open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Suicide Ganks
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (17)

Author Topic

Abramul
Gallente
StarFleet Enterprises
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2010.11.26 21:27:00 - [271]
 

Edited by: Abramul on 26/11/2010 21:38:48
Edited by: Abramul on 26/11/2010 21:36:33
At the least, a change of terminology is in order. Instead of insurance, call it a salvage contract; in exchange for an the initial payment, you're guaranteed a share of the value of recovered materials, and an NPC corporation is guaranteed rights to what's left of a wreck after capsuleers pick it over. I'm sure there's enough minerals left in a wreck even after capsuleers salvage it for NPC salvage operations to be viable.

As far as getting rid of subsidized ganking, I've dabbled in ganking for killmails, and I'm in favor of it. Even a battleship isn't expensive enough for this to significantly affect highsec piracy, but it does give a bit more of a bite to it. And Thrashers are always cheap, fully insured or not.

+Edit: Also, I'd suggest that insurance not be voided for someone who loses a ship to Concord, but didn't kill anything and has no other negative security events for a month or so, to cover those 'wait, that wasn't a rat!' moments.

Also also, the pirate frigate idea is interesting. It would be fairly balanced if it treats them as outlaws but suppresses GCCs and security penalties for attacks using T1 frigates.

CycoChick
Posted - 2010.11.28 10:20:00 - [272]
 

No insurance payouts.
Adjusted standings to -0.3
Concord Pods gankers.

Loss of some abilitys, The use of medical facilities or repair shops or Docking with NPC stations in empire. (no more Jita visits)

We also should have the right to deny services when it comes to corp and personal contracts or market sale orders.

give a pilot and or a corp a negitive standing and they cant buy any of your stuff in market or contracts.

Thats how Id like to see it. :)


Anne Arqui
Minmatar
Diamonds in the Rough Enterprises

Posted - 2010.11.28 12:07:00 - [273]
 

Supported. It doesn't make any sense.

Nicky's Tomb
Posted - 2010.12.01 17:41:00 - [274]
 

Edited by: Nicky''s Tomb on 01/12/2010 17:46:38
Supported.

Getting your insurance payout when you deaded your ship while commiting a capital offense in secure space is fairly ******ed.

I don't think I have seen as many big, bad ass, scary looking pirates crying like babies as in this thread.

*Excuse me but the word ****** is NOT offensive it is simply the opposite of advanced, or progressive, forward thinking.... backward. That will do, hopefully it isn't *'ed out.

Alias 6322A
Posted - 2010.12.01 23:35:00 - [275]
 

Suicide Ganking is a gamble, pure and simple. I totally support it if it stays that way. You wanna stick your wallet out there to nab a thicker one? Go for it. But I think insurance makes this risk much less.

Supported.

People will continue to be gank-food, there will always be that idiot hauler, or the numbskull flying a multi-billion ship through hisec without a care in the world. EVE is risky, and it isn't safe. Ganking is fine...but it needs to be more risky. There shouldn't be a consolation prize for illegal activity. That'd be like customs fining you for having drugs but being able to avoid the fine/sec status drop for losing the drugs. Risk = Reward, but only if you succeed. If you screw up, CCP shouldn't hold your hand for failing to gank.

Kadoes Khan
Posted - 2010.12.01 23:44:00 - [276]
 

Supported.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.12.02 01:00:00 - [277]
 

Will the people supporting this change explain how it will be economic to gank a freighter after insurance is removed?

I mean since killing T1 haulers and such will scarcely be affected, the real beneficiaries of this change would be the freighter pilots.

Why should freighters be invulnerable while new players in smaller ships will be left out in the cold to take all the attention?

Aphrodite Skripalle
Galactic Defence Consortium
Posted - 2010.12.06 10:21:00 - [278]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Will the people supporting this change explain how it will be economic to gank a freighter after insurance is removed?

