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 : ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 : last (17)

Author Topic

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.07.26 07:01:00 - [421]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Merissa Servan
I don't know if it's possible to clear the acrimony here.
The concept of suicide ganking being essential to the EVE economy... is lulz.
Trying to call removing insurance on concorded ships anything but a nerf on suicide ganking, is equally lulz.

The point is this: a suicide gank gang kills my T2 fitted Hulk with 3 T1 fitted destroyers. They use a covops pilot in an NPC corp to provide a warpin point. By the time I realize anything is up, my ship is dead.
The 4th dessie takes out my pod, full set of +4's and mining yield implant toast. Covops pilot scoops the wrecks and runs.

Their loss: around 1.5 million isk, 2 million tops. One strip miner II costs more than that. To add insult to injury, their hulls are insured. Insurance on a T2 mining barge? lol

Mining in high sec on medium ores with a Hulk and an Orca I'm using two accounts to generate 15M isk an hour, if I'm lucky. It takes me 20 hours of play time to replace the loss.

The gankers, on the other hand, only need one T2 module to drop to turn a profit. And if they care about their sec status, it takes them maybe 5 hours in a stealth bomber to fix it. Most of them don't care, they just use an NPC alt to drop a fitted ship in system for the -10 guy to pick up.

And of course, the gankers are adamant that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this risk/reward ratio. And why wouldn't they? Everything is in their favor. In their view of the universe, anybody not playing the game the way they think it should be played is a loot pinata.

We won't even get into the arena of the us vs. them "carebear" name calling schoolyard bully attitude that seems to have pervaded the game over the past couple of years. What everybody knows, and what nobody will say, is that most suicide ganking is not RP piracy but mildly tolerated random "carebear" griefing. And just because it doesn't meet CCPs EULA definition of "griefing" doesn't mean that's not what it is. Alpha popping the dumbass carrying a cap parts BPO in a shuttle in Niarja is one thing. Using the same mechanic to inflict grevious loss on some unsuspecting pilot minding their own business "because you can" is something else again.


Very well put!


It's trivial to fit a Hulk to have ~30k EHP (more if you can arrange gang bonuses), in which case, 3 thrashers would have died to CONCORD long before killing his Hulk. Furthermore, if they got his pod in hi-sec, then he must have either been AFK or he never even tried to warp his pod out.

Conclusion: untanked Hulk was killed while the pilot was AFK.

You can't balance game mechanics around people who make no effort whatsoever to protect themselves.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.26 08:12:00 - [422]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Merissa Servan
I don't know if it's possible to clear the acrimony here.
The concept of suicide ganking being essential to the EVE economy... is lulz.
Trying to call removing insurance on concorded ships anything but a nerf on suicide ganking, is equally lulz.

The point is this: a suicide gank gang kills my T2 fitted Hulk with 3 T1 fitted destroyers. They use a covops pilot in an NPC corp to provide a warpin point. By the time I realize anything is up, my ship is dead.
The 4th dessie takes out my pod, full set of +4's and mining yield implant toast. Covops pilot scoops the wrecks and runs.

Their loss: around 1.5 million isk, 2 million tops. One strip miner II costs more than that. To add insult to injury, their hulls are insured. Insurance on a T2 mining barge? lol

Mining in high sec on medium ores with a Hulk and an Orca I'm using two accounts to generate 15M isk an hour, if I'm lucky. It takes me 20 hours of play time to replace the loss.

The gankers, on the other hand, only need one T2 module to drop to turn a profit. And if they care about their sec status, it takes them maybe 5 hours in a stealth bomber to fix it. Most of them don't care, they just use an NPC alt to drop a fitted ship in system for the -10 guy to pick up.

And of course, the gankers are adamant that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this risk/reward ratio. And why wouldn't they? Everything is in their favor. In their view of the universe, anybody not playing the game the way they think it should be played is a loot pinata.

