open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked Candidates, Lets Talk Suicide Ganking and Insurance
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

Author Topic

Synjin Sinner
Posted - 2008.05.02 20:19:00 - [1]
 

Dear Candidates

I would like to know where you all stand on suicide ganking and insurance payouts.

Being the Ceo of a fairly large Industrial corp the suicide gankings have hurt our members.... Now Im not opposed to suicide ganking * IF * it falls under the category of risk vs reward like CCP preaches. But currently where is the risk for the agressor when CCP allows insurance to be paid out on this kind of activity.

I want to know which candidates supports removing the paying of insurance to suicide ganking in empire.

As I said before... im not opposed to this activity as long as there is risk vs reward for the aggressors... currently there is only reward in this current format and no risk with insurance.

regards




Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.02 20:25:00 - [2]
 

Yes, I am in favour of removing insurance for suicide gankers (as acts of criminality should invalididate insurances). I agree that its a valid (but annoying if you haul!) profession.

My motto is: if you can't risk losing it, don't haul it!

Take care,
Bruce Hansen

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2008.05.02 20:31:00 - [3]
 

Personally I don't think lack of insurance payout will help the issue.

Think of it this way, why buy insurance when you're going to use the ship to gank someone? You'd be removing an ISK SINK from EVE, which it needs.

I think they should still get the insurance payout, but it start to cost more for them. Each time they lose a ship to concord, the insurance costs 10% more to get on ALL their ships.

Just like a real life insurance company, you go and total your car and it's your fault you're going to pay more for insurance.

Let them keep their ISK payout but force them to pay more on everything they do with Insurance is much better solution. And it allow the player to choose if it's worth 10% more every concording. I would guess the answer is yes, but after 5 concords you'll be looking at a 50% high bill, now it start to look ugly for a battleship. And the Dread they want to insure at a station will be 50% more as well.

Criminal activity should effect the person not just the one ship they did the crime in.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.02 20:39:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Arithron on 02/05/2008 20:38:52
Hmm, are you suggesting something akin to linking insurance costs with pilot Security status? This could be an interesting idea to explore...

Bruce Hansen

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2008.05.02 20:44:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: SencneS on 02/05/2008 20:46:29
Originally by: Arithron
Edited by: Arithron on 02/05/2008 20:38:52
Hmm, are you suggesting something akin to linking insurance costs with pilot Security status? This could be an interesting idea to explore...

Bruce Hansen


Not quiet, it's too easy to increase your Sec status. It only take a couple of days to get that up to +0.1 even if you're -10.0

I'm talking direct relation to losses at the hands of Concord.

See why should a low sec pirate be punished when they spend their entire time in low-sec, they will have a negative sec status just because they gate camp 0.4 system for weeks on end. I don't care about those guys they are not deliberately challenging Security.

With the introduction to Losses being recorded in game now, it wouldn't be much to see how many Ship losses to Concord have happened in the last 3 months.

Each ship loss = 10% more on insurance costs. If you've died 13 times, it's 130% more then normal etc.

No need to punish low sec pirates when the issue is High Sec Ganking.

Edit:- Cleaned up a little and a correction made.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.02 20:51:00 - [6]
 

Its more a question of whether or not there should be that isk faucet than whether or not its worth the risk/reward. The main risk in security status as you suicide gank your status goes down and you will be unable to continue the activity. This means its impossible to continually suicide gank without partaking in activities that keep your sec up. And if you are doing that you can easily supply the isk for the ships.

I don't think there is much of a problem with with suicide gankers. Especially since, unlike 0.0, there are easy ways to make yourself safe, either by pre-loading concord, via logistics[a single lrar or lst will keep a miner with a resist based passive tank pretty much protected against a gank which means two logistics ships can keep 8-12 miners reasonably well protected and can do it when afk so long as there are no active war-decs], or simply by being alert. Its the same for freighters, a few logistics ships following a freighter means that its much harder to suicide gank.

