EVE General Discussion

The trusims / principles of the game, or more precisely their implementation are subjective. For example one principle is risk vs reward, in the case of ganking in hi-sec (miners especially), I think the risk vs reward is out of balance in favour of the ganker, removing insurance is a step in returning to the one of the alleged principles of the game.



No it isn't, in most respects Eve is the same as playing many other MMO's on a PvP server, frankly the biggest differences simply come from it being set in space.

Its also illogical to build weapons and transport them to reprocess them to get nearly all the materials back u needed for the weapons just cause its smaller in the amount of cargo u need to be moved but noone cares about this (cause no carebear cried).

If u want a full logical universe turn your pc off and go outside

But this change will do almost nothing to protect miners themselves, whilst it will radically increase the protection to freighters and orcas. If anything the poor schmoe in a mining marge is going to be slightly worse off, because he'll still be on that list of near-free-to-gank targets.

We better hope that Soundwave goes ahead and changes drones to bounty rats soon.

It always did. The problem is that the victims choose to remove the consequences for the aggressor (and then they complain about how there are no consequences as a result, which is hilarious).
Why should it be ended?
No it's not. Paying out insurance in such a situation encourages the occurrence of that situation. It is only illogical if you assume that criminal acts are a bad thing and something that shouldn't be encouraged… and I'm asking why shouldn't they be? They create a much-needed risk in highsec.

It's only illogical unrealistif from a real-world perspective, but they are game mechanics, not the real world, so that logic is rather irrelevant to how the mechanic fulfils its purpose.
I only ask why something should change, because people assert that it should for no adequately explained reason. “Why not” is not an argument for a change — it's a logical fallacy (onus probandi) — and it can be trivially answered by “because you haven't explained why”.

Putting aside I have no idea what your are blathering about (If you are objecting to materials taking less room than guns, it seems logical they would use less room), but anyway regardless of whether I agree or disagree, it is irrelvant, we have an expression where I come from - two wrongs don't make a right.



Seems you don't quite grasp how forums work, the person I responded to asked why it was illogical, I provided the answer, if you can't cope with that, I suggest you turn your pc off and go outside.

Miners aren't shooting and most of them being some what sane are half AFK while doing other things. I am sure that gankers will like you highlighting that they are no better than miners though.

Sure chance is the highest risk there is — it's when the probability factor in your Cost × Probability equation is 1. I just find it rather telling that it is so pointless to insure your ship for every-day highsec activities. It suggests to me that the risks are a bit too low…

That depends. What is the purpose of the insurance company? Is it to make money and to try to not get thrown in jail for aiding crime? Then yes, you won't be able to insure against it and any such actions will void the contract you have…

…but again, that is not the purpose of insurance in EVE, so there is nothing to say that you shouldn't/wouldn't/couldn't insure against such eventualities or that it shouldn't pay out. Real life is a great argument if you want to remove insurance completely (because everything that happens to you in-game that would make it pay out would void the contract if it were real life).

…if you assume that it is a business, not a game mechanic. Unfortunately for that line of logic, it is a game mechanic; it is not a business. So the logic of business does not apply, whereas the logic of game mechanics does — within that logic, paying out insurance for criminal acts isn't strange in the least.
Yes! And my point is that this is where the debate should lie, because that is where the logic of the payouts comes from — arguments about real life businesses completely miss the point and are utterly irrelevant because they have nothing to do with the logic of the mechanic. This is why I keep asking “why”: why is this adjustment of risk vs. reward (for both parties) needed? Why do the gankers need more risk and the victims less? Why can't/don't/shouldn't the victims do that adjustment on their own?

Umm ...

Encouraging criminal behaviour. Riiight.

I see A LOT of dead orcas on the horizon with the release of the new BC's

This is actually a change in the right direction. Obviously it will not stop suicide ganking. However, it should slightly curb it by forcing predators to be a wee bit more selective.

Also, in before Tippia's "How so?"