These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Insurance and Loss due to criminal activity

First post
Author
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#21 - 2011-10-22 18:01:06 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Tarkoauc wrote:
Insurance should not pay out if CONCORD kills your ship because of your criminal actions. Insurance should not pay if you self-destruct your ship.
Why?



There is very little risk (basically none) in suicide ganking, but the reward is huge. It's too easy to do and I think it should financially smack gankers in the face. The self destruction of your ship...yeah I couldn't care less about that.

Why do you think it shouldn't?
Cunane Jeran
#22 - 2011-10-22 18:03:15 UTC
Suicide ganking needs to remain. Don't get me wrong, I've never done it, and been a victim of it twice but it is an absolutely amazing mineral sink.

Last thing we need is less people blowing themselves up.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#23 - 2011-10-22 18:21:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Why Not?
Because no-one has given any reason why.

So: why?
Quote:
I'll give you a reason why insurance should not pay for suicides, it distorts behaviors.
Yes, that's its entire purpose: to incentivise ship loss. So why should it be removed? It would only be sensible to do so if there is no longer any need to provide incentives for these ship losses — in other words, if insurance is not a factor in determining the risk of getting ganked. And if that's the case, then removing it makes no difference so there's no point in removing it.

In a game that revolves around a war economy, where destruction of ships is meant to feed an industry that produces ships that feed a constant warfare that results in ships being blown up which feeds [etc]… it's not just a reasonable, but a required behaviour.
Igualmentedos wrote:
There is very little risk (basically none) in suicide ganking, but the reward is huge.
No and no, in that order. There is plenty of risk, and the rewards are completely random and unpredictable. It's far worse than pretty much all other highsec pursuits, so on that basis alone, there's no reason to remove it. Quite the opposite: disincentivising ganks drastically lowers the risks of many other pursuits, which would require a complete rebalance of everything going on there.

It would be a mess, and all over something that no-one can show is an issue to begin with.
Quote:
I think it should financially smack gankers in the face.
So you say… but why?
Thomas Abernathy
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#24 - 2011-10-22 18:21:36 UTC
Cunane Jeran wrote:
Suicide ganking needs to remain. Don't get me wrong, I've never done it, and been a victim of it twice but it is an absolutely amazing mineral sink.

Last thing we need is less people blowing themselves up.


I've ganked in highsec many times, and never once was I concerned about "Insurance". I wouldn't care if the it got taken away altogether.
However I think a better route would be, Concord take a percentage of the insurance payout as a fine, base the percentage on the sec status of the ganked person. If he's 5.0, 100% fine, 2.0 75% etc...some type of sliding scale, with perhaps an additional reward from Concord for ganking negaive sec status players.

"Fighting CCD since 2139"

Motog Suffin
North Snow Reactions
#25 - 2011-10-22 18:49:11 UTC
I believe it has been said before. Concord is not there to prevent people from being sucide ganked. They are there to provide punishment.

Was it ever mentioned that Concord and the insurance companies are in any way related?

Adunh Slavy
#26 - 2011-10-22 18:51:38 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Yes, that's its entire purpose: to incentivise ship loss. So why should it be removed? It would only be sensible to do so if there is no longer any need to provide incentives for these ship losses — in other words, if insurance is not a factor in determining the risk of getting ganked. And if that's the case, then removing it makes no difference so there's no point in removing it.


Ship loss through toe-to-toe PVP, not suicides, is just as incentivised by insurance as suicide ganks. So your argument fails as the removal of all insurance is not the position proposed by the OP.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#27 - 2011-10-22 18:59:52 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Why Not?
Because no-one has given any reason why.

So: why?
Quote:
I'll give you a reason why insurance should not pay for suicides, it distorts behaviors.
Yes, that's its entire purpose: to incentivise ship loss. So why should it be removed? It would only be sensible to do so if there is no longer any need to provide incentives for these ship losses — in other words, if insurance is not a factor in determining the risk of getting ganked. And if that's the case, then removing it makes no difference so there's no point in removing it.