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2008.05.02 20:54:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 02/05/2008 21:00:48
I think no insurance should be paid when a person loses their ship to concord. It does not make sense to pay insurance to someone who did something criminal to apply for the insurance. People should not be rewarded for breaking the law.

This would still allow people to suicide gank, but it would also mean that a suicide battleship cannot be insured for almost its complete value (a fully insured dominix only costs about 10mil after insurance payout - the numbers might be slightly off but it comes down to them being really cheap).

I think this would also help with the perception of 'fairness' in suicide ganks. It is rather wry knowing someone suicided their battleship(s) on your ship, and then got their battleships refunded as well!

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.02 20:55:00 - [8]
 

The ISK sink is the suicide ganker losing his ship, with no return of isk from an insurance payout. Increasing the costs of insurance won't help, as it will get to a point where its cheaper for a regular ganker to just not insure his/her ship. Why not track Sec loss due to concordable actions, and have this effect everything for the ganker...such as taxes, clone costs etc?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.02 20:59:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal

I think no insurance should be paid when a person loses their ship to concord. It does not make sense to pay insurance to someone who did something criminal to apply for the insurance. People should not be rewarded for breaking the law.


How do you differentiate the accidents when the real aggression? I know I've lost a ship in high-sec before because i accidentally aggressed a gang member who was not in my corp[in an RR gang, was going to stick drones on him and one of my guns activated].


LT Stryker
CASCADE OF SPECTRES
Posted - 2008.05.02 21:10:00 - [10]
 

This sounds like you want to debate the issue amongst yourselves. My understanding was that the CSM was suppose to listen to what the player community debated (in-game and in the forums), and then present the best option to CCP.

Can any Candidates summarize what has been already debated in the forums and explain why they think one fix would be better/fairer than the others?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.02 21:14:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: LT Stryker
This sounds like you want to debate the issue amongst yourselves. My understanding was that the CSM was suppose to listen to what the player community debated (in-game and in the forums), and then present the best option to CCP.

Can any Candidates summarize what has been already debated in the forums and explain why they think one fix would be better/fairer than the others?



There hasn't been a consensus on the forums. But remember, its also the CSMs job to apply judgment to decide what is valid and what isn't valid.

Ethaet
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2008.05.02 21:15:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal

I think no insurance should be paid when a person loses their ship to concord. It does not make sense to pay insurance to someone who did something criminal to apply for the insurance. People should not be rewarded for breaking the law.


How do you differentiate the accidents when the real aggression? I know I've lost a ship in high-sec before because i accidentally aggressed a gang member who was not in my corp[in an RR gang, was going to stick drones on him and one of my guns activated].



Turn warnings on.
If a warning says 'CONCORD will wtfpwn your ship', don't click yes.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.02 21:19:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Arithron on 02/05/2008 21:19:41
I agree that the role of a CSM member will be to listen to what the players bring up. However, this will require some form of interaction, to both clarify the idea/s and to ensure that representatives understand the issues fully.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.02 21:31:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Ethaet
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal

I think no insurance should be paid when a person loses their ship to concord. It does not make sense to pay insurance to someone who did something criminal to apply for the insurance. People should not be rewarded for breaking the law.


How do you differentiate the accidents when the real aggression? I know I've lost a ship in high-sec before because i accidentally aggressed a gang member who was not in my corp[in an RR gang, was going to stick drones on him and one of my guns activated].



Turn warnings on.
If a warning says 'CONCORD will wtfpwn your ship', don't click yes.


Warning aren't a really good way to make it work since it poping up in the middle of a fight is not very conducive to shooting at your enemy.

Jess Ica
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.02 22:40:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: SencneS
Personally I don't think lack of insurance payout will help the issue.

Think of it this way, why buy insurance when you're going to use the ship to gank someone? You'd be removing an ISK SINK from EVE, which it needs.

I think they should still get the insurance payout, but it start to cost more for them. Each time they lose a ship to concord, the insurance costs 10% more to get on ALL their ships.

Just like a real life insurance company, you go and total your car and it's your fault you're going to pay more for insurance.

