open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Stop payment on Insurance for people who are Concorded.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic

Nestor Laurenitis
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2010.06.10 14:58:00 - [91]
 

Not supported.

You high sec bears need a taste of living every now and then. Nobody should ever feel comfortable ratting in a mutli-billion dollar Golem or pressing that delicious auto-pilot button while shipping a thousand T2 droens from Jita to Osmeden in their Badger.

I just can't stand the thought of industrialists and mission running lap dogs of the empire existing with low blood pressure.

Goose99
Posted - 2010.06.10 15:19:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Nestor Laurenitis
Not supported.

You high sec bears need a taste of living every now and then. Nobody should ever feel comfortable ratting in a mutli-billion dollar Golem or pressing that delicious auto-pilot button while shipping a thousand T2 droens from Jita to Osmeden in their Badger.

I just can't stand the thought of industrialists and mission running lap dogs of the empire existing with low blood pressure.



Supported. When ganking industrials with billions of cargo, or pimpboats with billions of deadspace mods, cost of a gank phoon is chump change. Insurance fraud need a gimp. Suicide ganking does not need to be cost-free. Everything in EVE cost isks, so swallow it and htfu. This whinning is getting old.Rolling Eyes

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.06.10 15:34:00 - [93]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 10/06/2010 15:46:34
Originally by: Goose99
I didn't read through all of that wall of text. But just to repeat again:

When you destroy the ship to collect insurance fees, it's insurance fraud. When you try to keep the ship alive to the best of your abilities, and thus, trying to prevent yourself from collecting insurance, it's Eve pvp.

In the first case, you have a conflict of interest that runs counter to insurance. In the 2nd, your interest align with the insurance.

Ask for specifics if there's anything you still don't understand.


more like u ignored it 'cause it actually refuted your sorry excuse of an argument, troll... first of all, u're not destroying the ship just to collect insurance--like i said before, u're taking out the target via suicide gank--gotta have a target to be a gank, moron. but by your logic, sending a ship into a losing battle is also insurance fraud since it's a "100% chance of destruction". and trying to warp out before concord arrives or the blob tackles u is technically trying to keep the ship alive to the best of your abilities and preventing insurance, despite the fact u're gonna get blown up in either case. second, the insurance contract says nothing relating to how insurance is collected--try reading it sometime so maybe u wouldn't have to continue hiding in your ignorance.

Originally by: Goose99
Supported. When ganking industrials with billions of cargo, or pimpboats with billions of deadspace mods, cost of a gank phoon is chump change. Insurance fraud need a gimp. Suicide ganking does not need to be cost-free. Everything in EVE cost isks, so swallow it and htfu. This whinning is getting old.Rolling Eyes


lmfao t1 insurance already got nerfed but of course, u're too ignorant to realize it. funny how the ignorant and stupid carebear tries to act all hard when he's the one crying so much and not even attempting to htfu and adapt... eve does not cater to stupidity, so u're a moron if u still expect ccp to hold your hand after all this time.

then again, is this post too "long" for u or is it too "true"? 'cause maybe the truth hurts so much that u're just gonna continue ignoring my arguments and continue repeating yourself... Laughing

Goose99
Posted - 2010.06.10 16:05:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera
Edited by: Anna Lifera on 10/06/2010 15:46:34
Originally by: Goose99
I didn't read through all of that wall of text. But just to repeat again:

When you destroy the ship to collect insurance fees, it's insurance fraud. When you try to keep the ship alive to the best of your abilities, and thus, trying to prevent yourself from collecting insurance, it's Eve pvp.

In the first case, you have a conflict of interest that runs counter to insurance. In the 2nd, your interest align with the insurance.

Ask for specifics if there's anything you still don't understand.


more like u ignored it 'cause it actually refuted your sorry excuse of an argument, troll... first of all, u're not destroying the ship just to collect insurance--like i said before, u're taking out the target via suicide gank--gotta have a target to be a gank, moron. but by your logic, sending a ship into a losing battle is also insurance fraud since it's a "100% chance of destruction". and trying to warp out before concord arrives or the blob tackles u is technically trying to keep the ship alive to the best of your abilities and preventing insurance, despite the fact u're gonna get blown up in either case. second, the insurance contract says nothing relating to how insurance is collected--try reading it sometime so maybe u wouldn't have to continue hiding in your ignorance.

