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

Miyamoto Isoruku
Caldari
Original Sin.
Posted - 2008.05.11 10:46:00 - [91]
 

There is a very, very simple solution to suicide ganking: DON'T AFK AUTOPILOT. You're a mission runner with a faction fit BS? Stay aligned to something, or have an alt pull CONCORD. You're mining in hi-sec with a Hulk? You deserve to die. Hulks are meant for 0.0, not stripping Veldspar out of noob belts. Ganking doesn't need nerfing; it is a Darwinian mechanism that helps to discourage stupidity and that makes the game more interesting and more scary.

If you really feel there needs to be more of a penalty for hi-sec ganking, I think the best way to do it would be to have security penalties be on a sliding scale. Killing someone in 0.1 should have a negligible impact on your sec status; killing someone in 1.0 should be significant. Combine this with transferable kill rights maybe.

PS: Even if you did get rid of the insurance payout, a gank Brutix will still only run a player about 23 million ISK, tops--and then you'd lose that ISK sink.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.11 11:27:00 - [92]
 

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 11/05/2008 11:27:27
Originally by: Ki An
T2 = Faction and officer fits now?


Not the same items but still the same flawed logic.


Originally by: Ki An

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

The people interested in your message would not vote for me anyway. And I am not carebear minded, I want to strike a balance between carebears and gankers. While you want the game totally biased in favor of the gankers.


No, I want the status quo that is now to remain. It is quite balanced. This is evident by the amount of whining from both sides.



I don't really see many whines from suicide gankers to have it even easier? Only counterwhines to the motion to trash their insurance, which hardly balanced the complaints.
I just completely disagree here. Currently the game in regards to suicide gankers is quite biased in favor of the ganker, and fighting for the status quo to remain is fighting for it be biased in favor of gankers. And highsec space should NOT always be dangerous if you fly a 'regular' setup imho. And a CN setup with a Gist booster is regular for mission running in my book. That might not be in line with your and even CCPs 'Vision', but it is my opinion and apparently that of many others, and looking at the 'leading' CSM contenders it is very likely to be on the agenda regardless of who is elected, because it seems to be a concern for a large amount of candidates and probably players as well. And maybe CCP will listen and react.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.11 12:24:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

Not the same items but still the same flawed logic.


No, my logic was sound. You just spun it to make it seem unsound. How machiavellian of you.


Originally by: Leandro Salazar

I don't really see many whines from suicide gankers to have it even easier? Only counterwhines to the motion to trash their insurance, which hardly balanced the complaints.
I just completely disagree here. Currently the game in regards to suicide gankers is quite biased in favor of the ganker, and fighting for the status quo to remain is fighting for it be biased in favor of gankers. And highsec space should NOT always be dangerous if you fly a 'regular' setup imho. And a CN setup with a Gist booster is regular for mission running in my book. That might not be in line with your and even CCPs 'Vision', but it is my opinion and apparently that of many others, and looking at the 'leading' CSM contenders it is very likely to be on the agenda regardless of who is elected, because it seems to be a concern for a large amount of candidates and probably players as well. And maybe CCP will listen and react.


Recall those who think lvl 4 missions should be low sec only? Those who feel high sec is too profitable? Same people.

And for the record, I am very happy the CSM will have absolutely zero say-so in the grand scheme of things. I also have high hopes for my candidate to beat all the carebears in the election.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.11 13:07:00 - [94]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 11/05/2008 13:13:13


Originally by: Miyamoto Isoruku
There is a very, very simple solution to suicide ganking: DON'T AFK AUTOPILOT. You're a mission runner with a faction fit BS? Stay aligned to something, or have an alt pull CONCORD. You're mining in hi-sec with a Hulk? You deserve to die. Hulks are meant for 0.0, not stripping Veldspar out of noob belts. Ganking doesn't need nerfing; it is a Darwinian mechanism that helps to discourage stupidity and that makes the game more interesting and more scary.

If you really feel there needs to be more of a penalty for hi-sec ganking, I think the best way to do it would be to have security penalties be on a sliding scale. Killing someone in 0.1 should have a negligible impact on your sec status; killing someone in 1.0 should be significant. Combine this with transferable kill rights maybe.

PS: Even if you did get rid of the insurance payout, a gank Brutix will still only run a player about 23 million ISK, tops--and then you'd lose that ISK sink.



What a load of ignorance.

Stay aligned in a mission: apparently you have never entered a mission where you need to reach a gate that isn't in the direction of a warpable body.

Hulk: it is a mining ship, the more efficient, so it should be used to mine everywhere, using a less efficient ship if you have the training is stupid.

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

I don't really see many whines from suicide gankers to have it even easier? Only counterwhines to the motion to trash their insurance, which hardly balanced the complaints.



I have seen them: "the security penalty is too hard, halve it" .

BTW: Ki love to twist your words.

Dawnstar
Gallente
Kiroshi Group
Exiliar Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.11 13:29:00 - [95]
 

I've made suggestions/proposals in the past to reform the insurance system to more clocely reflect the way it works in the real world.

