These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#21 - 2011-10-30 00:21:43 UTC
MeestaPenni wrote:
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.


you could say the same thing about blowing up indies too

just sayin, the economy works both ways
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2011-10-30 00:25:39 UTC
MeestaPenni wrote:
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.

All of that sounds like a good reason to get rid of *all* insurance. Why limit your socio-economic stress relief to the small number of ganker payouts?

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2011-10-30 00:29:49 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
"I don't understand the hate for removing insurance pay outs on Concorded ships. "

Mainly for two reasons:

1) Removing insurance for suicides reduces some of the advantages these suicide gankers have. These special types are usually the first to spout "risk vs reward" but fight tooth and nail (and tears) when they are even exposed to an iota of risk.

2) It spites these types of players. A victory for the "carebears" is a defeat and slap in the face to them. They play this game with the intention to hurt the person at the end of the other side. They thrive on the misery and tears of others. If their victims are not crying then they are not getting their fix and satisfaction.

But the sad truth is that even if insurance payout were removed these sadists will just find other ways to continue to grief and taunt players to their amusement. I don't believe this change alone will make much of a difference. But like I said, even a small symbolic victory to the miners means a huge kick in the nuts to them. To them someone has to be doing the crying. And if it's not the miners then it's the griefers themselves.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#24 - 2011-10-30 00:32:01 UTC  |  Edited by: MeestaPenni
Ladie Harlot wrote:
MeestaPenni wrote:
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.

All of that sounds like a good reason to get rid of *all* insurance. Why limit your socio-economic stress relief to the small number of ganker payouts?


I don't think I could argue against that....given the position I've already described. I might ponder the possibility of offering a modified version of insurance to the very newest accounts. New enough that they can barely get out of a frigate....that type of new. You should know from experience that a starting players liquidity (barring some kind of sugar daddy ingame) is not that great. It's a thought; although I expect the polemics here to jump in with, "horsecrap...it's gotta' be all or nothing....go back to WOW.....umad?"

EDIT: I rewrote one sentence above.....it was really crappy.

And it occurred to me while I was taking the dog outside; noobs already have a from of insurance. In fact, everyone has it.....you get a rookie ship and one unit of trit if you pull into a station in your pod.

Yeah, get rid of insurance entirely.

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
Mirima Thurander
#25 - 2011-10-30 00:50:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirima Thurander
so far there's no posts that have come near to answering the question i asked,


we have


troll posts

idea posts

1 post that says there reasons to keep it but dose not list any (Tippia)

and a few "because ganking wont be free any more" posts.


.



just to keep this tread on rail


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






I'm not happy with the amount of hate mail I'm getting ingame, yet more please.

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.
Zuteh
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#26 - 2011-10-30 01:19:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Zuteh
Easy, because if it was removed for Concorded ships, then it would introduce risk to high-sec ganking. Right now there is no risk just potential reward, if you fail you get your ISK back minus a insignificant amount for modules and stuff. Insurance for crimes makes no sense at all, time to introduce risk to the high sec ganking, sec loss is not a risk.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#27 - 2011-10-30 01:20:27 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:
I don't understand the hate for removing insurance pay outs on Concorded ships.
What hate?
Mirima Thurander
#28 - 2011-10-30 01:24:03 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
I don't understand the hate for removing insurance pay outs on Concorded ships.
What hate?




what reasons to keep it?

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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#29 - 2011-10-30 01:27:35 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:
what reasons to keep it?
Because there is no reason to remove it.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#30 - 2011-10-30 01:27:56 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:
so far there's no posts that have come near to answering the question i asked,


I have no idea what you're looking for. Other than "repeated ganking will be more expensive" there really is no reason. The only thing close to a reason that I can think of is "because it nerfs insurance for legitimately accidental firings-upon in hisec." That also includes newbies in there, which would (could? no idea) harm new player retention.

Also, while it's almost certainly not what you're looking for, from an RP (and immersion) aspect, some might view it as stupid for the insurance company to care about CONCORD at all. Those people should realize that the Secure Commerce Commission is actually a division of CONCORD, so it would be perfectly logical for it to deny the insurance contract if the ship was lost because of actions contrary to CONCORD regulations.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#31 - 2011-10-30 01:28:08 UTC
I agree that it should be removed... the insurance payout on CONCORDdoken... but at the same time if you are going to do that you REALLY need to fix the wardec mechanic.

Empire is going to be even more sparkle pony safe land now...

Signatures should be used responsibly...
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#32 - 2011-10-30 01:28:10 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
I don't understand the hate for removing insurance pay outs on Concorded ships.
What hate?




what reasons to keep it?


The point is, there is no particular "hate" about the idea. If you pay attention and follow the opinions expressed here, you'll see that it may be the single most agreed on point....."fine, remove insurance payouts."

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#33 - 2011-10-30 01:28:42 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
what reasons to keep it?
Because there is no reason to remove it.


Yeah there is....but you probably missed it.

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
Mirima Thurander
#34 - 2011-10-30 01:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirima Thurander
Tippia wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
what reasons to keep it?
Because there is no reason to remove it.




little risk to gankers?

isk sink?

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.
Flex Carter
Caldari Independant Mining Association
#35 - 2011-10-30 01:32:57 UTC
MeestaPenni wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
what reasons to keep it?
Because there is no reason to remove it.


Yeah there is....but you probably missed it.


Or just trolling....
Mirima Thurander
#36 - 2011-10-30 01:35:46 UTC
Flex Carter wrote:
MeestaPenni wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
what reasons to keep it?
Because there is no reason to remove it.


Yeah there is....but you probably missed it.


Or just trolling....



just trolling

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.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#37 - 2011-10-30 01:37:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
MeestaPenni wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
what reasons to keep it?
Because there is no reason to remove it.
Yeah there is....but you probably missed it.
So: why?
Mirima Thurander wrote:
little risk to gankers?

isk sink?
Removing insurance for ganks will not create an ISK sink, nor will it change the risk for the gankers.
It might change the risk for the victims (and one might suspect that this is why some want to see it happen), but the question remains: why should that happen?
Hecatonis
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2011-10-30 01:41:50 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
what reasons to keep it?
Because there is no reason to remove it.

i would argue, but i know there is no point to when someone fits an orca pilot with 125 mill implant to "be safe"

F that

because the action is deemed illegal by the corporation that is paying it out.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#39 - 2011-10-30 01:45:32 UTC
Insurance should be removed accross the board.

Would help balancing T1 vs. T2 hulls a great deal.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#40 - 2011-10-30 01:48:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia
Tippia wrote:
MeestaPenni wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
what reasons to keep it?
Because there is no reason to remove it.
Yeah there is....but you probably missed it.
So: why?
Mirima Thurander wrote:
little risk to gankers?

isk sink?
Removing insurance for ganks will not create an ISK sink, nor will it change the risk for the gankers.
It might change the risk for the victims (and one might suspect that this is why some want to see it happen), but the question remains: why should that happen?


Not that I expect you to acknowledge anything you have already chosen to ignore:

-The very concept of insurance, no matter what context or example you use, is not applicable in conditions where you knowingly and/or illegally attempt to cause the conditions for the insurance payout yourself.

-It's completely contradictory for Concord to both punish you and reward you for what is, by their definition, an illegal act.

Furthermore, as I've said, I think insurance should be removed entirely (though for completely different reasons).

I look forward to your one-lined dismissal of all of this.