We won't even get into the arena of the us vs. them "carebear" name calling schoolyard bully attitude that seems to have pervaded the game over the past couple of years. What everybody knows, and what nobody will say, is that most suicide ganking is not RP piracy but mildly tolerated random "carebear" griefing. And just because it doesn't meet CCPs EULA definition of "griefing" doesn't mean that's not what it is. Alpha popping the dumbass carrying a cap parts BPO in a shuttle in Niarja is one thing. Using the same mechanic to inflict grevious loss on some unsuspecting pilot minding their own business "because you can" is something else again.


Very well put!


It's trivial to fit a Hulk to have ~30k EHP (more if you can arrange gang bonuses), in which case, 3 thrashers would have died to CONCORD long before killing his Hulk. Furthermore, if they got his pod in hi-sec, then he must have either been AFK or he never even tried to warp his pod out.

Conclusion: untanked Hulk was killed while the pilot was AFK.

You can't balance game mechanics around people who make no effort whatsoever to protect themselves.


I agree to both points here.

You should protect yourself more, else you are asking for it. But fitting to defend like a tank in hisec shouldn't be the norm.

Insurance should not pay for concorded ships. Not at least the standard insurer. Perhaps make a commune pirate insurance fund that is funded and operated by pirate players if you want 'pirate' insurance.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.07.26 09:12:00 - [423]
 

Originally by: Malcanis

It's trivial to fit a Hulk to have ~30k EHP (more if you can arrange gang bonuses), in which case, 3 thrashers would have died to CONCORD long before killing his Hulk.

So, now a measely 30K EHP makes you able to defend yourself against gankers? LOL. If only. And so what if they lose a couple of trashers? That's the definition of 'suicide' ganking, remember? :)

And besides, a 30K EHP Hulk is a very inefficient Hulk. It's not really a viable setup (other than used by some posters in their HTFU responses).

Quote:
You can't balance game mechanics around people who make no effort whatsoever to protect themselves.

You can, however, balance game mechanics around people who are allowed to kill with near impunity, and get paid out by Concord for their losses upon doing so. Especially if it's high-sec.

Kaname Hagiri
Posted - 2011.07.26 09:24:00 - [424]
 

Edited by: Kaname Hagiri on 26/07/2011 09:24:39
Preys take all the risks and predators lose nothing even if they fail the gank? Quite a hello kitty world to the pirates.Concord blow up your ship and then pay for it is just absurd.

I simply suggest the solution of removing all insurance pay to ship loss within criminal countdown, no matter by concord or by other player, and self-destruction.

But since the blog in 2008 alrady said "it will be fixed in near future",why is nothing done yet?

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.07.26 12:03:00 - [425]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Malcanis

It's trivial to fit a Hulk to have ~30k EHP (more if you can arrange gang bonuses), in which case, 3 thrashers would have died to CONCORD long before killing his Hulk.

So, now a measely 30K EHP makes you able to defend yourself against gankers? LOL. If only. And so what if they lose a couple of trashers? That's the definition of 'suicide' ganking, remember? :)

And besides, a 30K EHP Hulk is a very inefficient Hulk. It's not really a viable setup (other than used by some posters in their HTFU responses)


3x T2 Strip miners aren't a viable setup? Really? Why not, may I ask? To me that seems pretty decent. Yeah, you dont get to fill all your low slots with MLUs. Well boo hoo, I dont get to fill all my lowslots with damage mods either.

Miners can chose to take the risk of fitting minimal tank in order to gain extra reward, but the flip side of that is that if they fit more tank, they reduce both. Gosh, it's almost as if they have to make a choice based on their playstyle, what the sec status of their chosen system is, etc.

At the end of the day, the EVE economy depends on ship destruction. Everyone takes their turn and there's no reason that miners alone should be exempt from this - especially as they're the ultimate beneficiary. The idea that miners should be able to sit, untanked and safe, in hi-sec churning out minerals without fear of ship loss is as obviously foolish and unbalanced as the idea that there should be PvP ships with 100% resists for people who dont like the idea of losing fights.

FYI A Hulk with 3x T2 strips can be fitted to have over 39k EHP with a gang booster in system. That's tanked to the level where two battleships would probably fail to kill it, especially if the Hulk pilot used a few trivial tactics like orbiting his can (T1 1400s have appalling tracking and hulks are small).

