open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Ganking + insurance
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

Fujiko MaXjolt
Caldari
ACME HARDWARE
Fade 2 Black
Posted - 2011.02.16 15:30:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Juby lee
I propose working solution.

Disable every offensive module in hisec. Problem solved Cool


I see what you did there Razz
This thread is now about nerfing level 4 missioning in hi-sec Very Happy

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.02.16 15:40:00 - [32]
 

I don't believe those who perform criminal acts should get insurance.

I mean the miner in the belt, the trader in the belt. They risk their ships, which are relatively unprotected.

Yet the ganker risks relatively nothing. His ship is insured. He uses an neut alt to scoop loot. So in essence there is no risk and everything to gain.


Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2011.02.16 15:43:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: El'Niaga
I don't believe those who perform criminal acts should get insurance.

I mean the miner in the belt, the trader in the belt. They risk their ships, which are relatively unprotected.

Yet the ganker risks relatively nothing. His ship is insured. He uses an neut alt to scoop loot. So in essence there is no risk and everything to gain.



Great, isn't it. Very Happy YARRRR!!

Fritzman
Aliastra
Posted - 2011.02.16 16:22:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Mag's
A bad idea in the wrong forum, speaks volumes for the OP.
Go back to smartbombing pods in Rancer, k? This is a general forum, and my post was a question, not a suggestion for any novel idea.

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2011.02.16 18:09:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Fritzman
Originally by: Mag's
A bad idea in the wrong forum, speaks volumes for the OP.
Go back to smartbombing pods in Rancer, k? This is a general forum, and my post was a question, not a suggestion for any novel idea.

U mad bro?

Space Tarantula Haklar
Posted - 2011.02.16 19:22:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Othran
I have to be honest about this and say you shouldn't get any insurance if concord pop you.

I've been in various pirate corps over the years (from space invaders onwards) and its bullsh*t. CCP know it, "pirates" know it, PvP corps know it, we all know it. Few ever say "yeah its stupid" as they benefit from it.

Insurance was introduced (and exploited in one weekend such that they had to rollback Very Happy ) to compensate people for silly losses.

Now its used to insure wars.

Dumb and dumber.

Get popped by concord - no insurance. Get popped by wartarget - no insurance.

Simple rules and high-sec wars would become interesting rather than a farce.


There is no good reason to remove "insurance" from hi-sec unless you can objectively demonstrate (that means using facts and data) that hi-sec is too dangerous compared to the amount of wealth that can be amassed there (Good luck with that). (...)


Hmmm.... The point was less "Remove insurance from hi-sec" than "remove insurance from suicide gank (as getting popped by Concord)" enhanced by "...and getting popped by wartarget". Which seems "dumb", at best, whatever angle one takes Laughing

It's not like that particular insurance system part was too contributing to that isk-faucet our economic experts here are so badly concerned for Twisted Evil

Ingvar Angst
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.02.16 19:28:00 - [37]
 

Don't deny them insurance for getting blown up by Concord.

Raise their rates each time they do. Twisted Evil

Make them "be good" for six months, no accidents, to get their rates to go back down. Twisted Evil


My evil > yours.

Cambarus
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2011.02.16 19:52:00 - [38]
 

Nerf the income available in highsec, THEN we can discuss the viability of nerfing suicide ganks.

Either that or make it possible to escape concord (or tank them,w/e).

TBH I'm against anything that further reduces the incentive to shoot people, the penalties are stiff enough as it is.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.02.17 08:54:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: El'Niaga
I don't believe those who perform criminal acts should get insurance.

I mean the miner in the belt, the trader in the belt. They risk their ships, which are relatively unprotected.

Yet the ganker risks relatively nothing. His ship is insured. He uses an neut alt to scoop loot. So in essence there is no risk and everything to gain.




Except that isn't really true any more.

Even T1 ships still cost after the insurance, espeially battleships, plus the fittings, even at T1 aren't free. There is a non-trivial chance that his target might have an idea of how to tank their ships, or that even if the gank is successful, a 3rd party will steal the loot leaving the ganker with nothing.

If one party goes to considerable trouble to minimise their risk and maximise their gains, whilst the other can't even bbe bothered to fit a basic tank, uses the cheapest, most fragile ship available to move valuable cargo, and goes AFK leaving his loots unprotected and vulnerable, it's hardly reasnoable to complain that gankers "take no risk" and "have it easy". If they have it easy purely because their targets do everything possible to make it easy.