Let them keep their ISK payout but force them to pay more on everything they do with Insurance is much better solution. And it allow the player to choose if it's worth 10% more every concording. I would guess the answer is yes, but after 5 concords you'll be looking at a 50% high bill, now it start to look ugly for a battleship. And the Dread they want to insure at a station will be 50% more as well.

Criminal activity should effect the person not just the one ship they did the crime in.



I totaly agree to this point of view!
This is an excelent idea that needs some credit! Very Happy

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.02 22:45:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal

I think no insurance should be paid when a person loses their ship to concord. It does not make sense to pay insurance to someone who did something criminal to apply for the insurance. People should not be rewarded for breaking the law.


How do you differentiate the accidents when the real aggression? I know I've lost a ship in high-sec before because i accidentally aggressed a gang member who was not in my corp[in an RR gang, was going to stick drones on him and one of my guns activated].




Easy way around that is to only lose insurance when your target actually dies.
And as stated in my thread, I am totally in favor of removing insurance for suiciders in this manner.

Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.02 23:01:00 - [17]
 

I'd like to see a system where known criminals can be pre-emptively engaged and kicked away from the gate they're lurking at by vigilante players.

They're repeated offenders, and it's obvious that they're there to do it again.

I'd like to see tradable killrights being used to take the fight to these people, as well as the insurance system getting an overhaul if that is still needed. Suicide ganking should still be a valid tactic against very profitable haulers, etc, but as it is now, it's far too easy and far too cheap.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.02 23:07:00 - [18]
 

Can you expand a little on what you mean by tradeable kill rights?

Are you suggesting, as it seems to me, that if Pilot X gets nailed at a gate by a Gank Squad, s/he could assign someone else (eg, 'Bounty hunter' or 'Merc') their killright, so Gank Squad member Y can be killed?

Sounds an interesting idea to explore further, especially if insurance is invalidated on the ship of Gank Squad member Y by his first act of killing Pilot X.

Take care,
Bruce Hansen

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.02 23:11:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

Easy way around that is to only lose insurance when your target actually dies.
And as stated in my thread, I am totally in favor of removing insurance for suiciders in this manner.


That does indeed work. Kinda. My friend died even if my one heavy pulse laser activation didn't kill him.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.02 23:12:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Arithron
Can you expand a little on what you mean by tradeable kill rights?

Are you suggesting, as it seems to me, that if Pilot X gets nailed at a gate by a Gank Squad, s/he could assign someone else (eg, 'Bounty hunter' or 'Merc') their killright, so Gank Squad member Y can be killed?

Sounds an interesting idea to explore further, especially if insurance is invalidated on the ship of Gank Squad member Y by his first act of killing Pilot X.

Take care,
Bruce Hansen



That is exactly what they mean. There are also ideas for bounty hunting regarding bounty hunters "barganing down" a contract. Though the contract system isn't robust enough for that yet.

Bunyip
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2008.05.02 23:20:00 - [21]
 

Hello all,

Just to put my .02 ISK in. I'm strongly against insurance payouts for high-risk pilots and acts of what would be considered 'insurance fraud'. My website (here) describes my views on this, and this is one of the topics that my campaign hinges around.

For anybody with questions or concerns, feel free to convo or evemail me.

- Bunyip

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2008.05.02 23:33:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal

I think no insurance should be paid when a person loses their ship to concord. It does not make sense to pay insurance to someone who did something criminal to apply for the insurance. People should not be rewarded for breaking the law.


How do you differentiate the accidents when the real aggression? I know I've lost a ship in high-sec before because i accidentally aggressed a gang member who was not in my corp[in an RR gang, was going to stick drones on him and one of my guns activated].




I would say that is tough luck: people get a pop up warning them when they are about to do something that will cause CONCORD aggro. If they ignore that message and/or turn it off, that is a lesson they will have to learn.