In a game that revolves around a war economy, where destruction of ships is meant to feed an industry that produces ships that feed a constant warfare that results in ships being blown up which feeds [etc]… it's not just a reasonable, but a required behaviour.
Igualmentedos wrote:
There is very little risk (basically none) in suicide ganking, but the reward is huge.
No and no, in that order. There is plenty of risk, and the rewards are completely random and unpredictable. It's far worse than pretty much all other highsec pursuits, so on that basis alone, there's no reason to remove it. Quite the opposite: disincentivising ganks drastically lowers the risks of many other pursuits, which would require a complete rebalance of everything going on there.

It would be a mess, and all over something that no-one can show is an issue to begin with.
Quote:
I think it should financially smack gankers in the face.
So you say… but why?


Finances are a determing factor in suicide ganking most of the time. Also, "It's far worse than pretty much all other highsec pursuits." Tippia, you're better than that Big smile. Suicide ganking is easy as can be, and recycling alts couldn't be easier. Yes, it's and exploit, but let's be honest, we all know nobody enforces that.

My favorite comment is, "There is plenty of risk, and the rewards are completely random and unpredictable." This is wrong, again. What is the risk Tippia? Please enlighten me. Also, how are the rewards random? If i dont like someone and want their hulk to DIAF, then guess what? I'm going to kill their ship at little to no cost to myself and walk away knowing they're 200 (ish? maybe I don't know) poorer as a result. Man, I had to hit F1 (with a couple friends), then die. Holy **** that was difficult.

Ships blowing is up is a great thing for the game, but imbalance is not. Sorry.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#28 - 2011-10-22 19:15:28 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
So your argument fails as the removal of all insurance is not the position proposed by the OP.
And your counter-argument fails because you're not addressing the point. I never said that it had anything to do with all insurance. I said that insurance is there to incentivise ship destruction.

But sure. My assumption here is that people want to remove insurance because that way, gankers will have lowered incentives to gank. That is why I'm asking: why? Why should it be disincentivised? Or do you want to claim that it doesn't incentivise ship destruction? If so, what difference does it make? Why should it be removed?
Igualmentedos wrote:
Finances are a determing factor in suicide ganking most of the time. Also, "It's far worse than pretty much all other highsec pursuits." Tippia, you're better than that Big smile. Suicide ganking is easy as can be, and recycling alts couldn't be easier. Yes, it's and exploit, but let's be honest, we all know nobody enforces that.
Of course it's worse than the other high-sec pursuits. The fact that they are so ridiculously rare tells us that much. Sure, suicide ganks are easy if you ignore the costs and the risks. If you do that, though, you forfeit the “risk vs. reward” argument.

Moreover, the recycling of alts is not a reason to remove legitimate gameplay — it's a reason to improve the ability to track and stop the exploit.
Quote:
What is the risk Tippia? Please enlighten me. Also, how are the rewards random?
You have a 100% risk on you ship. You risk not finding a suitable target. You risk finding an intelligent target (so your gank failes)… granted, that risk is very tiny because gank victims are stupid as hell, but still…. You risk angering the Randum Number God and get a T2 Suitcase out of the whole deal. Assuming you do it legally, you either risk missing the juicy targets while you grind your sec status back up, or you risk being shot down while travelling to the target. The rewards are random because the rewards are random — you have no control over what drops.
Quote:
If i dont like someone and want their hulk to DIAF, then guess what? I'm going to kill their ship at little to no cost to myself and walk away knowing they're 200 (ish? maybe I don't know) poorer as a result.
…and that's their risk, which is under their control. It has nothing to do with your risk vs. reward. If they want to, they can mitigate that risk into oblivion.
Quote:
Ships blowing is up is a great thing for the game, but imbalance is not.
I know. That's why I'd like to see ganking rewards increased so they're more in line with the other things you can do in highsec.

By the way, you didn't answer the question: why?
Why should gankers be smacked in the face, financially?
Why should ship destruction be disincentivised?
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#29 - 2011-10-22 19:32:44 UTC
Tippia wrote:


By the way, you didn't answer the question: why?
Why should gankers be smacked in the face, financially?
Why should ship destruction be disincentivised?


-I've answered why. I'm not going to reiterate my reasoning just because you disagree with me. Feel free to see my other posts.

- "Why should gankers be smacked in the face, financially?" There is no risk for the reward. Looking for a target is not a risk. I'm not talking about ganking for financial gain. I'm talking about the ability to kill who you want, when you want, without any risk to yourself. That is what I would like to see discouraged.