I strongly favor a system which makes insurance rates more and more coslty the greater the value of insured ships you lose. Essentially, the higher your payout vs payin rate for insurance, the higher your rate should be. If such a system were implemented, I think that it should still pay out for all ship losses - you take the hit of higher and higher insurance rates as your penalty.

And yes such a system would heavily penalize many suicide gankers. But it would also penalize pilots who AFK fly their ships through hazardous space (as it should).

Dieter Magnus
Posted - 2008.05.11 14:46:00 - [96]
 

Have we considered raising insurance payouts when killed in highsec by an enemy without a wardec? Perhaps roughly the full price of the ship unfitted when in 1.0 space, decrementing with lower sec'd systems, or something thereabouts? Highsec would remain relatively safe for players who don't know better than to not pay attention (since these players are unlikely to have overly expensive fittings). It wouldn't make the game any less fun or profitable for gankers, but it would penalize new and non "pimped out" highsec players less. The "lol, I pwned you" benefit of destroying non-profitable targets is also severely reduced, forcing suicide gankers to solely focus on juicy targets, a concern I believe was also brought up earlier.

That said, I think it's important to remember that Eve Online is a multiplayer game, not a solo mission running game with a built in chat room. We should want to make the learning curve for new players as soft as possible, but we shouldn't want to reward players for staying in safe zones for too long, either. Players SHOULD have to fear the choices of other players. They should also be getting the biggest benefits by working together.

Duke Skystalker
Posted - 2008.05.11 15:18:00 - [97]
 

A few ideas I liked and one of my own thrown in for good meassure
Making kill rights a trade item
If I am a new player or newish player who just managed to purchase a decent ship allowing me to finaly make some more profit and get suicide ganked. I might be ****ed, I migh want to kill the guy and I'll have kill rights but those killrights are worthless to me because there is NO way that I'll be able to kill him. My killrights are useless. If I could sell my killrights tho now that would be fun. It would even create an entirely new profession of high sec bountyhunters collecting killrights. Killrights that have been aquired by trade should get a new tag so that once the kill gets executed, the kill rights are revoked.

Bumping insurance costs for dying too often
I own a car, having 5 accidents a year instead of having 1 every 10 years will make getting an insurance more expensive. Regardless if I had those accidents because of bad parking skills, stupidity or incompetence.
Same thing should be applied in EVE if your insurance has to pay you out too often you get bumped to the next insurance category, if you say without incidents for a while you go down a category. Make 5 or so insurance categories.

Structural bonus for each level of industrial ships using cargo extenders
Instead of penalising the use of cargo extenders weakening the structure how about seeing the cargo extender as a reinforcing part of an industrial ship, strengthening the skeleton of the ship. So instead of a penalty. 2% bonus structural HP for each cargo extender fitted on an industrial ship multiplied by 1.5 for each level of Industrials.

Lucas Avignon
Avignon Associates Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.11 17:06:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: MirrorGod
Edited by: MirrorGod on 04/05/2008 17:04:32
Let's not, nothing is wrong with the mechanic's of suicide ganking, here's why.

1) It's been clearly stated by GM's that High-sec is not intended to be safe, it's meant to be safer.
And that really says it all

2) The lack of targets in low-sec has driven pirates and profiteers into high-sec.
I personally am still steadfast to low-sec hunting, but I know many a successful pirates who have taken to war-decs, ninja salvaging, and suicide ganking, and they're having a party. They went there because that's where the targets are, they adapted, and they made a wise choice. Have more courage, come to low-sec, fight for dominance. Or go to 0.0. It's more profitable out there. I would encourage CSM candidates wishing to make low-sec missions or minerals more profitable.

3) If you got popped in high-sec, more than likely, you did something to deserve it.
Auto-piloting with 300mil worth of morphite through a .5? Undocking afk in a life-in-a-box indy from jita? Mining in the same damn high-sec belt in a hulk with high-price mining upgrade mods?

4) There's nothing we can do to stop it!
you're not being creative enough

Let's face it, if you put yourself up on a pedastal as a shiny golden pinata, someone's going to take a swing at you. CCP has given you plenty of alternatives. Go mine under the umbrella of a 0.0 alliance and contribute to a smaller, more localized 0.0 economy. When you're flying your corp's blueprint collection, it's probably a better idea to stuff it into an inertia'd interceptor and avoid that auto-pilot button. As a pirate, I have multiple high-sec alts to fuffill my needs. Hauling, missions, some of us, even mining. But when we mine in high-sec, it's in a mission mining area. When we haul alot of loot, it's stabbed with a buffer tank and sometimes scouted.

The current game mechanics encourage the intelligent and cautious, and punish the stupid and arrogant.

Anyone who wishes to change this is simply looking for an easy way out, and there's too many industrialists in the game right now, all you'd really achieve is the curtailing of your own profits by those less intelligent than yourself.




I'd like to thank you for taking the time to make a good post.