But the idea that the game should be balanced to suit people who refuse to fit any tank, refuse to actively pilot their ships and refuse to accept that they are at risk them same as anyone else when they undock is simply whining for special treatment.

PS As an exercise for the interested student: what do you think might happen to low-end mineral prices if hi-sec mining was made safe? Rolling Eyes

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.07.26 12:12:00 - [426]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren

Insurance should not pay for concorded ships. Not at least the standard insurer. Perhaps make a commune pirate insurance fund that is funded and operated by pirate players if you want 'pirate' insurance.



Ah you want "realistic" insurance. I will repeat the offer I have made many times: I will support more realistic insurance if you will support more realistic police. You know, ones that don't turn up within 30 seconds, always get the right guy and always win every fight, and don't charge anything for their services.

To date, no-one has accepted my offer. No idea why. If I wasn't constantly being assured that CONCORD have no deterrent effect, that punishments for aggroing are essentially zero, and that hi-sec is more dangerous than 0.0, I might start to assume that people just want the game to be "realistic" when it suits them and dont care at all about game balance.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.26 13:53:00 - [427]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Kaelie Onren

Insurance should not pay for concorded ships. Not at least the standard insurer. Perhaps make a commune pirate insurance fund that is funded and operated by pirate players if you want 'pirate' insurance.



Ah you want "realistic" insurance. I will repeat the offer I have made many times: I will support more realistic insurance if you will support more realistic police. You know, ones that don't turn up within 30 seconds, always get the right guy and always win every fight, and don't charge anything for their services.

To date, no-one has accepted my offer. No idea why. If I wasn't constantly being assured that CONCORD have no deterrent effect, that punishments for aggroing are essentially zero, and that hi-sec is more dangerous than 0.0, I might start to assume that people just want the game to be "realistic" when it suits them and dont care at all about game balance.


Maybe nobody responded to you because you didn't really give 1 proposal but as laundry basket of griefs with some so impractical that cannot be implemented effectively. If you want to implement a tax system so that the police are paid, or have a way for the police to 'investigate' crimes then at least you will have a proposal, instead of just a sarcastic rebuttal to a thread.

I too would like a working 'crimimal justice system' and I even went as far as suggested some foundations for its implementation in past threads (search for 'money laundering' and lowsec fixes), but the short answer is that its impractical with present technology, unfortunately.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.26 14:06:00 - [428]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Malcanis

It's trivial to fit a Hulk to have ~30k EHP (more if you can arrange gang bonuses), in which case, 3 thrashers would have died to CONCORD long before killing his Hulk.

So, now a measely 30K EHP makes you able to defend yourself against gankers? LOL. If only. And so what if they lose a couple of trashers? That's the definition of 'suicide' ganking, remember? :)

And besides, a 30K EHP Hulk is a very inefficient Hulk. It's not really a viable setup (other than used by some posters in their HTFU responses)


3x T2 Strip miners aren't a viable setup? Really? Why not, may I ask? To me that seems pretty decent. Yeah, you dont get to fill all your low slots with MLUs. Well boo hoo, I dont get to fill all my lowslots with damage mods either.

Miners can chose to take the risk of fitting minimal tank in order to gain extra reward, but the flip side of that is that if they fit more tank, they reduce both. Gosh, it's almost as if they have to make a choice based on their playstyle, what the sec status of their chosen system is, etc.

At the end of the day, the EVE economy depends on ship destruction. Everyone takes their turn and there's no reason that miners alone should be exempt from this - especially as they're the ultimate beneficiary. The idea that miners should be able to sit, untanked and safe, in hi-sec churning out minerals without fear of ship loss is as obviously foolish and unbalanced as the idea that there should be PvP ships with 100% resists for people who dont like the idea of losing fights.

FYI A Hulk with 3x T2 strips can be fitted to have over 39k EHP with a gang booster in system. That's tanked to the level where two battleships would probably fail to kill it, especially if the Hulk pilot used a few trivial tactics like orbiting his can (T1 1400s have appalling tracking and hulks are small).

