These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

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

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mirima Thurander
#141 - 2011-11-02 03:13:03 UTC
Z'Pax wrote:
Ok so I just read through this thread... It tells me this.

1, There seemed to be no real objection to the sensible removal of insurance from concorded ships. The few good points being oh its a noob, or its someone starting out ganking.. well meh this IS EVE some lessons are hard learned. Noobs have the pop up for protection, and a newbie ganker... lol

2, The gankers whined more than the miners in this thread.




lol thats funny because its true

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.
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#142 - 2011-11-02 04:56:40 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.



that's a good argument for increasing the payout for t2 hulks... and or removing suicide ganking altogether.... but I don't see that suicide ganking is much of a business.. though mining removal could be a business strategy.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#143 - 2011-11-02 04:58:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Tauranon
David Grogan wrote:
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.


ok so let's see if u can come up with a tanked fit that doesn't get solo'd by a lone goon standard gank fitted alpha pest the following ships

1. Retreiver
2. Covetor
3. Mackinaw
4. Hulk

So see if u can make a gank proof mining barge/exumer fit for all 4 ships


my alt - 32k ehp, with one of the little fixed reactor units, a dcu, extender, resists, and rigs. ie t1/t2 fit. Requires that concord does in fact drop the donuts and disable the pest in expected times (no guarentee!) >50k is possible, but that will attract many battleships at once for the officer drop chance, ie pointless.

Actually avoiding a single alpha pest by motion mining away from public belts (missions/gravs) and watching d-scan allows you to run less ehp and better yield though. Even if you are not fully aligned speed, you can seriously reduce the to-warp time for a hulk without killing your yield. (probably cannot be done with ice).

ie: the problem is currently not the hulks tank, its that a subset of playerbase is not currently letting a subset of the playerbase "play" afk in terribly fitted ships without training full shield skills. I'm struggling to see that as a big problem, and I'm struggling to see why that could/should be fixed by changing payouts.
Embrace My Hate
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#144 - 2011-11-02 09:05:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Embrace My Hate
I derped.
Embrace My Hate
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#145 - 2011-11-02 09:05:35 UTC
Hauling Hal wrote:


You just don't get it do you, you are a minority. The game is a dark, risky game, but the majoity of the player base are carebears without which YOU DON'T HAVE A GAME TO PLAY.

Now read the next bit carefully: The game needs to be a challenge and mustn't spoon feed the players, but neither must it drive them away.

You say the game isn't like other games, but it isn't unique. There have been much tougher PvP games than Eve, with true open world PvP, but they all die a slow and painful death as a game needs to be financially viable and in a PvP game someone has to lose. By having a lot of carebears, the number that lose is a small percentage of the player base. If they all left you wouldn't have a game to play, yet you would have got exactly what you asked for. It is the people like you that destroy the game you like so much, as you are incapable of seeing the game for what it is, outside of your avatar's blinkered perception of the game.



No matter how much you think it is, this game is not dependent upon any individual demographic of game play to survive. I have nothing against the common care bear! A lot of the most successful industrialists and traders are alts of gankers and PvPer's. What we DO need in eve is player driven content. We need individuals competent enough to survive in the modern universe with the tools provided in game.

I know it sounds cliche but the most important skill in eve is adaptation. Those who find clever ways to survive earned it and deserve it. Right now there are probably multiple miners who understand this and are making a grip load as we speak. Those who are too lazy to invest effort and common sense into staying alive but instead come screaming to the forums to nerf somebody else's gameplay only serves as a bad example and an unfortunate trend.

Now to my last point. It is absolutely necessary to drive some players out of the game. Eve is not meant for everybody and might not ever be. By driving the most sensitive or ******** people out of the game we preserve a higher community IQ. I would much rather have 1000 pilots capable of common sense and a level head than 10,000 pilots who kamikaze into gate camps then whine on the forums en masse about how bubbles are OP and they need to be nerfed. Even though 10,000 subscriptions is a lot more money than 1000 you will never make those 10,000 mentally handicapped pilots happy and they don't appreciate eve for what it is and would eventually leave for the next MMO.