I'm completely in agreement with this post word for word, as it is exactly my own opinion too. I have no intention of voting for Hardin or any one of the other carebears running for the CSM that are in favour of "WoW in space", sorry guys but you are way off on this one.

At the moment there simply is not enough loss in highsec, more than half of the items that can be produced ingame can actually be bought on the market for below build price.

The real problem is that there is not enough suicide gankers in high sec, there are a couple of reasons for this:

1. Concorde hangs around too long at gates, thus depriving other people of suicide ganking lucrative targets.
2. It requires a lot of patience to hang around and wait for a decent target.
3. You take a considerable sec hit, so after some ganks, you then have to go and rat/mission until your sec status comes back up.

Now the girl from Holland who thinks she represents the interests of industrialists, what sensible industrialist is going to vote for you when your against a mechanic that provides them with the demand for their goodsQuestion

To the guy in Black Star Alliance who shoots red crosses his entire Eve career, I salute you, thanks for being one of the many that pay CCP your monthly subscription so the rest of us can play in the sandbox that CCP created.

Personally I'm not looking for a candidate who panders to the ten whine threads on eve-o yesterday because they got ganked. I'm looking for someone who sees the bigger picture.

Looking to cast my votes for a candidate who is for suicide ganking and thinks wrecks are free for all?


Hanell Steel
Posted - 2008.05.12 08:01:00 - [99]
 

Im sick of the so called "hard core" pvp players trying to "force" people out into low sec or force pvp upon them. Sure it is a multiplayer game, but that multiplayer does not mean that it is pvp... GET THAT THROUGH YOUR SKULL. Some of us enjoy running the missions in groups and fleets, and some of us enjoy going out and mining for the materials to run a production line for the corp. Just because the game is multiplayer does not mean that that multiplayer is only for pvp. This is evident by the fact that there is jobs other than just fighting and that there ARE hi sec agents and belts, and if they only want to be able to do pve more power to them thats their choice. Heck this fact is evident by the fact that there is hi sec at all. And further more look at the big word you are using... FORCE. You do not have the right to force another player to do anything, and I am glad that ccp has not condoned your choices of action, as I pay the monthly fee just as you do. Remember there must be balance in the game for the players who both enjoy pvp and those that enjoy the pve.

Anyways onto the subject at hand. Gankers should not receive the insurance payment from the company as what they are doing is a crimanal act... and last time I checked your insurance is invalidated if you cause the destruction of the insured item in a criminal act. Point and case, if you wrek your car while running from the police, you are entitled to no insurance payment. So to apply that to eve, you comit a criminal act and when the police show up your ship is wreked, therefor you receive no payment. This would not take away the ability of the player to suicide gank. Just make sure that you know its worth it to do so before you try. Also suicide ganking is not coinsidered a profession last time I checked... specally since its suicide.... Anyways im willing to come to a compromise and use the increasing insurance costs idea, as this will apply to gankers and gankies equaly.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.12 08:20:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Hanell Steel
Im sick of the so called "hard core" pvp players trying to "force" people out into low sec or force pvp upon them. Sure it is a multiplayer game, but that multiplayer does not mean that it is pvp... GET THAT THROUGH YOUR SKULL. Some of us enjoy running the missions in groups and fleets, and some of us enjoy going out and mining for the materials to run a production line for the corp. Just because the game is multiplayer does not mean that that multiplayer is only for pvp. This is evident by the fact that there is jobs other than just fighting and that there ARE hi sec agents and belts, and if they only want to be able to do pve more power to them thats their choice. Heck this fact is evident by the fact that there is hi sec at all. And further more look at the big word you are using... FORCE. You do not have the right to force another player to do anything, and I am glad that ccp has not condoned your choices of action, as I pay the monthly fee just as you do. Remember there must be balance in the game for the players who both enjoy pvp and those that enjoy the pve.

Anyways onto the subject at hand. Gankers should not receive the insurance payment from the company as what they are doing is a crimanal act... and last time I checked your insurance is invalidated if you cause the destruction of the insured item in a criminal act. Point and case, if you wrek your car while running from the police, you are entitled to no insurance payment. So to apply that to eve, you comit a criminal act and when the police show up your ship is wreked, therefor you receive no payment. This would not take away the ability of the player to suicide gank. Just make sure that you know its worth it to do so before you try. Also suicide ganking is not coinsidered a profession last time I checked... specally since its suicide.... Anyways im willing to come to a compromise and use the increasing insurance costs idea, as this will apply to gankers and gankies equaly.


This is the least informed post I've read in quite a while.

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.12 08:53:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Lucas Avignon

At the moment there simply is not enough loss in highsec, more than half of the items that can be produced ingame can actually be bought on the market for below build price.



I completely agree. Shiploss is the driving force in the game, and its a problem when you have an area where you are almost completely safe while still earning a very high reward.

Synjin Sinner
Posted - 2008.05.12 09:12:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Lucas Avignon

At the moment there simply is not enough loss in highsec, more than half of the items that can be produced ingame can actually be bought on the market for below build price.



I completely agree. Shiploss is the driving force in the game, and its a problem when you have an area where you are almost completely safe while still earning a very high reward.