One could expand this to only punish people who caused their targets ship to explode, but this can be hard to check. If you shot at your buddy by accident, causing 1% damage, while the enemy did the remaining 99% of the damage and killed him, did you help cause your friends ship to explode (you would show up on the killmail, for example)? Making a distinction in this can be difficult, and might be open to abuse where suicide gankers can still earn insurance.

shiro kiu
Posted - 2008.05.02 23:38:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: LT Stryker
This sounds like you want to debate the issue amongst yourselves. My understanding was that the CSM was suppose to listen to what the player community debated (in-game and in the forums), and then present the best option to CCP.

Can any Candidates summarize what has been already debated in the forums and explain why they think one fix would be better/fairer than the others?



There hasn't been a consensus on the forums. But remember, its also the CSMs job to apply judgment to decide what is valid and what isn't valid.


I really hope you dont get elected. I will go to church everyday, if you dont get elected.

Let the Angel of Failure™ smile upon you.

Alex Tyran
Posted - 2008.05.03 01:48:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Warning aren't a really good way to make it work since it poping up in the middle of a fight is not very conducive to shooting at your enemy.


Neither is being concorded. Take your pick. Wink

Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2008.05.03 02:22:00 - [25]
 

Regarding risk vs reward, I'm not sure I completely agree with the OP. The risk for the ganker is that the hauler may be sufficiently tanked to be able to survive an attack, or that the hauler's good loot was all in one stash or all in a can that got destroyed so that there's nothing for the ganker to collect.

In a general sense I think suicide ganking is OK. I like how the different rate of Concord response helps to better separate 1.0 systems from 0.5s in terms of risk when travelling. At most, maybe just one or two tweaks:

I am a little concerned at the prospect of career suicide gankers who can easily repair their sec hits with a few days' ratting in 0.0, and would counter that with the suggestion of sec status being slightly harder to repair the more often you want/need to repair it.

Regarding insurance, I can't really support its blanket removal for all Concordokken situations, lest it punish the simple newbie who goes on a mission with his friend in another corp and shoots his mate's can by mistake, or whatever. Maybe remove it in situations only where a ganker succeeds in killing their target, and/or remove the options of higher rates of insurance for those with lower sec status.

/Ben

Daan Sai
Polytrope
Posted - 2008.05.03 03:40:00 - [26]
 

IMHO

I now think that insurance should be there to encourage suicide ganking, and we should improve insurance for T2 ships while we're at it.

The genuine atmosphere that the potential of insane attack gives the game is one of it's *key* elements. I'm usually a victim to be honest, but it sure makes even simple courier ops worth staying awake for.

I'd hazard that a lot of suicide gankers are not in it for the isk, but the sheer fun of it. So, economicly rational arguments about reducing attacks by making it less lucrative are likely to be weak at best.

The wolves help to keep the sheep thinking and learning essentially, and we need the wolves to keep the game interesting. Any CSM candidates thinking along these lines??







Exodus Alpha
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2008.05.03 04:05:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Ben Derindar
Regarding risk vs reward, I'm not sure I completely agree with the OP. The risk for the ganker is that the hauler may be sufficiently tanked to be able to survive an attack, or that the hauler's good loot was all in one stash or all in a can that got destroyed so that there's nothing for the ganker to collect.


I don't think your definition of "risk" is so much "risk" as "hey, we might not get as huge a payout this time".

Originally by: Ben Derindar
In a general sense I think suicide ganking is OK. I like how the different rate of Concord response helps to better separate 1.0 systems from 0.5s in terms of risk when travelling. At most, maybe just one or two tweaks:

I am a little concerned at the prospect of career suicide gankers who can easily repair their sec hits with a few days' ratting in 0.0, and would counter that with the suggestion of sec status being slightly harder to repair the more often you want/need to repair it.

Regarding insurance, I can't really support its blanket removal for all Concordokken situations, lest it punish the simple newbie who goes on a mission with his friend in another corp and shoots his mate's can by mistake, or whatever. Maybe remove it in situations only where a ganker succeeds in killing their target, and/or remove the options of higher rates of insurance for those with lower sec status.

/Ben



I have no comment on your first point since I'm not familiar with exactly how easy it is to repair sec status, but the second point was already discussed earlier in the thread. The Dangerous Act notifications are provided to players for a reason and if they decide to disable them rather than use then as they were meant to be used, I really think that this situation shouldn't affect the larger issue of removing insurance payouts when Concordokkened.