But the idea that the game should be balanced to suit people who refuse to fit any tank, refuse to actively pilot their ships and refuse to accept that they are at risk them same as anyone else when they undock is simply whining for special treatment.

PS As an exercise for the interested student: what do you think might happen to low-end mineral prices if hi-sec mining was made safe? Rolling Eyes

What you are saying are all conceptually true, but you have to make a provision for beginners, who really are just learning their way in the game in highsec and should be entitled to a gank free existence. (though beginners would not likely be flying a hulk) Given they are helping the economy that YOU are benefiting from in the end. Without miners, you would be paying ever increasing costs for your mods and ships, so you should cut them a little proverbial slack. Eventually, a depression would occur if all the miners were thinned out.

That being said, yes they should be thinking more about how to balance their defence vs profit ratio.


But all that being as it were... Pend insurance should not pay for ships loss under criminal flag. Its a simple, easy to implement distinction. Criminals should be penalized for 'farming' in highsec. They are not losing much anyway, as these are suicide attempts anyway, and they won't be in expensive ships. In lowsec, insurance WILL pay, as you are not criminally flagged ganking.

This is fair to both sides.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.07.26 14:28:00 - [429]
 

Edited by: Malcanis on 26/07/2011 14:28:20
Originally by: Kaelie Onren
What you are saying are all conceptually true, but you have to make a provision for beginners..



I believe someone made a law about using that argument.


Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.26 14:45:00 - [430]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
What you are saying are all conceptually true, but you have to make a provision for beginners, who really are just learning their way in the game in highsec and should be entitled to a gank free existence. (though beginners would not likely be flying a hulk) Given they are helping the economy that YOU are benefiting from in the end. Without miners, you would be paying ever increasing costs for your mods and ships, so you should cut them a little proverbial slack. Eventually, a depression would occur if all the miners were thinned out.


1. u said so yourself that beginners don't fly hulks so how would suicide gank nerfing help them? it doesn't; it only helps the non-beginners who r still too scared to use the same space they farm their killmails in.
2. funny, the many hulks in high sec belts, overabundance of minerals and their low prices say otherwise. how did u come up with this "depression"? is this occurring in some alternate universe of yours?

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
That being said, yes they should be thinking more about how to balance their defence vs profit ratio.


But all that being as it were... Pend insurance should not pay for ships loss under criminal flag. Its a simple, easy to implement distinction. Criminals should be penalized for 'farming' in highsec. They are not losing much anyway, as these are suicide attempts anyway, and they won't be in expensive ships. In lowsec, insurance WILL pay, as you are not criminally flagged ganking.
This is fair to both sides.


care to explain that part 'cause in case u didn't know, gcc still happens in low sec. Rolling Eyes

krevetka playa
Posted - 2011.07.26 17:05:00 - [431]
 

well if we boost concord the macroers will go wild. All players must be in position of being possibly killed. Dont break the sandbox idea.

DON NOT BOOST concord, NERF security status cleaning. Now it is possible to get from -10 to 2 in one day in a bomber in just one day. Adjust it to the timer, not to the systems (like isk rewards).

Cutting insurance is quit stupid. Besides 200 000 isks of insurance for one thrasher wont change anything. And bigger gankers are dependent on security status, just nerf security status.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.27 05:39:00 - [432]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera
Originally by: Kaelie Onren
What you are saying are all conceptually true, but you have to make a provision for beginners, who really are just learning their way in the game in highsec and should be entitled to a gank free existence. (though beginners would not likely be flying a hulk) Given they are helping the economy that YOU are benefiting from in the end. Without miners, you would be paying ever increasing costs for your mods and ships, so you should cut them a little proverbial slack. Eventually, a depression would occur if all the miners were thinned out.


1. u said so yourself that beginners don't fly hulks so how would suicide gank nerfing help them? it doesn't; it only helps the non-beginners who r still too scared to use the same space they farm their killmails in.
2. funny, the many hulks in high sec belts, overabundance of minerals and their low prices say otherwise. how did u come up with this "depression"? is this occurring in some alternate universe of yours?