This line of logic is flawed.... How can ship loss be a driving force in this game when Insurance covers the vast majority of the loss... would it not be more logical to say that module loss is the driving force in this game?

Also what is this very high reward you talk of? suicide ganker with the current format and a little luck can make more then a mission runner by getting his drops if they survive... with little to now risk.... if this is a harsh pvp game then lets make it harsh... remove all insurance from the game because quite frankly the risk to a ganker is smaller than to the mission runner with the current insurance format.... Beleive it or not your better protected then the carebears.. ergo you become worse then the carebear with almost no risk.

Hanell Steel
Posted - 2008.05.12 09:12:00 - [103]
 

This is the least informed post I've read in quite a while.



How so? Because it points out what is wrong with the force to low sec point of veiw? Ive gone to low sec to pvp quite a few times, and I also know players that only enjoy the high sec portion of the game. So before you go on saying things such as this point out what is wrong with the post. People are not uninformed because they do not agree with your point of veiw.

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.12 09:37:00 - [104]
 

Edited by: Esmenet on 12/05/2008 09:39:57
Originally by: Synjin Sinner

This line of logic is flawed.... How can ship loss be a driving force in this game when Insurance covers the vast majority of the loss... would it not be more logical to say that module loss is the driving force in this game?


Shiploss includes loss of modules, and still creates a demand for new ships/modules to be made.

Quote:

Also what is this very high reward you talk of? suicide ganker with the current format and a little luck can make more then a mission runner by getting his drops if they survive... with little to now risk


The very high reward is compared to living in 0.0 or lowsec. You can easily stay in empire for a year without loosing a single ship while earning massive amounts of isk from missioning or whatever you do. There is something wrong when people living in 0.0 or low sec have high sec alts for making cash. You need to have ships blowing up in high sec too, and atm there is way too few ships that blow up in high sec. If its not from suicide ganking there needs to be something else blowing you up.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.12 09:47:00 - [105]
 

Since you asked so nicely, I'll pick your post apart, Hanell.

Originally by: Hanell Steel
Im sick of the so called "hard core" pvp players trying to "force" people out into low sec or force pvp upon them.


That's not what this thread is about at all. This is about carebears whining for changes to force more of their game onto pvpers.

Originally by: Hanell Steel
Sure it is a multiplayer game, but that multiplayer does not mean that it is pvp... GET THAT THROUGH YOUR SKULL.


I'm sorry, but Eve is a pvp game. That's something you'll need to get through your thick skull.

Originally by: Hanell Steel

Some of us enjoy running the missions in groups and fleets, and some of us enjoy going out and mining for the materials to run a production line for the corp.


Nothing is stopping you from doing this. However, this being a pvp game, you'll need to accept that people may wish to stop your activities, and that they may use brute force to do so.

Originally by: Hanell Steel

Just because the game is multiplayer does not mean that that multiplayer is only for pvp. This is evident by the fact that there is jobs other than just fighting and that there ARE hi sec agents and belts, and if they only want to be able to do pve more power to them thats their choice.


Like I said, do as much pve as you want. Just always be aware of the pvp nature of the game and that people may/will shoot you.

Originally by: Hanell Steel

Heck this fact is evident by the fact that there is hi sec at all. And further more look at the big word you are using... FORCE. You do not have the right to force another player to do anything, and I am glad that ccp has not condoned your choices of action, as I pay the monthly fee just as you do.


CCP has condoned my choice of actions, as well as the actions of the suicide gankers. That is because, in Eve, might makes right. That means that I very much have the right to FORCE you to do anything I want. If you let yourself get pushed around, that is.

Originally by: Hanell Steel

Remember there must be balance in the game for the players who both enjoy pvp and those that enjoy the pve.


Not really, no. There are plenty of pve-only games out there. Eve is a pvp-war game where the economy is driven by loss. Those who enjoy pve cannot be allowed to operate with impudence, as that would ruin the economy and the game.

Originally by: Hanell Steel

Anyways onto the subject at hand. Gankers should not receive the insurance payment from the company as what they are doing is a crimanal act... and last time I checked your insurance is invalidated if you cause the destruction of the insured item in a criminal act.


You talking RL here? Because last time I checked, in Eve you'll get insurance however you lose your ship. That's because Eve is a game and not RL. Insurance in Eve is a game mechanic. Not mimicry of RL.

Originally by: Hanell Steel

Point and case, if you wrek your car while running from the police, you are entitled to no insurance payment. So to apply that to eve, you comit a criminal act and when the police show up your ship is wreked, therefor you receive no payment.


Let's not apply that to Eve. Because if we do, we might as well scrap insurance completely. I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I'd bet that most carebears would.

Originally by: Hanell Steel

This would not take away the ability of the player to suicide gank. Just make sure that you know its worth it to do so before you try.


They have to make sure its worth it now. No difference.

Originally by: Hanell Steel
Also suicide ganking is not coinsidered a profession last time I checked... specally since its suicide.... Anyways im willing to come to a compromise and use the increasing insurance costs idea, as this will apply to gankers and gankies equaly.