TL;DR Adapt or GTFO
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
#146 - 2011-11-02 09:13:04 UTC
MeestaPenni wrote:


Yeah, get rid of insurance entirely.


We could update that reaper to a rifter at least! ,-)

Remove insurance.
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
#147 - 2011-11-02 09:21:14 UTC
Embrace My Hate wrote:
[quote=Hauling Hal]

I know it sounds cliche but the most important skill in eve is adaptation. Those who find clever ways to survive earned it and deserve it. Right now there are probably multiple miners who understand this and are making a grip load as we speak. Those who are too lazy to invest effort and common sense into staying alive but instead come screaming to the forums to nerf somebody else's gameplay only serves as a bad example and an unfortunate trend.


I doubt your claim that there are miners you are actually making profit. If you are still mining (in high sec), you are doing it wrong. If you are mining in wh or null, well I have no idea how the payout is, but I guess you are still doing it wrong without a bot. And with a bot you are doing it still wrong.

Market for raw materials is simply ****** up duo afk mining.


Remove insurance.
Embrace My Hate
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#148 - 2011-11-02 09:28:49 UTC
Tenris Anis wrote:
Embrace My Hate wrote:
[quote=Hauling Hal]

I know it sounds cliche but the most important skill in eve is adaptation. Those who find clever ways to survive earned it and deserve it. Right now there are probably multiple miners who understand this and are making a grip load as we speak. Those who are too lazy to invest effort and common sense into staying alive but instead come screaming to the forums to nerf somebody else's gameplay only serves as a bad example and an unfortunate trend.


I doubt your claim that there are miners you are actually making profit. If you are still mining (in high sec), you are doing it wrong. If you are mining in wh or null, well I have no idea how the payout is, but I guess you are still doing it wrong without a bot. And with a bot you are doing it still wrong.

Market for raw materials is simply ****** up duo afk mining.




I was more or less referencing the fact that those who are intelligent enough have already figured how to keep mining Gallente ICE and have been doing so quite successfully.
Cerisia
Red Phoenix Rising
#149 - 2011-11-02 10:13:29 UTC
Embrace My Hate wrote:
Hauling Hal wrote:


You just don't get it do you, you are a minority. The game is a dark, risky game, but the majoity of the player base are carebears without which YOU DON'T HAVE A GAME TO PLAY.

Now read the next bit carefully: The game needs to be a challenge and mustn't spoon feed the players, but neither must it drive them away.

You say the game isn't like other games, but it isn't unique. There have been much tougher PvP games than Eve, with true open world PvP, but they all die a slow and painful death as a game needs to be financially viable and in a PvP game someone has to lose. By having a lot of carebears, the number that lose is a small percentage of the player base. If they all left you wouldn't have a game to play, yet you would have got exactly what you asked for. It is the people like you that destroy the game you like so much, as you are incapable of seeing the game for what it is, outside of your avatar's blinkered perception of the game.



No matter how much you think it is, this game is not dependent upon any individual demographic of game play to survive. I have nothing against the common care bear! A lot of the most successful industrialists and traders are alts of gankers and PvPer's. What we DO need in eve is player driven content. We need individuals competent enough to survive in the modern universe with the tools provided in game.

I know it sounds cliche but the most important skill in eve is adaptation. Those who find clever ways to survive earned it and deserve it. Right now there are probably multiple miners who understand this and are making a grip load as we speak. Those who are too lazy to invest effort and common sense into staying alive but instead come screaming to the forums to nerf somebody else's gameplay only serves as a bad example and an unfortunate trend.

Now to my last point. It is absolutely necessary to drive some players out of the game. Eve is not meant for everybody and might not ever be. By driving the most sensitive or ******** people out of the game we preserve a higher community IQ. I would much rather have 1000 pilots capable of common sense and a level head than 10,000 pilots who kamikaze into gate camps then whine on the forums en masse about how bubbles are OP and they need to be nerfed. Even though 10,000 subscriptions is a lot more money than 1000 you will never make those 10,000 mentally handicapped pilots happy and they don't appreciate eve for what it is and would eventually leave for the next MMO.