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
That being said, yes they should be thinking more about how to balance their defence vs profit ratio.


But all that being as it were... Pend insurance should not pay for ships loss under criminal flag. Its a simple, easy to implement distinction. Criminals should be penalized for 'farming' in highsec. They are not losing much anyway, as these are suicide attempts anyway, and they won't be in expensive ships. In lowsec, insurance WILL pay, as you are not criminally flagged ganking.
This is fair to both sides.


care to explain that part 'cause in case u didn't know, gcc still happens in low sec. Rolling Eyes


You are obviously not following me when I said depression. Which is perhaps my fault for assuming that it's obvious to anyone with a knowledge of econ that if you thin out the miners, workers, farmers, proletariat, you will get price inflation, which will cause a run on the banks, (in eve that would be a buying frenzy on ships and mods and fuel) which will cause the economy to stall as you get a 'flight to quality' in assets. Average Joes cannot afford bread anymore, and you get a depression, like the one in 1930. Get it?

gcc? gnu c compiler?

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.27 05:42:00 - [433]
 

Originally by: krevetka playa
well if we boost concord the macroers will go wild. All players must be in position of being possibly killed. Dont break the sandbox idea.

DON NOT BOOST concord, NERF security status cleaning. Now it is possible to get from -10 to 2 in one day in a bomber in just one day. Adjust it to the timer, not to the systems (like isk rewards).

Cutting insurance is quit stupid. Besides 200 000 isks of insurance for one thrasher wont change anything. And bigger gankers are dependent on security status, just nerf security status.


Agreed. We can go the sec status route, it deserves its own thread. True true, the Pend Payouts are small for thrashers, but think about the other ships that one may get criminal flagged in, and the cases where this could happen.

Lowkey Asgaurd
Minmatar
Fluffy Carebears

Posted - 2011.07.27 08:45:00 - [434]
 

Edited by: Lowkey Asgaurd on 27/07/2011 08:46:30
Agreed empire space is policed criminal should not be rewarded.

-10 Sec Status character should also be podded by Gate guns and Concord on sight !

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.07.27 09:30:00 - [435]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren

gcc? gnu c compiler?


Honestly, it might be best if you refrained from making suggestions and comparisons in this thread until you know at least the basics of the subject being discussed.

GCC = general criminal countdown. Pirating in low sec generates a GCC, just the same as doing it in hi-sec does. The only difference is that there is no CONCORD response in lo-sec. If you jump into hi-sec after committing a crime in lo-sec, you will be CONCORDed.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.27 14:34:00 - [436]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Kaelie Onren

gcc? gnu c compiler?


Honestly, it might be best if you refrained from making suggestions and comparisons in this thread until you know at least the basics of the subject being discussed.

GCC = general criminal countdown. Pirating in low sec generates a GCC, just the same as doing it in hi-sec does. The only difference is that there is no CONCORD response in lo-sec. If you jump into hi-sec after committing a crime in lo-sec, you will be CONCORDed.


You are so amusing.
And no sense of humor.
My point only is that if you get killed in lowsec, criminals under GCC still get paid. Said in another way, insurance won't pay only if you get concorded. Faction police, NPC, any other way, it will pay. (including Lowsec)

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.27 15:03:00 - [437]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren


You are obviously not following me when I said depression. Which is perhaps my fault for assuming that it's obvious to anyone with a knowledge of econ that if you thin out the miners, workers, farmers, proletariat, you will get price inflation, which will cause a run on the banks, (in eve that would be a buying frenzy on ships and mods and fuel) which will cause the economy to stall as you get a 'flight to quality' in assets. Average Joes cannot afford bread anymore, and you get a depression, like the one in 1930. Get it?

gcc? gnu c compiler?


u r obviously mentally incapable of simple reading comprehension. re-read the part where the many hulks in high sec belts, overabundance of minerals and their low prices contradict the alternate universe u're describing. derp. get it? or would u like an explanation in terms even u can understand?