I mean since killing T1 haulers and such will scarcely be affected, the real beneficiaries of this change would be the freighter pilots.

Why should freighters be invulnerable while new players in smaller ships will be left out in the cold to take all the attention?

Why should it be "economic" to kill freighters in high sec ? There is absolutly no reason for that.
You can go kill freighters in low sec or 0.0 space, because if you need upgrades, you need to make freighter runs. Of course they often have a fleet who are protecting them.
Still you have the chance to suicide kill freighters in high sec if you really want, they are not invulnerable. But imho there is no need why killing freighters in high sec should be "economic".

Of course also they can be fleet support in high sec for freighters if you have very expensive stuff to transport. You also have the possibilty to wardec any freighter pilot and then you are free to kill him everywhere.

Kapali
Caldari
New Eden Distilleries
Posted - 2010.12.06 14:31:00 - [279]
 

Ive seen a few gankings of friends and alliance members. I join fleet only to watch them burn. If your in a alliance and not of the same corp, all you can do is watch.

If your alliance buddy says help in alliance chat and you join fleet you should beable to exact some pay back.

Hell you show just that in the butterfly effect video.
But if you do what he did in empire, your going to be concorded.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.12.06 14:35:00 - [280]
 

that's the thing with targets hiding in high sec--the suicide gankers can do the same.

Tiitus
Posted - 2010.12.08 02:55:00 - [281]
 

How about a different solution:

Allow jump drives to operate in high sec, and thus stop the funneling of valuable goods through camped gates in slow-ass weak tanked haulers. Jump it from system to system using a jump Freighter.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.08 03:34:00 - [282]
 

Supported. Patently absurd to have your property destroyed in a criminal action by the police and then receive a payment from insurance.

-Windjammer

Korg Leaf
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
0ccupational Hazzard
Posted - 2010.12.08 08:40:00 - [283]
 

Edited by: Korg Leaf on 08/12/2010 08:40:41
Originally by: Windjammer
Supported. Patently absurd to have your property destroyed in a criminal action by the police and then receive a payment from insurance.

-Windjammer



Your right it is absurd for an insurance company to pay out to people flying their ships into warzones, like 0.0 and even missions technically, and losing them.

Remove all insurance and it solves the issue

Decus Daga
Black Thorne Alliance
Posted - 2010.12.26 01:33:00 - [284]
 


Sed Man
Gallente
Havoc Violence and Chaos
Posted - 2010.12.26 06:05:00 - [285]
 

some good views expressed.

How about setting insurance like RL, not based just on the ships value, but based on the record of the pilot. If you've never lost a ship you get 100% back, but for each ship you lose per (week/month/year?) your insurance return is reduced by x?%.

How about insurance on clone implants?
How about insurance on fitted mods?
How about increasing insurance premiums/lowering payouts when at war?

IMO, remove all insurance from the game. For noobs it would be a learning experience and would only take them a short time to recover their losses and may even encourage them to make friends sooner. For older players, it wouldn't make much difference really - even with insurance, it doesnt even come close the cost of the rigs/mods installed.

Supported only to get the whole insurance system looked at.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.12.26 10:00:00 - [286]
 

Originally by: CycoChick
No insurance payouts.
Adjusted standings to -0.3
Concord Pods gankers.

Loss of some abilitys, The use of medical facilities or repair shops or Docking with NPC stations in empire. (no more Jita visits)

We also should have the right to deny services when it comes to corp and personal contracts or market sale orders.

give a pilot and or a corp a negitive standing and they cant buy any of your stuff in market or contracts.

Thats how Id like to see it. :)




^^ That's what I like to see, too. 100% agreed.

Omira Tan
Posted - 2010.12.26 10:18:00 - [287]
 

CCP's (rather faux) argument against getting rid of insurance altogether has always been the same old "But think about the noobs!" mantra. So, why not make insurance a noob feature you lose after, say, 2 months. Which is to say, when you start as a noob, CCP covers you for a period of two months, and then you can't insure your ships any more, ever (kinda like losing rookie channel after 30 days).