If you want to move high-value goods about hi-sec, use a cargo expanded blockade runner, make + use insta-undock bookmarks and dont go AFK. Your chances of being ganked will drop to ~0, and the gankers will be left, cold and lonely on the gates, to starve.

Or use an Orca, with it's unscannable corp hanger and huge EHP.

Fit your hulk so it can takeat least 3 arty BS to pop

Being ganked is almost entirely optional.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.02.17 09:06:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Space Tarantula Haklar
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Othran
I have to be honest about this and say you shouldn't get any insurance if concord pop you.

I've been in various pirate corps over the years (from space invaders onwards) and its bullsh*t. CCP know it, "pirates" know it, PvP corps know it, we all know it. Few ever say "yeah its stupid" as they benefit from it.

Insurance was introduced (and exploited in one weekend such that they had to rollback Very Happy ) to compensate people for silly losses.

Now its used to insure wars.

Dumb and dumber.

Get popped by concord - no insurance. Get popped by wartarget - no insurance.

Simple rules and high-sec wars would become interesting rather than a farce.


There is no good reason to remove "insurance" from hi-sec unless you can objectively demonstrate (that means using facts and data) that hi-sec is too dangerous compared to the amount of wealth that can be amassed there (Good luck with that). (...)


Hmmm.... The point was less "Remove insurance from hi-sec" than "remove insurance from suicide gank (as getting popped by Concord)" enhanced by "...and getting popped by wartarget". Which seems "dumb", at best, whatever angle one takes Laughing


Yeah, typo on my part there. Should read "from hi-sec gankers"

Space Tarantula Haklar
Posted - 2011.02.17 09:31:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
(...) it's hardly reasnoable to complain that gankers "take no risk" and "have it easy". If they have it easy purely because their targets do everything possible to make it easy.
(...)


OK, the point is somewhat made about the "have it easy" part...

Now, would you mind being a bit more specific on the "take no risk" one ? (just for the sake of the discussion, huh, as we all admit that EVE should be about that risks vs reward thingy Twisted Evil ?)

My Postman
Posted - 2011.02.17 10:42:00 - [42]
 

IMO they can remove insurance (in highsec) completeley.

Gankers shouldīnt be able to PROFIT from suiciding, as itīs completley risk free. And on the gankees side:

Someone fitting a Hulk with a civilian shield booster deserves to die. You CAN tank a Hulk, itīs possible. Itīs not a MUST that your hulk has to have two expanded cargoholds, and two cargo rigs. Get over it.

You can tank an Orca. Up to 100k EHP. OK, itīs slow, itīs aligning time is slow and you will need more time than in your untanked Itty 5. Get over it.

You donīt have to mission in an officer fitted Mach. A cookie cutter domi will do fine. Ok, you will need longer for your mission, and it will completley mess up with your isk/hour ratio. Get over it.

Tl;Dr: Iīve only been ganked once in my noob days, because i didīnt know about game mechanics. Never again. Just for an example: When a ganker scannes a full tanked hulk, he goes next belt where he finds the one with the civilian shield booster. They may be lowlifes but that doesīnt mean they are stupid.

Long John Silver
Posted - 2011.02.17 11:49:00 - [43]
 

Insurance in EVE is far too blunt an instrument, and needs a buff.

Suicide should annul the pay-out, as in RL.

People who take out insurance but don't lose their ship should get a 'no claims' discount upon renewal, as in RL.

And arguably, players who keep losing ships should be made to pay higher premiums as they represent a high risk for the insurer. Although this latter point might discourage combat which would not be a good thing.


Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.02.17 11:54:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Long John Silver


as in RL.

as in RL.




The two main flaws in your argument.

Space Tarantula Haklar
Posted - 2011.02.17 12:50:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Long John Silver


as in RL.

as in RL.




The two main flaws in your argument.


Sure! It's not like every Eve player and his dog is proud to claim that he is playing a game which economic system behaves like the real one, isn't it ?


Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.02.17 12:58:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Space Tarantula Haklar
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Long John Silver


as in RL.

as in RL.




The two main flaws in your argument.


Sure! It's not like every Eve player and his dog is proud to claim that he is playing a game which economic system behaves like the real one, isn't it ?