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
You are so amusing.
And no sense of humor.
My point only is that if you get killed in lowsec, criminals under GCC still get paid. Said in another way, insurance won't pay only if you get concorded. Faction police, NPC, any other way, it will pay. (including Lowsec)



and what's your reasoning behind that point? oh other than an alternate universe u're dreading which isn't occurring in eve. i'd normally suggest to step away from the screen but in your case, u might want to alt-tab to the correct one, u know, the one for tranquility; that way, u won't easily mistake some other game for eve. Wink

Rushnik
Minmatar
Anhalter's Minions

Posted - 2011.07.27 15:44:00 - [438]
 

Worth for CCP to take a look at!

David Fightmaster
Gallente
The Black Legionnares
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.07.27 15:56:00 - [439]
 

I support this proposal. I don't want to see suicide ganking nerfed, but I don't believe criminal actions should get insurance paybacks. RL insurances wouldn't do it for criminals. It shouldn't be any different in EVE.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.27 16:59:00 - [440]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera
Originally by: Kaelie Onren


You are obviously not following me when I said depression. Which is perhaps my fault for assuming that it's obvious to anyone with a knowledge of econ that if you thin out the miners, workers, farmers, proletariat, you will get price inflation, which will cause a run on the banks, (in eve that would be a buying frenzy on ships and mods and fuel) which will cause the economy to stall as you get a 'flight to quality' in assets. Average Joes cannot afford bread anymore, and you get a depression, like the one in 1930. Get it?

gcc? gnu c compiler?


u r obviously mentally incapable of simple reading comprehension. re-read the part where the many hulks in high sec belts, overabundance of minerals and their low prices contradict the alternate universe u're describing. derp. get it? or would u like an explanation in terms even u can understand?


On the rag aren't we? I'm going to ignore your ad hominem comments as it only serves to erode your credibility. Calm down.

At any case back to econ 101, the current state of the universe (overabundance of hulks and minerals whatnot) is supporting the current prices yeah?, so if you reduce the supply, then you get higher prices, et cetera. You could argue that that may not be a bad thing, and maybe you would be right, but any sudden large destabilizing change to the market is a bad thing.

Rushnik
Minmatar
Anhalter's Minions
Posted - 2011.07.27 17:27:00 - [441]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren

On the rag aren't we? I'm going to ignore your ad hominem comments as it only serves to erode your credibility. Calm down.

At any case back to econ 101, the current state of the universe (overabundance of hulks and minerals whatnot) is supporting the current prices yeah?, so if you reduce the supply, then you get higher prices, et cetera. You could argue that that may not be a bad thing, and maybe you would be right, but any sudden large destabilizing change to the market is a bad thing.


How to fix mineral/isk sources and sinks is another story and should be viewed in that regard.
Just make a new Assembly Hall thread and discuss it there - it shouldnt be fixed by players suicide ganking.
IMO hulkageddon is a huge excuse for an event thats just a cover for some fun in a sandbox.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.07.27 19:54:00 - [442]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Kaelie Onren

gcc? gnu c compiler?


Honestly, it might be best if you refrained from making suggestions and comparisons in this thread until you know at least the basics of the subject being discussed.

GCC = general criminal countdown. Pirating in low sec generates a GCC, just the same as doing it in hi-sec does. The only difference is that there is no CONCORD response in lo-sec. If you jump into hi-sec after committing a crime in lo-sec, you will be CONCORDed.


You are so amusing.
And no sense of humor.
My point only is that if you get killed in lowsec, criminals under GCC still get paid. Said in another way, insurance won't pay only if you get concorded. Faction police, NPC, any other way, it will pay. (including Lowsec)



Alas, I can only read what you write. If you mean death by CONCORD, say so. If you mean criminally flagged, say that. They're different things. If you mean one but say the other, then it's hardly another's fault for not catching your meaning is it?

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.28 02:12:00 - [443]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Kaelie Onren

gcc? gnu c compiler?


Honestly, it might be best if you refrained from making suggestions and comparisons in this thread until you know at least the basics of the subject being discussed.