Originally by: Goose99
Supported. When ganking industrials with billions of cargo, or pimpboats with billions of deadspace mods, cost of a gank phoon is chump change. Insurance fraud need a gimp. Suicide ganking does not need to be cost-free. Everything in EVE cost isks, so swallow it and htfu. This whinning is getting old.Rolling Eyes


lmfao t1 insurance already got nerfed but of course, u're too ignorant to realize it. funny how the ignorant and stupid carebear tries to act all hard when he's the one crying so much and not even attempting to htfu and adapt... eve does not cater to stupidity, so u're a moron if u still expect ccp to hold your hand after all this time.

then again, is this post too "long" for u or is it too "true"? 'cause maybe the truth hurts so much that u're just gonna continue ignoring my arguments and continue repeating yourself... Laughing


...and you resort to name calling instead of trying to understand the difference.

Eve insurance is a game mechanic device to make pvp viable. It's purpose is not to earn npc money. It's not a matter of margins, but of principle, as it's never intended to make npc money.

Let me repeat again. When you destroy your own ship with intent to collect insurance, it's insurance fraud. When you try to keep your ship alive, but sometimes fail, and ended up collecting insurance, it's pvp. In one case, you try to collect, in the other, you try to not collect. The alignment of interests is in opposite directions. This difference of principle is black and white.

Black Dranzer
Caldari
Posted - 2010.06.10 16:07:00 - [95]
 

Edited by: Black Dranzer on 10/06/2010 16:07:53
ITT:

Group 1: "Hey, people getting insurance payouts for breaking the law in highsec. That seems kind of stupid."

Group 2: "WHAT DO YOU MEAN THERE SHOULD BE CONSEQUENCES FOR MY ACTIONS?!"

Supported. Though I will say that maybe laws in general need working over, and that this is just a band-aid solution to a bigger problem.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.06.10 16:27:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Goose99


...and you resort to name calling instead of trying to understand the difference.

Eve insurance is a game mechanic device to make pvp viable. It's purpose is not to earn npc money. It's not a matter of margins, but of principle, as it's never intended to make npc money.


there is no difference, moron, only u fail/refuse to understand that. suicide ganking is still pvp, just like regular ganking and blobbing, so that's why insurance covers it as well.

Originally by: Goose99
Let me repeat again. When you destroy your own ship with intent to collect insurance, it's insurance fraud. When you try to keep your ship alive, but sometimes fail, and ended up collecting insurance, it's pvp. In one case, you try to collect, in the other, you try to not collect. The alignment of interests is in opposite directions. This difference of principle is black and white.


let me repeat again. u're not destroying your ship via self-destruct, concord is. your intent is destroying the target. and warping away to attempt to evade concord is trying to keep the ship alive too but why should that alone should qualify for insurance when it has nothing to do with the insurance contract:

The selected item will be insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. Repackaging the item will void the contract. The contract will be considered void if the item or ship is destroyed while being in the possession of somebody else. Do you accept the above terms and still want to insure the selected item?

is any of this getting through to u? probably not... Rolling Eyes

nugget906
Posted - 2010.06.10 16:51:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera
Originally by: Goose99


...and you resort to name calling instead of trying to understand the difference.

Eve insurance is a game mechanic device to make pvp viable. It's purpose is not to earn npc money. It's not a matter of margins, but of principle, as it's never intended to make npc money.


there is no difference, moron, only u fail/refuse to understand that. suicide ganking is still pvp, just like regular ganking and blobbing, so that's why insurance covers it as well.