Plus, its not like rookie ships exactly cost much (the actual "rookie ship" is free, and *insert race here*'s base frigate isn't really a bank breaker either), not that that would excuse the situation itself if not for the dialogs that people would first have to willingly choose to ignore (either by not reading them or by clicking Ignore). And for newbies, sometimes the hard way is the best way to learn, even if it costs them a ship. Its not like they won't lose a ship at some point.

Drizit
Amarr
Posted - 2008.05.03 04:29:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: SencneS
Each ship loss = 10% more on insurance costs. If you've died 13 times, it's 130% more then normal etc.

No need to punish low sec pirates when the issue is High Sec Ganking.

One word - Alts.
Yes it takes a long time to train a new alt to fly a BS for genking a freighter but if it gets around the increased insurance for their main, players will do it.

Removal of payouts creates a situation where the gain from the loot has to be worth more than the loss of however many ships it takes to gank the freighter.

I've heard of empty freighters being ganked just to cause massive loss of isk to the owner. The insurance payout for freighter is around half of the cost of a new freighter by the time you add the freighter cost plus insurance cost together. The insurance means the gankers have almost nothing to lose by it so if it has loot in the cargo hold, it's simply a bonus.

zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.03 06:53:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 02/05/2008 21:00:48
I think no insurance should be paid when a person loses their ship to concord. It does not make sense to pay insurance to someone who did something criminal to apply for the insurance. People should not be rewarded for breaking the law.


the idea is tempting, and perhaps i could agree to that.
But - the insurance company made a contract with a low life, they get a payin from this low life
and they stick to their contract.

why should a insurance company care about moral , ethics or wheter their client respected the law?

and where do you draw the line? are you going to break contracts on all pirates and gankers in eve? that would be quiet a number of people.

concord is the punishment, you can argue that concord should baybe act even quicker.

i think suicide ganking is a foul gameplay in that sense that according to teh backstory
there are thousands of crew members aboard (just on epod pilot tho)
, so suicide ganking adds to un-realism.
in "real" (lol) people would not waste a battleship for some loot(not even in hollywood)
, because recruiting >4000 people is a a pain in the arse if you want good personal, despite the fact that your bad reputation would walk ahead of you and no crewman would ever lay a foot into your ship
(yeah roleplay perspective helps sometimes to figure what should be, and what should not)

proposal:
make ships in empire ten times stronger against any attacks unless concord sancioned war decced
(or killrights given otherwise)

by doing so suicide ganks would still be possible, but - they would result in only one thig:
suicide

the victims barge or hauler would survive this due to massively boosted shield/armour capacity



Belidonna
Posted - 2008.05.03 07:27:00 - [30]
 

The suicide element both adds and detracts from gameplay. I was almost a recent victim of this. Lucky for me my corps mackinaw pilots are high skilled and the BS suicide was not able to crack them. He did cause a good bit of damage though. The pilot just did it for fun, for kicks. Pilots that can afford to lay waste to these ships dont care about the costs today. They are really out to just "hurt" people. If it was a tatical strike to cripple an enemies production during wartime , so be it. For simple fun?

I tend to agree with those who are saying there should be increasing penalties for suicide ganking. There is a reason for wardecs. These players who may have months and years of game play under their belt can simply blow isk to "have fun". All the while ruining the game experience for others. I dont want to use the term "fairness" but there are distinct reasons why suicide bombers are not a problem in some areas of the world and are in others. The risk, mindset and reward (if you can call it that) are vastly different.

When you suicide in real life you also die.

I would like to see the Candidates discuss, not only increasing the isk sink for the attacks, but the mortality. You suicide gank, you lose your clone and implants too. The more concord responses, not only are the insurance rates increased, but so are the clone fees. Possibly resulting in loss of all clone privileges in empire space. It should not be repairable. If you make the conscious choice to sacrifice your ship and crew for some loot, or just for kicks, it better be worth it.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

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