These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

STOP PAYING INSURANCE FOR CONCORD KILLS
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Llanthas
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2011-10-13 06:49:13 UTC
Seriously. This would end 90% of the high-sec ganking.
If you need an RP reason - what insurance company would pay on a car that got demolished by the cops in a bank robbery?

Issue an in-game news release that Pend Insurance Co. has decided not to pay claims on ships destroyed by CONCORD. Very simple, and ends (or at least greatly diminishes) a problem that is driving industrial players crazy. This doesn't break the game mechanics, or really affect things whatsoever, except for lowering the profitability of griefing.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#2 - 2011-10-13 06:57:39 UTC
Llanthas wrote:
Seriously. This would end 90% of the high-sec ganking.


LOL. No it won't. Goons will still be doing it to "skew the ice economy" and some people will still do it "for fun." The only people you'd affect with this are people who ACTUALLY make a living off of it (pro-tip: very few actually do).

How did you Veterans start?
Llanthas
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2011-10-13 07:02:20 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Llanthas wrote:
Seriously. This would end 90% of the high-sec ganking.


LOL. No it won't. Goons will still be doing it to "skew the ice economy" and some people will still do it "for fun." The only people you'd affect with this are people who ACTUALLY make a living off of it (pro-tip: very few actually do).


People who make a living off insurance payouts from CONCORD kills? Yeah, that fits right in with the spirit of Eve.
It's ridiculous, and you know it. And you can't deny that it would happen a LOT less if you didn't get millions of isk for committing a crime.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#4 - 2011-10-13 07:38:22 UTC
Nuuuuuuuuu... people who make a living by popping untanked industrials full of goodies.


The insurance payout is just a blanket mechanic that was put in place to encourage players to go out and lose their ships in PvP. And it does very well in this regard. Especially with newbies who tend to make mistakes and shoot the wrong things. Do you think the system differentiates a newbie shooting a random by accident from a failed suicide-ganker?

How did you Veterans start?
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#5 - 2011-10-13 08:09:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Llanthas wrote:
Seriously. This would end 90% of the high-sec ganking.
If you need an RP reason - what insurance company would pay on a car that got demolished by the cops in a bank robbery?

Issue an in-game news release that Pend Insurance Co. has decided not to pay claims on ships destroyed by CONCORD. Very simple, and ends (or at least greatly diminishes) a problem that is driving industrial players crazy. This doesn't break the game mechanics, or really affect things whatsoever, except for lowering the profitability of griefing.


First of all, suicide-ganking is a very important element of EVE; it keeps the economy healthy. It acts as a mineral and module sink because about half of the stuff (plus at least two ships) is always destroyed.

Secondly, removing insurance payouts wouldn't "end 90% of the high-sec ganking." Not even close. All this would accomplish is that it would slightly squeeze profit margins by pushing the sunk cost of one suicide battleship from about 40 million, to about 100. In fact, gankers would now lose less money, because they would compensate by using smaller ships, and more shooters. Three battlecruisers do what one battleship can, at about half the price. The only reason people use battleships at all is due to a smaller total sec hit for a suicide group's evening out.

Go ahead and remove insurance. It won't change our bottom line one bit. In fact, we'll gank you more just to spite you.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Gevlin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2011-10-13 08:50:48 UTC
Miner here. a gankee,
I used to be of the opinion of removing ship insurance. Like Llanthas

After talking with people like the goons... the Insurance payout removal is not going to effect the ganking


CCP has since 2007 - Made some changes

Quicker Sec Status Drops for shooting Concord like Players in Highest systems
Ganking someone with a higher standing than you especially in a high sec system will cause you to drop further than shooting some one below their standing in a lower sec area.

Reducing Insurance on all bigger ships but raising insurance payouts on T2 Frigates


May i recommend:
--->mining in belts that have concord sitting in the same spot
--->Working in systems with a Higher Security Status - Faster response time, experience High-sec gankers, can't keep hitting these areas because of their sec status.
---> Put a Beefier tank on your Ship during periods of frequent Ganking.
--> Partner up and cross share Logistic Drones
--> Rat lots of Pirates to raise your status, causing the Aggressor to loose his status faster.

Remember an UnSuccessful Gank still lowers their sec status
If you can get them to pod you (you don't have implant) do so it will drop their sec status super quick forcing them in to low sec.


Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#7 - 2011-10-13 09:26:21 UTC
Llanthas wrote:
Seriously. This would end 90% of the high-sec ganking.
If that's the case, then why on earth should they stop paying insurance for CONCORD kills?
Quote:
This doesn't break the game mechanics, or really affect things whatsoever
Then there is no need to change it, now is there?
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#8 - 2011-10-13 14:00:57 UTC  |  Edited by: non judgement
Even with -10ss it is still possible to gank in highsec.
Vizvayu Koga
#9 - 2011-10-13 14:12:43 UTC
And what about getting the same punishment if you touch a loot that is not yours than if you attack someone? That would stop the suicides, right?
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#10 - 2011-10-13 14:18:04 UTC
How are stealing loot and suicide ganking linked? Excuse me, my mind just exploded...