Suicide ganking is as much a profession as mining.

Hanell Steel
Posted - 2008.05.12 10:34:00 - [106]
 


That's not what this thread is about at all. This is about carebears whining for changes to force more of their game onto pvpers.

Oh? how so? by saying that I dont want to go out to low sec today? how is that forceing my game on you? Simply put, its not, it just means that you dont have that one extra target.

I'm sorry, but Eve is a pvp game. That's something you'll need to get through your thick skull.

Your wrong, as ccp has repeatedly stated it is a sandbox game, NOT A PVP game, a little for the pvp players a little for the pve players striking a balance. Tis why hi sec exists.

Nothing is stopping you from doing this. However, this being a pvp game, you'll need to accept that people may wish to stop your activities, and that they may use brute force to do so.

Only brining up this point to prove that I do play it as a multiplayer game, just not all multiplayer is pvp.

Like I said, do as much pve as you want. Just always be aware of the pvp nature of the game and that people may/will shoot you.

This is fine, but trying to force a player base to low sec so you can pad your kill board is stupid, as ccp probably well realizes, would result in half of the players leaving the game.

CCP has condoned my choice of actions, as well as the actions of the suicide gankers. That is because, in Eve, might makes right. That means that I very much have the right to FORCE you to do anything I want. If you let yourself get pushed around, that is.

Suicide ganking yes I have no problem with this as a viable tatic, only problem I have is that its risk/time spent to reward ratio is scewerd by the way the insurance system works. However, Trying to force me to low sec, no. Im just saying im sick of hearing "how is ccp going to force players to low sec?" I beleive that they can entice them out to low sec by increased rewards and such, and I beleive they should as low sec is rather unrewarding atm, but im sick of players trying to make eve all .4 sec or lower. btw if you did this how would you pay for your low sec ships ectra?

Not really, no. There are plenty of pve-only games out there. Eve is a pvp-war game where the economy is driven by loss. Those who enjoy pve cannot be allowed to operate with impudence, as that would ruin the economy and the game.

Once again to ccps dedication to the sandbox style of eve. In addition the pve players do not operate with impudence, those in corps suffer war decs, theres gankers, theives, ninjas, and people who play in low/0.0 which the pve players fuel through the sale of items and modules. Eves economy is doing quite well atm isnt it? Just pointing out that the current balance for pve and pvp is close to where it needs to be.

You talking RL here? Because last time I checked, in Eve you'll get insurance however you lose your ship. That's because Eve is a game and not RL. Insurance in Eve is a game mechanic. Not mimicry of RL.

yes and game mechanics can be changed to actually make sense. getting insurance when you committed an illegal act makes 0 sense. Its like buying life insurance on a person then murdering em to get the insurance...

Let's not apply that to Eve. Because if we do, we might as well scrap insurance completely. I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I'd bet that most carebears would.

I actually wouldnt mind too much myself, but it is needed to help the newer players with loss of ships, so I guess it stays, but doesnt mean it cant be changed.

They have to make sure its worth it now. No difference.

Yes except insurance makes almost any ship passing by turn a profit so long as you are similar in class. This should be made so you have to pick a decent target, ie one worth several million iskies, not just anyone.

Suicide ganking is as much a profession as mining.

Oh, and how do you have a profession when your dead? I realize that you dont really "die" but running in guns blazing till concord gets you isnt really a profession imo.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.12 11:18:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: Hanell Steel

Oh? how so? by saying that I dont want to go out to low sec today? how is that forceing my game on you? Simply put, its not, it just means that you dont have that one extra target.


Wtf are you talking about? Noone is talking about forcing players into low sec. We are talking about suicide gankings in high sec. Are you setting up straw men or do you have trouble with your reading comprehension?

Originally by: Hanell Steel

Your wrong, as ccp has repeatedly stated it is a sandbox game, NOT A PVP game, a little for the pvp players a little for the pve players striking a balance. Tis why hi sec exists.


No, I'm afraid it is you who is wrong. CCP has explicitly stated that Eve is a pvp-based game where anything goes. Every activity in Eve is pvp in one way or another.

Originally by: Hanell Steel

This is fine, but trying to force a player base to low sec so you can pad your kill board is stupid, as ccp probably well realizes, would result in half of the players leaving the game.


Again with this? l2r!

Originally by: Hanell Steel

Suicide ganking yes I have no problem with this as a viable tatic, only problem I have is that its risk/time spent to reward ratio is scewerd by the way the insurance system works. However, Trying to force me to low sec, no. Im just saying im sick of hearing "how is ccp going to force players to low sec?" I beleive that they can entice them out to low sec by increased rewards and such, and I beleive they should as low sec is rather unrewarding atm, but im sick of players trying to make eve all .4 sec or lower. btw if you did this how would you pay for your low sec ships ectra?


Seriously, half your post is ranting about people trying to force you into low sec. This in a thread about something else entirelly.