TL;DR Adapt or GTFO



+1 to you my friend, you get it.
This space for rent..
Idgarad
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#150 - 2011-11-02 14:14:55 UTC
Ok some missing points in the economic impact of Insurance.

There are two buckets. The player's capital and CCP's capital in Eve.

CCP's bucket is infinite. Players is finite.

Insurance is paid out of CCP's infinite bucket. Insurance payment put more ISK into the player bucket then was taken out when insurance was purchased. However small that amount, it is still an inflationary risk.

If a gank + insurance = profit but gank without insurance = loss then insurance has to go. It is a subsidy to the player's bucket from a source of ISK that simply contributes (however minor) to inflation. Has nothing to do with the individual players ganking. It's a high-level Sink\Faucet decision. I don't think this has anything to do with ganking directly at all. I think we are thinking way too low-level on the origin of this decision.

If there is 2 billion ISK insurance pay outs in CONCORD actioned activities, that is two billion that was moved from the CCP bucket to the Player bucket. Period. Doesn't even matter if they were profitable. We know that we took less then 2 billion ISK from the player bucket in taking out insurance. Any other loss is still contained in the player bucket. It is the movement of CCP ISK into the player economy that is the issue.

Even if the margin between insurance and payout is small it is still movement from CCP's bucket into the player economy. My assumption is that, at this time, the bulk of insurance payouts are in hi-sec as the result of suicide ganks. The carebears don't lose ships as often so there never is an insurance payout, hi-sec insurance is a sink then. The suicide gankers effectively are consistent payouts and like any insurance company, their policy is being dropped or a rider added that says, "No CONCORD payouts" since we pay out too often for your risk catagory. Since we don't have premiums (yet) in Eve insurance, dropping it is the only option.

I honestly don't think the mechanic of ganking ever entered the equation, it was just a simple decision that just about any insurance company would have made. They are adding a rider that says "We do not insure your car if you use it in a crime and the cops **** it up."
Fuujin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#151 - 2011-11-02 14:23:41 UTC
Idgarad wrote:
Ok some missing points in the economic impact of Insurance.

There are two buckets. The player's capital and CCP's capital in Eve.

CCP's bucket is infinite. Players is finite.

Insurance is paid out of CCP's infinite bucket. Insurance payment put more ISK into the player bucket then was taken out when insurance was purchased. However small that amount, it is still an inflationary risk.

If a gank + insurance = profit but gank without insurance = loss then insurance has to go. It is a subsidy to the player's bucket from a source of ISK that simply contributes (however minor) to inflation.



By your logic, bounties on mission rats should be eliminated. That is a FAR greater inflationary source than ship insurance could ever be.
Vrykolakasis
Sparrowhawks Corp
#152 - 2011-11-02 15:20:04 UTC
"Why not remove insurance on concord kills?

...Oh by the way, the primary reason insurance on concord kills shouldn't be removed isn't a legitimate answer."
xenodia
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#153 - 2011-11-02 19:01:11 UTC
Tippia wrote:
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.



Ok first of all, I should probably state that in all my years of playing EVE (going back to beta on my original toon), I have never been suicide ganked. Because I fit my ships properly and take proper precautions.

That being said however, I do believe that removing insurance payouts for ships destroyed by concord should be done, and heres why. CCP has always stated that the EVE is about risk vs reward. There is plenty of evidence of them making gameplay changes when they felt that the reward (or potential reward) of something was out of line with the amount of risk you had to take to get it. But suicide ganking as it stands right now is far too tilted toward the "reward" half of the scale. Thats why its so prevailent. With insurance payouts, you lose so little on suicide ganking that one halfway decent "score" of loot can pay for dozens of failed attempts.

Would removing insurance payouts for concord destroyed ships completely remove suicide ganking ? No, and I dont necessarily think it should be completely removed anyway. But it would cut down on it some. You will still see the officer fitted T3s getting killed, because the potential reward on those will still be far greater than the risk, even without insurance payouts. And im fine with that. I dont want suicide ganking removed from the game altogether. I just think it should be brought in check a bit, in keeping with CCP's previously stated "risk vs reward" stance that theyve taken on other issues.