/me picking up pieces of brain
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#11 - 2011-10-13 14:19:13 UTC
Vizvayu Koga wrote:
And what about getting the same punishment if you touch a loot that is not yours than if you attack someone? That would stop the suicides, right?
No. Also: why?
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#12 - 2011-10-13 14:35:38 UTC
Llanthas wrote:
Seriously. This would end 90% of the high-sec ganking.
If you need an RP reason - what insurance company would pay on a car that got demolished by the cops in a bank robbery?

Issue an in-game news release that Pend Insurance Co. has decided not to pay claims on ships destroyed by CONCORD. Very simple, and ends (or at least greatly diminishes) a problem that is driving industrial players crazy. This doesn't break the game mechanics, or really affect things whatsoever, except for lowering the profitability of griefing.



If you are really that mad about it just "pause" the game, play something else for a few months, come back again and try again.

The real game in eve is about grieving others by any means, if you lost mind on that then it's time to do something else.
Vizvayu Koga
#13 - 2011-10-13 15:03:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vizvayu Koga wrote:
And what about getting the same punishment if you touch a loot that is not yours than if you attack someone? That would stop the suicides, right?
No. Also: why?


Nevermind... I assumed that if you kill somebody against the law (and get killed by concord in the process) the loot still belongs to the victim, which should be the logical thing IMO, but maybe it's not like that...
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#14 - 2011-10-13 16:48:33 UTC
Removing insurance payouts for a CONCORD kill would be too much - there are legitimate game reasons for allowing suicide-ganking (perhaps not to the degree that it's done today).

However, I would support that if CONCORD appears on the kill that payout should be reduced 10-20%.

(But I also think insurance periods should be 30 days at a time, with much cheaper renewal fees and that the initial policy and renewal fee should be based on security status.)
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#15 - 2011-10-13 17:16:05 UTC
Terrorist dont care how much money they lose killing as many infadels as possible.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#16 - 2011-10-13 17:27:29 UTC
Hmm... I was going to suggest doubling the insurance payouts to create a more dynamic and vibrant economy.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Llanthas
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2011-10-13 17:29:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Llanthas
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Removing insurance payouts for a CONCORD kill would be too much - there are legitimate game reasons for allowing suicide-ganking (perhaps not to the degree that it's done today).



You mean allowing the freedom to do so? I'm for that, too - you should be free to do anything within the game mechanics. But when it's financially supported by the godlike "insurance" company, that doesn't make sense in-game, or from a game mechanics standpoint. It's just wrong.

Argument 1: It wouldn't change anything.
Response: Ok, so what do you care? Just do it.

Argument 2: It's intended to encourage PvP.
Response: There's no PvP here, shooting a defenseless opponent that can't even respond until he's half-dead.

Argument 3: CONCORD kills them, too.
Response: Yeah, CONCORD takes out your cheap pvp ship, and the miner loses half a bill in ship, modules, and production. PLUS, there are plenty of examples of exploits used to escape CONCORD.

Argument 4: It'll hurt people that make their "living" off this.
Response: You're making your in-game living off of insurance fraud? Is that really what we want this game to be?
Quark Valhala
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2011-10-13 17:33:17 UTC
Bost it instead. High sec gank is just eves robin hood. The rich persons that haules shinny stuff and losses a ship have to go buy a new one, so does the gankers.
Makes the wheels go round.
Llanthas
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2011-10-13 18:01:27 UTC
Quark Valhala wrote:
Bost it instead. High sec gank is just eves robin hood. The rich persons that haules shinny stuff and losses a ship have to go buy a new one, so does the gankers.
Makes the wheels go round.


I don't remember Robin Hood shooting miners and searching their pockets. Especially with 100% employment in Nottingham, and more than enough easy money to be made. Your metaphor is fail, sir.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#20 - 2011-10-13 18:43:12 UTC
Llanthas wrote:
Seriously. This would end 90% of the high-sec ganking.
If you need an RP reason - what insurance company would pay on a car that got demolished by the cops in a bank robbery?

Issue an in-game news release that Pend Insurance Co. has decided not to pay claims on ships destroyed by CONCORD. Very simple, and ends (or at least greatly diminishes) a problem that is driving industrial players crazy. This doesn't break the game mechanics, or really affect things whatsoever, except for lowering the profitability of griefing.
But 72% think this is a bad idea, whilst 43% say they don't really care. Although 12% said it should only happen on Tuesday.

On a more serious note, CCP already said no.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
123Next pageLast page