Originally by: Hanell Steel

Once again to ccps dedication to the sandbox style of eve. In addition the pve players do not operate with impudence, those in corps suffer war decs, theres gankers, theives, ninjas, and people who play in low/0.0 which the pve players fuel through the sale of items and modules. Eves economy is doing quite well atm isnt it? Just pointing out that the current balance for pve and pvp is close to where it needs to be.


Then why the hell are we arguing? I want things to stay the way they are as well.

Originally by: Hanell Steel

yes and game mechanics can be changed to actually make sense. getting insurance when you committed an illegal act makes 0 sense. Its like buying life insurance on a person then murdering em to get the insurance...


The system makes sense now, as the intention of the insurance mechanic isn't and has never been to mimic RL insurance.

Originally by: Hanell Steel

I actually wouldnt mind too much myself, but it is needed to help the newer players with loss of ships, so I guess it stays, but doesnt mean it cant be changed.


Yes, that is one reason for the insurance mechanic.

Originally by: Hanell Steel

Yes except insurance makes almost any ship passing by turn a profit so long as you are similar in class. This should be made so you have to pick a decent target, ie one worth several million iskies, not just anyone.


Don't speak about things of which you know nothing. Not every ship is a target, as there are more consequences than just loss of a ship facing a suicide ganker.

Originally by: Hanell Steel

Oh, and how do you have a profession when your dead? I realize that you dont really "die" but running in guns blazing till concord gets you isnt really


And yet it is a profession, strange how that works, innit?

cimmaron
Caldari
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.05.12 11:25:00 - [108]
 


The other side of the coin is that people in 0.0 shouldn't be able to insure according to this "concorded=no insurance". I don't know if you can get a life insurance if you sky-dive daily or are a soldier in a war.


Wouls just like to point out, that YES soldiers fighting in a war most definatly DO get an insurance policy(at least in the US), mine is worth 3/4 of a million dollars at the moment.

Guess what tho, if I go out and and blow up a truck and get killed by the cops, do you think my family gets the insurance...hell no.

If I go and out a gun to my head and pull the trigger, guess what, they dont get it either, if I drive down the street and get killed by a drunk driver, and im not wearing my seat belt, they dont get it either.

Whats my point you ask, people shouldnt be getting insurance for doing illegal activities.

On another note:

If I go out today and say, slam my car into a trucker and steal some crap outta his truck(oh and since no cloning here int he real world) get away, do you REALLY think my insurance company is gonna pay for my car. How about when I go get another one, and try to insure it? How bout car #100, do you think any company in their RIGHT FRIGGEN MIND you insure said car?

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.12 11:34:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: cimmaron

The other side of the coin is that people in 0.0 shouldn't be able to insure according to this "concorded=no insurance". I don't know if you can get a life insurance if you sky-dive daily or are a soldier in a war.


Wouls just like to point out, that YES soldiers fighting in a war most definatly DO get an insurance policy(at least in the US), mine is worth 3/4 of a million dollars at the moment.

Guess what tho, if I go out and and blow up a truck and get killed by the cops, do you think my family gets the insurance...hell no.

If I go and out a gun to my head and pull the trigger, guess what, they dont get it either, if I drive down the street and get killed by a drunk driver, and im not wearing my seat belt, they dont get it either.

Whats my point you ask, people shouldnt be getting insurance for doing illegal activities.

On another note:

If I go out today and say, slam my car into a trucker and steal some crap outta his truck(oh and since no cloning here int he real world) get away, do you REALLY think my insurance company is gonna pay for my car. How about when I go get another one, and try to insure it? How bout car #100, do you think any company in their RIGHT FRIGGEN MIND you insure said car?


Irrelevant post is irrelevant.

cimmaron
Caldari
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.05.12 11:39:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: cimmaron

The other side of the coin is that people in 0.0 shouldn't be able to insure according to this "concorded=no insurance". I don't know if you can get a life insurance if you sky-dive daily or are a soldier in a war.


Wouls just like to point out, that YES soldiers fighting in a war most definatly DO get an insurance policy(at least in the US), mine is worth 3/4 of a million dollars at the moment.

Guess what tho, if I go out and and blow up a truck and get killed by the cops, do you think my family gets the insurance...hell no.

If I go and out a gun to my head and pull the trigger, guess what, they dont get it either, if I drive down the street and get killed by a drunk driver, and im not wearing my seat belt, they dont get it either.

Whats my point you ask, people shouldnt be getting insurance for doing illegal activities.

On another note:

If I go out today and say, slam my car into a trucker and steal some crap outta his truck(oh and since no cloning here int he real world) get away, do you REALLY think my insurance company is gonna pay for my car. How about when I go get another one, and try to insure it? How bout car #100, do you think any company in their RIGHT FRIGGEN MIND you insure said car?


Irrelevant post is irrelevant.



Actually I was responding to someones statement from earlier, and what makes it irrelevant, the truth part?

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.12 12:27:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: cimmaron

Actually I was responding to someones statement from earlier, and what makes it irrelevant, the truth part?