As has been pointed out already, insurance for older players is pretty useless anyway: with rigs and T2 stuff, there's just no point bothering to get insurance any more (especially since it expires as well).

Pheusia
Gallente
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.12.26 10:19:00 - [288]
 

Originally by: Aphrodite Skripalle
Originally by: Malcanis
Will the people supporting this change explain how it will be economic to gank a freighter after insurance is removed?

I mean since killing T1 haulers and such will scarcely be affected, the real beneficiaries of this change would be the freighter pilots.

Why should freighters be invulnerable while new players in smaller ships will be left out in the cold to take all the attention?

Why should it be "economic" to kill freighters in high sec ? There is absolutly no reason for that.



Er, so that freighters aren't effectively invulnerable in hi-sec?

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.12.26 10:27:00 - [289]
 

Originally by: Pheusia

Er, so that freighters aren't effectively invulnerable in hi-sec?


No, not invulnerable, but.... it should COST you. Yeah, that's right, that's the crux of this whole thread: if you want to suicie gank, go ahead, but you should come out bleeding (at least, ship-cost wise; what you make in loot is another story). But the idea that you can just suicide gank people, and have CCP pick up the tab, that's just carebear PvP-ing extraordinaire.

Pheusia
Gallente
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.12.26 15:16:00 - [290]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Pheusia

Er, so that freighters aren't effectively invulnerable in hi-sec?


No, not invulnerable, but.... it should COST you. Yeah, that's right, that's the crux of this whole thread: if you want to suicie gank, go ahead, but you should come out bleeding (at least, ship-cost wise; what you make in loot is another story). But the idea that you can just suicide gank people, and have CCP pick up the tab, that's just carebear PvP-ing extraordinaire.


So your idea of piracy is that is should make the pirates a loss? Yeah, lots of risk for the freighter in that situation Rolling Eyes

Still, the answer to this proposal is the same as it always is: if you want to change insurance on the grounds of "realism", then lets balance that by changing CONCORD on the same basis. CONCORD should be just like real cops, maybe not always turning up, certainly taking more than 30 seconds to appear, not always getting their guy, sometimes being overpowered, and sometimes being corrupt enough to take a brible to look the other way.

If you want more realistic insurance, I want more realistic CONCORD. I'd be more than happy to support the proposal if amended with that trade off.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.12.26 16:07:00 - [291]
 

Originally by: Pheusia

So your idea of piracy is that is should make the pirates a loss?


Whether or not piracy should be at a loss largely depends on what you're ganking and the loot you get (and thus, indirectly, on the skills of you and your ganking gang). You shouldn't get your ships reimbursed, is the point, though. Because now you basically have Concord subsidized ganking/piracy, which is lunacy, really.

Quote:

Yeah, lots of risk for the freighter in that situation Rolling Eyes


He's not the one engaging in piracy. :) And besides, there's still, and always, great risk involved for the freighter pilot: barring shield-implants and the like, he cannot fit anything to tank himself -- what it takes to kill him, EHP-wise, is just a tab on the freighter info-sheet away. Nor can he prevent his cargo from being scanned.

Quote:

Still, the answer to this proposal is the same as it always is: if you want to change insurance on the grounds of "realism",


Nah, I want insurance changed based on the grounds of subsidized piracy being silly. It's the ultimate pirate wet dream, I get that. Sometimes it's time to wake up, though.

Pheusia
Gallente
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.12.26 18:35:00 - [292]
 

The Freighter pilot is getting massive subsidies. Free stations, free protection, free cyno jamming...

Intar Medris
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2010.12.26 23:06:00 - [293]
 

Here is my Proposal either fix insurance all together or get rid of it all together.

Reason 1. Instead of being based off the market value it is based of the mineral value. Which if you have a faction ship you might as well not by insurance and keep it docked.

