actually I just flew a PvP Raven through lowsec with a full set of Cargo Expander IIs in the lows to fit more ammo in for a carrier jump xD

But yes I agree. Certain fittings are mutually exclusive.
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#16 - 2011-10-30 00:05:14 UTC
because you can't expect the game to protect you
Lil' Miss Sunshine
Doomheim
#17 - 2011-10-30 00:06:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Lil' Miss Sunshine
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
in short it will change nothing.


Herr Wilkus wrote:
The problem with 'removing insurance' for gankers, is that it would make high-sec ganking less common.


So which is it?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#18 - 2011-10-30 00:10:02 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:
I don't understand the hate for removing insurance pay outs on Concorded ships.
What hate? I think you got that one backwards. The hate is usually spewed by those who want insurance removed (for no properly explained reason).

The “hate” you're thinking of is just a matter of people being annoyed that the same request keeps coming up without much reasoning as to why it should happen. On the other hand, there are plenty of reasons to keep it.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#19 - 2011-10-30 00:12:14 UTC  |  Edited by: MeestaPenni
Ladie Harlot wrote:
I support removing the insurance payout for ships killed by Concord. The howling from people who think that will stop suicide ganking will be music to my ears.


It is not intended to stop ganking. It is intended to address the problem created of massive amounts of liquidity sitting in individual and corp wallets, doing absolutely nothing.

That is the underlying, macroeconomic cause for the apparent increase in "ganking". ISK has become so devalued that some players are willing to throw away large chunks of it for "***** and giggles."

So the economic reaction would be to affect that liquidity with the hopes that wallets return to a state that makes the economic decisions much more impacting. Because now...."ganking" players clearly don't give a hoot about the cash flow....

Removing insurance payouts for criminal acts just may help to burn up some of the liquidity and relieve some of the socio-economic stress.

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#20 - 2011-10-30 00:12:56 UTC
Step 1:
-Remove insurance altogether.
-Make clone costs 1million across the board.

Step 2:
-?

Step 3:
-Eve is awesome and CCP makes mad mad profit.
123Next pageLast page