The part where you compare Eve with RL.

Dianeces
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.05.12 12:59:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

A high end gank raven with rage torps



We don't use T2 Sieges, just sayin'.

Battlecheese
Posted - 2008.05.12 14:54:00 - [113]
 

This thread is full of fail.
Both the game and the forums would be greatly improved by removing insurance entirely.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:02:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Battlecheese
This thread is full of fail.
Both the game and the forums would be greatly improved by removing insurance entirely.


Think it would be enough to add a new lesson in the tutorial entitled "Eve is not RL".

cimmaron
Caldari
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:46:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Battlecheese
This thread is full of fail.
Both the game and the forums would be greatly improved by removing insurance entirely.


Think it would be enough to add a new lesson in the tutorial entitled "Eve is not RL".



Som operating on that premise is your excuse for things to not make sense?

Seriously, do you have a valid argument of WHY gankers should get insurance, I have seen a thousand arguments of why they shouldnt, not one of why they should.

As it stands, the way things work, the risk vs. reward is completly schewed in the direction of the ganker, he has no risk whatsoever, theres no long term loss or negativity to ganking people, as they get their money back anyway, win or lose. The risk is all on the gankee, as they have no way of defending themselves(in the case of freighters), or their means of self defense isnt enough vs. multiple opponents doing a gallon of dps.

I could see the argument of keeping their insurance if there was valid anti-piracy mechanics ingame, that would allow the freighters corp/alliance etc to pre emptivly strike at these pirates and actually participate in defending their mate, right now that doesent exist.

Thats pretty much what all this boils down to, theres currently a disparty in the risk vs. reward scenario. You dont see freighters getting wtfganked in 0.0 space for a reason, because their alliance/corp can bust up said camp ahead of time, or when they need to, in empire, this would just mean the loss of their ship, and the loss of the freighter to boot.

Thats what needs to be fixed, either by removing insurance, or whatever needs to be done.

Roy Batty68
Caldari
Immortal Dead
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:54:00 - [116]
 

Serious questions for the candidates (I'm really not trolling):

1) What are your thoughts on NPC corps in regards to suicide ganking? If suicide ganking is made harder, should NPC corps be nerfed as well?

2) What are your thoughts on isk farmers who abuse NPC corp mechanics to make it harder for players to hunt them? Does this have any baring on your position on suicide ganking?

3) Suicide ganking is obviously tied to the market value of things, something CCP has never had a direct control over. Apparently people are willing to bay a billion+ for pithi x-type shield boosters. If this nerf to insurance goes through and six months from now there is still the same level of complaints about SGs, what would your response be then?

4) Have you ever suicide ganked? What was your setup? How long did you do it? How much did you make?


Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.12 16:06:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: cimmaron


Som operating on that premise is your excuse for things to not make sense?

Seriously, do you have a valid argument of WHY gankers should get insurance, I have seen a thousand arguments of why they shouldnt, not one of why they should.


Maybe because you never read the replies in whine threads like these? Don't really blame you for that.

First I'd like to point out that the party that wishes the game changed (you) are the ones who are requested to provide non-biased reason for said change. You have not done so.

Second, let's break down the arguments, shall we?

The whiners:

- You don't get insurance when you commit a crime in RL
- Seriously, RL criminals don't get any insurance.
- What about RL criminals? They don't get insurance, do they?
- Suicide ganking is too easy.
- And in RL crime doesn't pay.
- There are no consequences for suicide ganking.
- And in RL you wouldn't get insurance for it.

The good guys:

- RL is not Eve.
- Suicide ganking isn't as easy and fool proof as you think. Try it to see.
- There are other consequences to suicide ganking than mere loss of ship.
- Removing insurance for suicide ganking wouldn't stop suicide ganking. It would merely boost a lazy playstyle.
- Insurance isn't here to mimic RL. It is here as a mechanic to propell the economy by reducing personal cost at loss of ship, leading to more production of ships and more stability in the market.
- Living in high sec is easy enough as it is. If anything, the rewards of high sec should be severely limited. Nerfing suicide ganking is going in the wrong direction.
- Seriously though, Eve isn't RL.


cimmaron
Caldari
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.05.12 16:35:00 - [118]
 

Edited by: cimmaron on 12/05/2008 16:36:45
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: cimmaron


Som operating on that premise is your excuse for things to not make sense?

Seriously, do you have a valid argument of WHY gankers should get insurance, I have seen a thousand arguments of why they shouldnt, not one of why they should.


Maybe because you never read the replies in whine threads like these? Don't really blame you for that.

First I'd like to point out that the party that wishes the game changed (you) are the ones who are requested to provide non-biased reason for said change. You have not done so.

Second, let's break down the arguments, shall we?

The whiners:

- You don't get insurance when you commit a crime in RL
- Seriously, RL criminals don't get any insurance.
- What about RL criminals? They don't get insurance, do they?
- Suicide ganking is too easy.
- And in RL crime doesn't pay.
- There are no consequences for suicide ganking.
- And in RL you wouldn't get insurance for it.