Reason 2. Suicide gankers and criminals constantly engage in activity that could lead to the destruction of their ship. Insurance should be higher and pay less in these circumstances based off of sec status. You could say it is a new risk assessment system.

For wars and null sec higher priced policies could be implemented, and without them you not get paid for the loss of your ship even if you already had insurance.

Omira Tan
Posted - 2010.12.27 10:46:00 - [294]
 

Originally by: Intar Medris
Insurance should be higher and pay less in these circumstances based off of sec status. You could say it is a new risk assessment system.


That's an excellent suggestion. Supported.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront

Posted - 2010.12.27 11:02:00 - [295]
 

Proposals based on common sense are dangerous around here, too many people with limited independent thought capability.

Suicide deaths (ie. Concord) should not give insurance and Self-destruct should not give insurance either.

Will never happen though, too many sociopaths invested in the griefing part of the game.

Squeakee Bunny
Posted - 2011.01.02 15:42:00 - [296]
 


Bob TSlob
Caldari
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.01.02 20:46:00 - [297]
 

I'm sure similar suggestions have been made already in this thread and every related thread, but I'd like to give my 2 cents. First off, I support suicide ganking. The danger of losing your stuff is what makes Eve stand out above WoW. If you want to officer fit your ship and never risk it, go play WoW where your gear is safe.
That being said, suicide ganking is too easy. With 100% insurance payouts, it is a zero cost and therefore effectively zero risk operation. I like the idea of either removing insurance payouts for Concorded ships or at least reducing the payout by a significant margin. This means that suicide gankers will have to chose truly worthwhile targets and turn their trade into a skilled trade once again.
I also agree with earlier ideas of allowing these pirates a quicker way back into high sec, both through decreased sec status penalties (they were already penalized through isk) and possibly purchasable tokens that can be redeemed with Concord to raise sec status. (Best of all make the tokens available in LP stores so, for ISK, MRs will possibly fund their own demise) Yes, I like irony.

Onibrak
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.01.26 03:57:00 - [298]
 

Opposed.

Highsec is carebear enough. Who cares about logic, you play an immortal being who can send their consciousness from one clone to another halfway across the galaxy and who can singlehandedly pilot a ship kilometers long with the right training.

Insurance exists for whatever reason. Blown up in war, blown up by concord, etc etc. EVE is pretty unforgiving in most respects, insurance is an attempt to balance that out, there's really no need to change the system except to make people who want to make a career out of mining feel completely safe.

Last I checked, safety is not the point of the sandbox.

Atius Tirawa
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.01.26 04:49:00 - [299]
 

Edited by: Atius Tirawa on 26/01/2011 04:52:41
How much more risk free do peopl want high sec to be? Because in my 7 years in this game, I have never once even come close to getting killed in high sec since concorde was introduced. latly, unlss I am looking for a fight, its practically impossible to get killd in low sec even, and the only reason people manage to lose their pod is because of lag.

Insurance is what keeps t1 ships competative to t2 ships, it is important bcause it brings the cost of pvp down and tries to encourage it - clearly - all its doing is creating more carebears who afk haul and afk mine in high sec. high sec and concord was introduced to give new playes the space to learn the mechanics of the game, not a mechanic to hide and make money behind. . . clearly people either don't remember why these mechanics were introduced, or, are playing this game for the wrong reasons.

So if insuance is removed, then also remove concord - so then we can have a proper player driven game rather then AI assisted security that people hide behind. I don't even suicide gank, and all I can hear is the wawa and the faceless bots calling for more security.

Ellina Alleron
Posted - 2011.01.26 05:26:00 - [300]
 

Why would CONCORD pay you for killing you? If your police and insurance company are the same people and your car was totaled do to a police car ramming you cause you just committed a homicide, you would not get paid the insurance.

Note: This would only apply to high sec. Low and null sec would be unaffected, due to CONCORD not having killed you.


Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (17)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only