These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Suicide Ganking: coming to an end?

First post
Author
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#181 - 2011-11-06 11:38:43 UTC
OmniBeton wrote:
No insurance for beeing concorded is logical.
Shawnm339 wrote:
Of course not it makes no sense.
okst666 wrote:
I dont know where you live, but here it is like, if YOU crash my car, YOUR insurance have to pay MY new car...or YOU and YOUR kids till the end of their lifetime.

Also - I should be able to additionally insure my cargo and get double payout when it got lost.
Again, you're confusing a game mechanic for real life. Insurance does not have the purpose you think it has, which is why it doesn't work the way you think it would work.
Nalia White wrote:
this is just a mechanic change which makes a lot of sense. the victim probably doesn't insure his miner/pve ship/hauler because you would lose alot of isk every 2 weeks. insurance is for risky operations where you have a high chance of losing your ship.
…by that logic, suicide-insurance should definitely pay out, considering how risky the operation is and how high the chance is of losing your ship (and if it's such a low risk for miners/PvEers/haulers that they don't need to insure their ships, then the supposed problem is rather overblown).
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#182 - 2011-11-06 11:39:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Ryllic Sin
Cpt Fina wrote:

Point is that CCP is willingly bending over and taking it in the rear when they constantly give in to the preassure from the playerbase and changes what is seen as truisms of the game.


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.

Cpt Fina wrote:

Eve online is a special, unique MMORPG


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.
Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#183 - 2011-11-06 11:41:17 UTC
Tippia wrote:
ITTigerClawIK wrote:
IMHO the removal of insureance payout for conocord related deaths is a logical change
How so?


Paying out insurance to someone for what is a crimnal act is illogical.
Shnejder
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2011-11-06 11:47:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Shnejder
Ryllic Sin wrote:
Tippia wrote:
ITTigerClawIK wrote:
IMHO the removal of insureance payout for conocord related deaths is a logical change
How so?


Paying out insurance to someone for what is a crimnal act is illogical.


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
Jenshae Chiroptera
#185 - 2011-11-06 11:47:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Andski wrote:

I welcome this change, to be quite honest - it will make miners so much more complacent in their supposed "safety" that they will totally neglect taking any measures to protect themselves.


So, not only do you want to shoot at something that can't shoot back, you also want it to not flee either ... hmm ... I guess some people do find punching bags challenging and "fun". P

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#186 - 2011-11-06 11:49:48 UTC
Ryllic Sin wrote:
Cpt Fina wrote:

Point is that CCP is willingly bending over and taking it in the rear when they constantly give in to the preassure from the playerbase and changes what is seen as truisms of the game.


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.


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.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#187 - 2011-11-06 11:50:44 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Andski wrote:

I welcome this change, to be quite honest - it will make miners so much more complacent in their supposed "safety" that they will totally neglect taking any measures to protect themselves.


So, not only do you want to shoot at something that can't shoot back, you also want it to not flee either ... hmm ... I guess some people do find punching bags challenging and "fun". P


Sorry, are you talking about the miners or the gankers here?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#188 - 2011-11-06 11:54:44 UTC
Psychophantic wrote:
OMG

Suicide ganking actually has a consequence now?
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).
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
So we need alot more to end this crap.
Why should it be ended?
Ryllic Sin wrote:
Paying out insurance to someone for what is a crimnal act is illogical.
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.
Avila Cracko wrote:
you only ask why something should change... and why not???
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”.
Nalia White
Tencus
#189 - 2011-11-06 11:56:03 UTC
Tippia wrote:
OmniBeton wrote:
No insurance for beeing concorded is logical.
Shawnm339 wrote:
Of course not it makes no sense.
okst666 wrote:
I dont know where you live, but here it is like, if YOU crash my car, YOUR insurance have to pay MY new car...or YOU and YOUR kids till the end of their lifetime.

Also - I should be able to additionally insure my cargo and get double payout when it got lost.
Again, you're confusing a game mechanic for real life. Insurance does not have the purpose you think it has, which is why it doesn't work the way you think it would work.
Nalia White wrote:
this is just a mechanic change which makes a lot of sense. the victim probably doesn't insure his miner/pve ship/hauler because you would lose alot of isk every 2 weeks. insurance is for risky operations where you have a high chance of losing your ship.
…by that logic, suicide-insurance should definitely pay out, considering how risky the operation is and how high the chance is of losing your ship (and if it's such a low risk for miners/PvEers/haulers that they don't need to insure their ships, then the supposed problem is rather overblown).


there is a difference between high chance and sure chance. a miner who goes to null/low has a high risk and will insure but a ganker knows exactly what happens... but you are pulling straws here i see. not worth any more discussion with you good sir.

Syndicate - K5-JRD

Home to few, graveyard for many

My biggest achievement

Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#190 - 2011-11-06 12:00:50 UTC
Shnejder wrote:

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).


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.

Shnejder wrote:

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


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.
OmniBeton
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#191 - 2011-11-06 12:03:21 UTC  |  Edited by: OmniBeton
Tippia wrote:
OmniBeton wrote:
No insurance for beeing concorded is logical.
Shawnm339 wrote:
Of course not it makes no sense.
okst666 wrote:
I dont know where you live, but here it is like, if YOU crash my car, YOUR insurance have to pay MY new car...or YOU and YOUR kids till the end of their lifetime.