It's remarkable how few of the Hulk pilots whining about how "unrealistic" insurance for gankers is are also complaining about how asteroids which they completely mined to nothing yesterday will magically re-appear tomorrow.

Jenny Spitfire
Caldari
Posted - 2011.02.17 13:09:00 - [47]
 

I think insurance should not be reimbursed due to criminal activities. It sends the wrong message out.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.17 13:19:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 17/02/2011 13:23:09
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
I think insurance should not be reimbursed due to criminal activities. It sends the wrong message out.
Not really.
It sends out the message "we like criminal activity", and that's pretty much a spot on message for EVE.
Originally by: My Postman
Gankers shouldīnt be able to PROFIT from suiciding,
Why not? If they can't profit from it, ganks won't happen to any greater extent, and that would be rather bad for the safety in highsec.
Quote:
You can tank an Orca. Up to 100k 300k EHP. OK, itīs slow about as fast as a battleship, itīs its aligning time is slow 10 seconds and you will need more time than in your untanked Itty 5. Get over it.
Fixed.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.02.17 13:56:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Space Tarantula Haklar
Originally by: Malcanis
(...) it's hardly reasnoable to complain that gankers "take no risk" and "have it easy". If they have it easy purely because their targets do everything possible to make it easy.
(...)


OK, the point is somewhat made about the "have it easy" part...

Now, would you mind being a bit more specific on the "take no risk" one ? (just for the sake of the discussion, huh, as we all admit that EVE should be about that risks vs reward thingy Twisted Evil ?)



So what you're saying is that a profession where you're definitely going to lose your ship every time (and remember that after the insurance changes, you will always lose ISK when you lose your ship) needs nerfing for being "low risk", wheras one like missioning where you should basically never lose your ship is fine....?

Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
Posted - 2011.02.17 16:23:00 - [50]
 

I really doubt that the cost of a T1 hull is much a factor in the decission whether to gank or not.

Security status has got to be by far the biggest limit on how often people gank?

Maybe I'm wrong though.. can a pirate switch ships with an alt at a safe spot, warp in, lock and kill before they get popped by concord? If so, the concord response time on a warp (before agro, ecm etc) would accomplish what you "guaranteed safe transit" guys want.

Conceivably, concord could also create a number of "no targetting" zones around around Jita 4-4 and surrounding gates.

Still, I think the risk of getting popped is part of the game, just like getting sent back to start by someone landing on you is part of the kids' game called Trouble.

Induc
Amarr
Posted - 2011.02.17 17:35:00 - [51]
 

Hopefully never.

People autopiloting valuable goods in T1 industrials deserve to get ganked. If you're transporting something you don't want to lose then do it manually in a cloaky transport ship or in the cargo hanger of an Orca.
If you can't fly any of those then you can setup a properly collateralized courier contract, or if you really want to haul it yourself at the very least avoid popular gank systems like Niarja.

Just don't remove the incentive to think before hauling something expensive.

randomname4me
Posted - 2011.02.17 19:22:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Wombat942
Tank your haulers Rolling Eyes
What fitting would you recommend I use on my providence?

In all seriousness the issue of suicide ganking is moot for two reasons. The players who do it for the lols will still do it for the lols even if the insurance doesn't pay out because they are doing it for the lols. Those who are doing it for profit will simply adjust their calculations or target mineral haulers so they can use the mins to make more gank ships.

This game is designed to be harsh and require a bit of brain power to play. That is why it doesn't have 50 million wow tards swarming all over it. The comment about tanking your haulers is true and jokingly aside in the case of freighters, use scouts and take less beaten paths.

Wet Ferret
Posted - 2011.02.17 19:26:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Wombat942
Ehhh who cares.... why should stupid people get it easy?

Tank your haulers Rolling Eyes


Kind of an idiotic statement, considering if they did this it wouldn't change the situation for the victims in any way whatsoever.

Suicide ganking is cool and all but when it's affordable to shoot just about anything because of nearly full reimbursement, it is a bit whacky.

Space Tarantula Haklar
Posted - 2011.02.17 19:27:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Space Tarantula Haklar
Originally by: Malcanis
(...) it's hardly reasnoable to complain that gankers "take no risk" and "have it easy". If they have it easy purely because their targets do everything possible to make it easy.
(...)


OK, the point is somewhat made about the "have it easy" part...

Now, would you mind being a bit more specific on the "take no risk" one ? (just for the sake of the discussion, huh, as we all admit that EVE should be about that risks vs reward thingy Twisted Evil ?)