GCC = general criminal countdown. Pirating in low sec generates a GCC, just the same as doing it in hi-sec does. The only difference is that there is no CONCORD response in lo-sec. If you jump into hi-sec after committing a crime in lo-sec, you will be CONCORDed.


You are so amusing.
And no sense of humor.
My point only is that if you get killed in lowsec, criminals under GCC still get paid. Said in another way, insurance won't pay only if you get concorded. Faction police, NPC, any other way, it will pay. (including Lowsec)



Alas, I can only read what you write. If you mean death by CONCORD, say so. If you mean criminally flagged, say that. They're different things. If you mean one but say the other, then it's hardly another's fault for not catching your meaning is it?


Mea culpa.

Okay, so then back to the argument, are you in accordance with me? Does it sound fair/sound not to pay insurance to those concorded? I mean, I loath to use RL justifications normally, but our own car insurance doesn't pay if you crash your getaway car while heisting a bank :)

Rushnik
Minmatar
Anhalter's Minions
Posted - 2011.07.28 06:23:00 - [444]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren

Okay, so then back to the argument, are you in accordance with me? Does it sound fair/sound not to pay insurance to those concorded? I mean, I loath to use RL justifications normally, but our own car insurance doesn't pay if you crash your getaway car while heisting a bank :)


I agree its bad game design. I would like to see a nerf of that mechanic.
Most people are saying it should be still possible to gank but with much more effort.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.28 08:51:00 - [445]
 

Originally by: Rushnik
Originally by: Kaelie Onren

Okay, so then back to the argument, are you in accordance with me? Does it sound fair/sound not to pay insurance to those concorded? I mean, I loath to use RL justifications normally, but our own car insurance doesn't pay if you crash your getaway car while heisting a bank :)


I agree its bad game design. I would like to see a nerf of that mechanic.
Most people are saying it should be still possible to gank but with much more effort.


Yes, I would agree with that sentiment. I'm not trying to get rid of gankers, I'm just trying to make crime not pay in that way. You will still have thrasher ganks, and that's fine. (its EVE afterall) but you will make a criminal think twice about ganking a freighter with a BS gang, unless they are sure of the loot drop will make it worth it. And that's all I'm trying to say, and Steven Levitt said it best, no life insurance for suicide bombers!*

*Actually his quote was more like "Why do suicide bombers not have life insurance?"


Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.07.28 10:07:00 - [446]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren

Mea culpa.

Okay, so then back to the argument, are you in accordance with me? Does it sound fair/sound not to pay insurance to those concorded? I mean, I loath to use RL justifications normally, but our own car insurance doesn't pay if you crash your getaway car while heisting a bank :)


I think it's worth remembering that EVE "insurance" is a ship replacement mechanism in a game, not a contractually agreed payment made by a legal entity working in a framework of laws that closely resembles the one we live in. It bears only the most superficial resemblence to the financial service we call insurance in our real lives.

Insurance for gankers does seem nonsensical at first sight, but it isn't more nonsensical than CONCORD is in the first place. It's certainly a lot less nonsensical than an "insurance" company that only requires a single 30% premium.

Paying insurance to gankers is no more unrealistic than paying insurance to pirates, mission-runners, people in wars, people who live in 0.0 or any other common ship loss scenario. No "real" insurance company would pay a single cent on at least 99% of the ship losses in EVE. Why pick out suicide gankers for special treatment?

Perhaps the simplest fix would be to rename the service from "insurance" to "Pre-paid hull salvaging contract" or some such, and change the message to "PEND Salvage drones have recovered sufficient material from your ships hull to pay you xyz ISK". Then people wouldn't get all bent out of shape about the apparent contradictions of calling a ship replacement mechanism "insurance".

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.28 10:32:00 - [447]
 

Originally by: Malcanis


Perhaps the simplest fix would be to rename the service from "insurance" to "Pre-paid hull salvaging contract" or some such, and change the message to "PEND Salvage drones have recovered sufficient material from your ships hull to pay you xyz ISK". Then people wouldn't get all bent out of shape about the apparent contradictions of calling a ship replacement mechanism "insurance".