Also - I should be able to additionally insure my cargo and get double payout when it got lost.
Again, you're confusing a game mechanic for real life. Insurance does not have the purpose you think it has, which is why it doesn't work the way you think it would work.
Nalia White wrote:
this is just a mechanic change which makes a lot of sense. the victim probably doesn't insure his miner/pve ship/hauler because you would lose alot of isk every 2 weeks. insurance is for risky operations where you have a high chance of losing your ship.
…by that logic, suicide-insurance should definitely pay out, considering how risky the operation is and how high the chance is of losing your ship (and if it's such a low risk for miners/PvEers/haulers that they don't need to insure their ships, then the supposed problem is rather overblown).


If I my car crashes or is blown to pieces during police chase (after me) do I get insurance paid out ?
You cant insure risk of beeing punished for wilful illegal activities. It plain simple.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#192 - 2011-11-06 12:07:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Malcanis wrote:
Sorry, are you talking about the miners or the gankers here?


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. Blink

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Ryllic Sin
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#193 - 2011-11-06 12:08:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Ryllic Sin
Tippia wrote:
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.


It is illogical from a game world perspective, this is a mmoRPG, it is illogical that an insurance company would pay out to someone who loses their vehicle in the process of commiting a crimnal act.

As for the game mechanic aspect, that is subjective, you think it is needed, others (including me) think the risk vs reward is too much in favour of the ganker in hi-sec and removing insurance evens that up a little.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#194 - 2011-11-06 12:10:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Nalia White wrote:
there is a difference between high chance and sure chance. a miner who goes to null/low has a high risk and will insure but a ganker knows exactly what happens.
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…

OmniBeton wrote:
If I my car crashes or is blown to pieces during police chase (after me) do I get insurance paid out ?
You cant insure risk of beeing punished for wilful illegal activities. It plain simple.
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).

Ryllic Sin wrote:
It is illogical from a game world perspective
…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.
Quote:
As for the game mechanic aspect, that is subjective, you think it is needed, others (including me) think the risk vs reward is too much in favour of the ganker in hi-sec and removing insurance evens that up a little.
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?
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
#195 - 2011-11-06 12:11:53 UTC
It's logical that suicide-gankers don't receive insurance payouts.
It's illogical that minerals can be magically compressed into railguns, space is a liquid, and a host of other things.

EVE can never be completely realistic or completely illogical/unrealistic.
This is the line which CCP determines. They've chosen that this little particular part of EVE will make logical sense because they feel it will be best for gameplay/immersion/sensibility/realism. It's up to them to decide what to do next. Because insurance for suicide gankers has been removed doesn't mean that next 'logical' and beneficial improvement to EVE is to remove CONCORD.

Some things can make sense, others don't need to make sense. This change is one thing which does make sense.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#196 - 2011-11-06 12:12:47 UTC
Ryllic Sin wrote:
... create a much-needed risk in high security..


Umm ...

Encouraging criminal behaviour. Riiight. What?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Max Von Sydow
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#197 - 2011-11-06 12:17:41 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Nalia White wrote:
there is a difference between high chance and sure chance. a miner who goes to null/low has a high risk and will insure but a ganker knows exactly what happens.
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…

OmniBeton wrote:
If I my car crashes or is blown to pieces during police chase (after me) do I get insurance paid out ?
You cant insure risk of beeing punished for wilful illegal activities. It plain simple.
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).

Ryllic Sin wrote:
It is illogical from a game world perspective
…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.
Quote:
As for the game mechanic aspect, that is subjective, you think it is needed, others (including me) think the risk vs reward is too much in favour of the ganker in hi-sec and removing insurance evens that up a little.
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?


how so?
Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
#198 - 2011-11-06 12:20:40 UTC
I see A LOT of dead orcas on the horizon with the release of the new BC's Twisted

❒ Single ❒ Taken ✔ Playing EVE Online

CCP Guard > Where's the shoot button on this thing?

CCP Space Cadet > What's this "offline guns" button do?

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#199 - 2011-11-06 12:27:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Since you were actually quoting me, not Ryllic Sin…
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Umm ...
Yes? Just because it is “high” security doesn't mean it should be without risk, nor does it mean that it can't use more risk than it currently has. Over time, “high” sec has edged closer and closer to complete sec, which has a number of harmful consequences. I would prefer that it was edged back towards being merely high security (relatively speaking, compared to the low security of low sec and the no self-made security of nullsec).
Quote:
Encouraging criminal behaviour. Riiight. What?
Yes? It has become a bit too rare, moving more towards scam spam and various aggression juggling (can flipping and the like), making it rare to see proper crime in space. Such acts rather seem to need a bit of encouraging in this day and age, to bump up that risk of flying in space a bit and to further stimulate the economic effects of such crime.

That's the funny thing about EVE: the way the game is set up, criminal behaviour is not a bad thing — quite the opposite. Rampant criminality in EVE can have a silly amount of very positive effects.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#200 - 2011-11-06 12:29:25 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
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?"

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.