So what you're saying is that a profession where you're definitely going to lose your ship every time (and remember that after the insurance changes, you will always lose ISK when you lose your ship) needs nerfing for being "low risk", wheras one like missioning where you should basically never lose your ship is fine....?


Sounds rather legit to me... You should suffer the consequences accordingly to the play style you embrace. It's just common sense.

You want the thrill of a "dangerous" way a life ? So be it, and go take risks willingly! I can support that... But don't ever hide yourself behind CCP's skirt for doing so and then cry for reimbursement (or for it to not being removed). It simply doesn't make sense Laughing... Where is the wolf gone ? Looks more like a "carebear" attitude here, me thinks Twisted Evil

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.17 19:33:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 17/02/2011 19:36:49
Originally by: Wet Ferret
Suicide ganking is cool and all but when it's affordable to shoot just about anything because of nearly full reimbursement, it is a bit whacky.
…and yet they don't, most likely because they don't get "nearly full reimbursement" any more. You'd think that if it were as easy as some would like to paint it, there would be huge concord clouds around every gate and hub station. There isn't, so something is wrong with that picture.

These days, you can sit for hours outside Jita 4-4 and not get to steal a single gank. At best, some party nukes a couple of WTs, but there's no loot in that. The problem is rather the opposite: people have grown so accustomed to the ridiculous levels of safety that highsec offers that they no longer think that ganks can happen and thus we get these hilarious overreactions when someone occasionally does get blown up.
Originally by: Space Tarantula
You should suffer the consequences accordingly to the play style you embrace. It's just common sense.
Agreed. If you're not doing your duty to vitalise the economy by exploding or blowing stuff up, your insurance should skyrocket in price. If you're a good citizen and cause stuff to explode (or get exploded) in large volumes, the price should go down.

Won Hung Lo
Posted - 2011.02.18 00:18:00 - [56]
 

Edited by: Won Hung Lo on 18/02/2011 00:23:14
Originally by: Fritzman
People in their haulers need to have more faith in the illusion of hi sec being completely safe.


You're thinking needs fixing, either it is an ILLUSION or not. Watch some "Marathon Man" for illusion clues.

One of the good things in this game was getting ganked in Jita. I was ****ed, but I got past that to studying the event and working out the steps I needed to defeat it. So if you get ganked now, it's because you have a greedy failfit on AND fell asleep at the wheel. Tough nookies, greed has it's costs, factor them in and counter, or go back to Zelda. Oh and noob, insurance was already nerfed, it used to be very profitable to self-destruct in a trade hub because of fixed pricing.

It's time to disco again Very Happy

Moleculor
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2011.02.18 00:29:00 - [57]
 

Congratulations, most of you have been lead by the nose away from the original point.

A nerf to insurance payouts is NOT going to make highsec safer.

Gankers can still gank, just as much as they previously did, just as easily, and for all the same reasons.

A nerf to insurance payouts simply removes the safety net for gankers. Gankers will actually have to THINK about whether they want to gank someone or not, rather than just doing it because they won't lose much, if anything.

A nerf to insurance payouts just means that PLAYERS will stop being coddled by CCP.

Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc.
Posted - 2011.02.18 00:35:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: El'Niaga
Many have argued for this a long time, CCP though has mostly been mum on it. My feeling is they don't know enough about the insurance code to create an exemption where it won't pay out without possibly affecting it and other things drastically.


This sounds like it could be a possible scenario.


Slade

Kengutsi Akira
Posted - 2011.02.18 05:03:00 - [59]
 

I thought they did break the payout... I know the insurance I had on a Frigate one time said itd pay out like 4 million on a 15k frigate an when it died I certainly didnt get 4 mil lol

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.02.18 08:45:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Moleculor
Congratulations, most of you have been lead by the nose away from the original point.

A nerf to insurance payouts is NOT going to make highsec safer.

Gankers can still gank, just as much as they previously did, just as easily, and for all the same reasons.

A nerf to insurance payouts simply removes the safety net for gankers. Gankers will actually have to THINK about whether they want to gank someone or not, rather than just doing it because they won't lose much, if anything.

A nerf to insurance payouts just means that PLAYERS will stop being coddled by CCP.


ITT: people being protected for free by invincible omnipresent NPC buddies complain about others being "coddled" because they're only losing some of the value of their ship.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

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