The good guys:

- RL is not Eve.
- Suicide ganking isn't as easy and fool proof as you think. Try it to see.
- There are other consequences to suicide ganking than mere loss of ship.
- Removing insurance for suicide ganking wouldn't stop suicide ganking. It would merely boost a lazy playstyle.
- Insurance isn't here to mimic RL. It is here as a mechanic to propell the economy by reducing personal cost at loss of ship, leading to more production of ships and more stability in the market.
- Living in high sec is easy enough as it is. If anything, the rewards of high sec should be severely limited. Nerfing suicide ganking is going in the wrong direction.
- Seriously though, Eve isn't RL.




I do take the time to read what people think and have to say.

As far as being un biased, Im about as unbiased as one can get, I dont fly freighters, I dont fly expensive modded ships in empire or lowsec. I live, pvp and everything else in 0.0 space, if I bother to goto highsec for something, its in a shuttle or covops frigate.

I have never once been on the receiving or giving end of gank squad in highsec, or lowsec(plenty in 0.0, but thats completly different)

Now let me ask you sir, are you a ganker or gankee? If so, then its your own opinion thats biased wouldnt you say?

If your a ganker, then of course you dont want things to change, its perfect for you the way it is. If your a gankee arguing against any change then your a moron, to be blunt.

Not everyone that diagrees with you is biased, I happen to not agree with a mechanic that is completly imbalanced to one side, as it is now. Of course I can argue with you until I turn 3 shades of purple, and you will still try to come up with some silly argument of why.

I presented exactly why it needs to be changed above, did you read it of course not, you were too busy trying to be right instead of listening, and giving things some thought.

Oh, and purely out of curiosity, what other losses do you incure other than a payed for ship, security status that is easily fixed with a little ratting? Come up with something better for your "consequences" please.

Ki An
Gallente
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.12 16:59:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: cimmaron

I do take the time to read what people think and have to say.


And then you completely diregard it? If, as you say, you've never heard any arguments for keeping things the way they are, you can't really have done much reading.

Originally by: cimmaron

As far as being un biased, Im about as unbiased as one can get, I dont fly freighters, I dont fly expensive modded ships in empire or lowsec. I live, pvp and everything else in 0.0 space, if I bother to goto highsec for something, its in a shuttle or covops frigate.


Sorry, but living in 0.0 hardly makes you unbiased, but fair enough. You talk about a problem you have no connection with what-so-ever. I don't blame you for not knowing what you're talking about.

Originally by: cimmaron

Now let me ask you sir, are you a ganker or gankee? If so, then its your own opinion thats biased wouldnt you say?


Both. I've been suicide ganked on my hauler alt when I got too careless. I've suicide ganked with this account. This makes me better suited to discuss this subject than you, since you don't have any form of relation with it.

Originally by: cimmaron

Not everyone that diagrees with you is biased, I happen to not agree with a mechanic that is completly imbalanced to one side, as it is now. Of course I can argue with you until I turn 3 shades of purple, and you will still try to come up with some silly argument of why.


I don't expect you to argue until you turn any shades of purple. I expect you to provide clear evidence why the mechanic is faulty. I have provided retorts to all the arguments in this thread. I have not seen an argument from the whiner-squad that doesn't consist of either "RLRLRL" or "Suicide ganking is too easy but I don't have any data to back up my claim".

Originally by: cimmaron

I presented exactly why it needs to be changed above, did you read it of course not, you were too busy trying to be right instead of listening, and giving things some thought.


I read it, and debunked it in my reply to you.

Originally by: cimmaron

Oh, and purely out of curiosity, what other losses do you incure other than a payed for ship, security status that is easily fixed with a little ratting? Come up with something better for your "consequences" please.


Ship loss.

Security status - not easy to rat up unless you have lots of 0.0 carebear space, and even then it takes time you would rather spend doing other stuff. You see, as opposed to you carebears, us pvpers don't really like doing pve.

Kill rights - seldom used by the gankee, but nevertheless it's there. This is the one thing I could see changing. Making kill rights tradeable is an excellent idea if it's implemented correctly.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:14:00 - [120]
 

Actually what it boils down to is this:

Should the mission running ship pimp progression playstyle be subject to extreme risk from players as well as NPCs? (And yes I know the risk from NPCs is negligible, and THAT is something that I would actually like to see changed a bit)

The mission runners say no, the gankbears say yes. For obviously selfish reasons. The truth lies somewhere in between. Current system totally favors the gankers, some carebears want to be totally immune. Insurance removal for concord victims that actually killed someone would be a good middle ground imho. It would not even fix the problem for good due to the extreme value disparity between battleships and deadspace mods, but a step in the right direction. The reduction in viable targets and profit margins might be enough to scare off the opportunity suiciders and make it the uncommon phenomenon it should be.

And to the people trying to bring in the builders in favor of the gankers, most of the modules lost from suiciding mission runners are NOT built and thus suicide ganking does not benefit builders at all. Might actually hurt them if a victim that used their ammo leaves the game.


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