-"Why should ship destruction be disincentivised?" You're trying too hard. I never said that Tippia. I think the risk free ganking of players should be disincentivised. Ship destruction should be encouraged, but not at the expense of game balance.

-Since I'm so tired of you asking, "why?" Then misinterpreting what I say. I think we should just leave it here. Let's agree to disagree.

-BTW I'm pretty sure "disincentivised" is not a word. Not poking fun or anything because it does sound legit, but does anyone know otherwise? I can't seem to find it with my friend Google.
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#30 - 2011-10-22 19:36:50 UTC
I would argue that in a lot of cases, it is concord's mistake. Insurance should be paid out to me when concord accidentally destroys my ship

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP

Aquila Draco
#31 - 2011-10-22 19:38:39 UTC
suicide miner gankers -> get a balls and attack someone who can shoot back...
all i see in you is person who bully school boys and thinks "how cool i am"

so yes to NO INSURANCE FOR CRIMINALS... help that ppl to grow themself a balls...
Motog Suffin
North Snow Reactions
#32 - 2011-10-22 19:40:04 UTC
If we define "risk" as loosing your ship.

than hi-sec gankers have the riskiest job of all.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#33 - 2011-10-22 19:50:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Igualmentedos wrote:
-I've answered why.
So… because of high reward and no risk?
Ok… prove it.
Quote:
- "Why should gankers be smacked in the face, financially?" There is no risk for the reward. Looking for a target is not a risk.
Yes it is. It's the risk that you just end up wasting your time and not finding anything. You might want to look up the whole concept of opportunity cost.

Also, if you want to exclude the financial side, then why are you discussing the financial side? If it's not ganking for financial reasons, then insurance (being a financial factor) is no longer part of the equation and has no influence on the risk or reward, so why even fiddle with it?
Quote:
I'm talking about the ability to kill who you want, when you want, without any risk to yourself. That is what I would like to see discouraged.
…and to do that, you need to show that this is at all possible, in particular the “no risk” part.

But at least now we're getting somewhere: assuming for a second that you manage to prove all that… why? Why should it be discouraged?
Quote:
-"Why should ship destruction be disincentivised?" You're trying too hard. I never said that Tippia.
…and yet, you're suggesting it. Why?
Quote:
-BTW I'm pretty sure "disincentivised" is not a word.
Disincentive + incentivise. Et voilà. It's a word. If you can't find it, you haven't actually used google, or it has long since ceased being your friend since it's blocking some 2 million results for you

Oh, and as for you being tired of ”why”… It's just the quintessential question — the one that gives your idea any meaning. If you can't answer the question why, or if you hide the “why” behind umpteen different layers of reasoning, then you're probably proposing the wrong thing (if we're positive) or trying to hide a truly hideous suggestion under the guise of proposing to fix something seemingly reasonable (if we're a bit more conspiratorially inclined). I'm trying to understand — and, even more importantly, trying to make you understand — what it is you're actually asking for and what it is supposed to solve.
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#34 - 2011-10-22 20:01:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
.


As someone who has suicide ganked before (this is an alt sorry) I can say I have proved it.

"But at least now we're getting somewhere: assuming for a second that you manage to prove all that… why? Why should it be discouraged?" Please spare me the condescension.

Other than that provide a link for disincentivised? i suggest using lmgtfy.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#35 - 2011-10-22 20:08:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Igualmentedos wrote:
As someone who has suicide ganked before (this is an alt sorry) I can say I have proved it.
You can say it. That doesn't mean you actually have proven it.

So… where's the proof?
Quote:
Please spare me the condescension.
No. Why should it be discouraged?
Quote:
Other than that provide a link for disincentivised? i suggest using lmgtfy.
Since you already know about lmgtfy, I suggest you go use it. Or just use google directly, since you don't like condescension… Roll
Barbelo Valentinian
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#36 - 2011-10-22 20:14:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Why should gankers be smacked in the face, financially?
Why should ship destruction be disincentivised?


Much as I normally agree with nearly everything you say on just about every subject, I have to disagree with you on this subject.

Empire is supposed to be a designated "safer" space, so gankers should be smacked in the face financially in Empire space, and ship destruction should be disincentivised in Empire space. Obviously it ought to be still possible, but the disincentive should be a bit bigger. To remove insurance for gankers would kill two birds with one stone - a little bit more disincentive, and a little bit more "sim realism" for an Empire space that's a hive of commercial activity and relatively safe and policed.