Except that concord rules explicitly state that break it's laws and your ship is forfeit.

I'm not going to argue the inconsistencies in concord or their mandate. But just because something doesn't make sense isn't a good reason to make it more non sensical. Not getting paid by insurance is in line with the "intended" concord philosophy, which is that aggressing in high sec will cost you. You cannot mitigate these costs by running away from concord nor should you be able to insure away your ship. At any rate, the cost of most ships are less than the mods on them but anyway, it's the principle that's worth discussing. :)

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2011.07.28 18:08:00 - [448]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren

On the rag aren't we? I'm going to ignore your ad hominem comments as it only serves to erode your credibility. Calm down.

At any case back to econ 101, the current state of the universe (overabundance of hulks and minerals whatnot) is supporting the current prices yeah?, so if you reduce the supply, then you get higher prices, et cetera. You could argue that that may not be a bad thing, and maybe you would be right, but any sudden large destabilizing change to the market is a bad thing.


and what do u define as a "large destabilizing change"? and be sure to use past events, not events that u "magically predict" is gonna suddenly happen when nothing has changed for years. if anyone's on the rag, it's u, seeing as how u're still so butthurt over suicide ganking.

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Okay, so then back to the argument, are you in accordance with me? Does it sound fair/sound not to pay insurance to those concorded? I mean, I loath to use RL justifications normally, but our own car insurance doesn't pay if you crash your getaway car while heisting a bank :)


that's not what he was getting at. he's pointing out that u're fixated and crying against suicide ganking only while using a flimsy cover of "criminal", most likely because u don't get that that "criminal" covers more than suicide ganking. u want realism? how about no insurance for bringing your vehicle into a war zone?

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Yes, I would agree with that sentiment. I'm not trying to get rid of gankers, I'm just trying to make crime not pay in that way. You will still have thrasher ganks, and that's fine. (its EVE afterall) but you will make a criminal think twice about ganking a freighter with a BS gang, unless they are sure of the loot drop will make it worth it. And that's all I'm trying to say, and Steven Levitt said it best, no life insurance for suicide bombers!*

*Actually his quote was more like "Why do suicide bombers not have life insurance?"


see above.

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Except that concord rules explicitly state that break it's laws and your ship is forfeit.

I'm not going to argue the inconsistencies in concord or their mandate. But just because something doesn't make sense isn't a good reason to make it more non sensical. Not getting paid by insurance is in line with the "intended" concord philosophy, which is that aggressing in high sec will cost you. You cannot mitigate these costs by running away from concord nor should you be able to insure away your ship. At any rate, the cost of most ships are less than the mods on them but anyway, it's the principle that's worth discussing. :)


actually, u're doing exactly that after that sentence. try again plz because self-dictating what's "intended" or what others should or shouldn't do to suit your liking is such a convincing argument just to change what u don't like...

Nth Ares
Posted - 2011.07.28 21:06:00 - [449]
 

Supported. However, it isn't CONCORD that pays out insurance. Also insurance should not cover self-destructs and losses in null/w-sec... there is no CONCORD communications network to record what happens there. There is in lowsec.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.29 03:14:00 - [450]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera

actually, u're doing exactly that after that sentence. try again plz because self-dictating what's "intended" or what others should or shouldn't do to suit your liking is such a convincing argument just to change what u don't like...


Careful Anna, your ad hominem arguments (If I can even call them that) are not becoming you. And indeed showing lack of objectivity on your part, detracting credibility from any sound argument that you may have made in the past. I'm going to ignore your points as they were nothing more than unsubstantiated personal jibes directed at me from an uneducated position, made to illicit some emotion response. :)

Though on your war zone point. Corps pay concord to be able to fight wars, and fighting a war is not against the rules of concord.

**Destabilizing change is a sudden jump in mineral prices. But anyway this was a digression. A point I made only to inform one previous poster (wasn't you I believe) that if you killed all the miners, everyone in new eden is affected.


Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 : 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