There's a whole bunch of other space in the sandbox for gankers to have an easier time of it, and for the gameplay mechanics you're talking about to work themselves out comfortably.

Also, from the simulator point of view, it's just a bit too much of a gameplay concession to give player killers insurance. It's jarring. (The whole concept of insurance in a game like this where people are constantly getting their ships blown up is somewhat jarring, but insurance for gankers is in-your-face jarring.)
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#37 - 2011-10-22 20:15:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Igualmentedos wrote:
As someone who has suicide ganked before (this is an alt sorry) I can say I have proved it.
You can say it. That doesn't mean you actually have proven it.

So… where's the proof?
Quote:
Please spare me the condescension.
No. Why should it be discouraged?
Quote:
Other than that provide a link for disincentivised? i suggest using lmgtfy.
Since you already know about lmgtfy, I suggest you go use it. Or just use google directly, since you don't like condescension… Roll


Still waiting on that link. Honestly, I couldn't find one.

How would you like me to prove it? Spend my time making a video for Tippia? There is very little risk in suicide ganking. We disagree on that and I'm sorry. Such is life.

But it's cool keep trolling :3

- On a more serious side not Id really like a link on the word please.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#38 - 2011-10-22 20:20:09 UTC
Barbelo Valentinian wrote:
Empire is supposed to be a designated "safer" space, so gankers should be smacked in the face financially in Empire space, and ship destruction should be disincentivised in Empire space.
Weeeell…

Highsec is supposed to be an area where aggression costs. That is all it is. The hope is that this cost will cause people to shoot each other less than if the cost was zero. The fact that ganks are so rare as they are proves that overall, it works — it is disencintivised… compared to low and nullsec. You are already inherently and unavoidably smacked in the face, financially, when you attack people: you either lose your ship (and fittings, unless you have an accomplice to scoop up whatever survives), or you pay for a wardec.
Quote:
Obviously it ought to be still possible, but the disincentive should be a bit bigger.
…and thus we arrive at the burning question: why? Why should it be bigger?
Quote:
Also, from the simulator point of view, it's just a bit too much of a gameplay concession to give player killers insurance. It's jarring.
…and by the same logic, CONCORD should be removed. Or at least have its response delayed by a factor of 60×… and be destroyable… and easily avoidable… and not actually blow people up willy-nilly. So that RL argument is a particularly bad route to take in this case. Twisted
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#39 - 2011-10-22 20:24:30 UTC
Igualmentedos wrote:
[Still waiting on that link. Honestly, I couldn't find one.
You already have it. Well, unless you're still using IE6 or something equally ancient.
Quote:
How would you like me to prove it?
I want you to make a breakdown of how much it costs to gank someone.
The cost of the ship and the fittings, net, after insurance.
The average time requirement for a gank (including the time to grind back sec status).
The loss of income this time investment incurs.

And then I want you to tell me the average reward for a gank.
Quote:
- On a more serious side not Id really like a link on the word please.
Don't be such a useless little troll and just google it like everyone else. Roll
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
#40 - 2011-10-22 20:32:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Fille Balle
Mag's wrote:
You best tell me how long it will take to train, I don't even know what you consider needed skills. Best list them too.

Also, I'm sure there will be a stipulations in regards to alt recycling, time and uses etc, may be you could list that too.
Or, as you seem to be well informed in this regard, you could simply point me towards the information.


Having done some simple calculations, you can be sitting in a cane firing arties with gyros fitted in less than 10 days. That is, from a fresh character. And to enlighten you a bit more, here's how you get around those "wasted" skillpoints:

1. Start up new account and make new character
2. Begin training towards Cane + med arties + gyros
3. Once you can fly the cane, make a new character and start training that one instead
4. Start ganking with the first character, and if you profit exceeds 400m proceed to step 5, otherwise return to step 1
5. Buy plex, start transfering isk to your main account. As long as income exceeds 400m per month, keep purchasing plex.
6. When the second character is done training, biomass the first and start using the second character, begin training charcter 3.

I have never done any suicide ganking nor have I ever been suicide ganked. But some reliable sources have told me you can easily make more than 400m in a week if you pay attention and know what you're doing.

Stop the spamming, not the scamming!