Originally by: Goose99
Let me repeat again. When you destroy your own ship with intent to collect insurance, it's insurance fraud. When you try to keep your ship alive, but sometimes fail, and ended up collecting insurance, it's pvp. In one case, you try to collect, in the other, you try to not collect. The alignment of interests is in opposite directions. This difference of principle is black and white.


let me repeat again. u're not destroying your ship via self-destruct, concord is. your intent is destroying the target. and warping away to attempt to evade concord is trying to keep the ship alive too but why should that alone should qualify for insurance when it has nothing to do with the insurance contract:

The selected item will be insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. Repackaging the item will void the contract. The contract will be considered void if the item or ship is destroyed while being in the possession of somebody else. Do you accept the above terms and still want to insure the selected item?

is any of this getting through to u? probably not... Rolling Eyes


Goose is a moron for wasting his breath on you. You're not a moron, just a troll. Why would someone exploiting a loophole admit the loophole exists? People lie for money, you're no different. It's stupid to try to make people admit the truth when it's against their interests. They already know, just pretend not to. Happens all the time.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.06.10 17:22:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: nugget906

Goose is a moron for wasting his breath on you. You're not a moron, just a troll. Why would someone exploiting a loophole admit the loophole exists? People lie for money, you're no different. It's stupid to try to make people admit the truth when it's against their interests. They already know, just pretend not to. Happens all the time.


well if he wasn't such a moron, he wouldn't be wasting his breath if he didn't repeat the same stupid **** so many times simply because he was so blissfully ignorant of the responses to his posts. and once again, upon reading the contract, it's no loophole 'cause i didn't repackage it nor did i let someone else board it, which were the only conditions. what possible loophole can there be in such a brief contract? remember, it's not real money and it's not real life...

CyberGh0st
Minmatar
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
Posted - 2010.06.11 15:58:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Goose99
As I said, insurance fraud is 100% probability of destruction. It was your intention from the beginning to get the ship destroyed and get payment.

Normal Eve insurance buying is less than 100% probability of destruction. You know you're taking a risk, therefore insures the ship to guard against that risk.

The difference is "destroy the ship on purpose and collect the payout" vs. "trying to keep the ship alive in pvp, but not always succeeding." One is insurance fraud, other is pvp.

Not sure how much clearer I can explain it.


Well said imho :p

CyberGh0st
Minmatar
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
Posted - 2010.06.11 16:11:00 - [100]
 

Edited by: CyberGh0st on 11/06/2010 16:12:00

Originally by: Anna Lifera
Originally by: Goose99


...and you resort to name calling instead of trying to understand the difference.

Eve insurance is a game mechanic device to make pvp viable. It's purpose is not to earn npc money. It's not a matter of margins, but of principle, as it's never intended to make npc money.


there is no difference, moron, only u fail/refuse to understand that. suicide ganking is still pvp, just like regular ganking and blobbing, so that's why insurance covers it as well.

Originally by: Goose99
Let me repeat again. When you destroy your own ship with intent to collect insurance, it's insurance fraud. When you try to keep your ship alive, but sometimes fail, and ended up collecting insurance, it's pvp. In one case, you try to collect, in the other, you try to not collect. The alignment of interests is in opposite directions. This difference of principle is black and white.


let me repeat again. u're not destroying your ship via self-destruct, concord is. your intent is destroying the target. and warping away to attempt to evade concord is trying to keep the ship alive too but why should that alone should qualify for insurance when it has nothing to do with the insurance contract:

The selected item will be insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. Repackaging the item will void the contract. The contract will be considered void if the item or ship is destroyed while being in the possession of somebody else. Do you accept the above terms and still want to insure the selected item?

is any of this getting through to u? probably not... Rolling Eyes


Clearly it is under the current set of rules possible to do insurance fraud ( as it is looked at in RL ) legally within the game.

However, I agree with what Goose99 said, note my change :
"When you destroy the ship to collect insurance fees, it should be insurance fraud. When you try to keep the ship alive to the best of your abilities, and thus, trying to prevent yourself from collecting insurance, it's Eve pvp.

In the first case, you have a conflict of interest that runs counter to insurance. In the 2nd, your interest align with the insurance."

So this is how it should be.

Furthermore, evading Concord is against the rules, therefore you meet certain death after suicide ganking.
So it is the same as selfdestructing basically.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.06.11 22:34:00 - [101]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 11/06/2010 22:39:45
Originally by: CyberGh0st
Clearly it is under the current set of rules possible to do insurance fraud ( as it is looked at in RL ) legally within the game.


because it's a game and not real life?

Originally by: CyberGh0st
However, I agree with what Goose99 said, note my change :
"When you destroy the ship to collect insurance fees, it should be insurance fraud...
So this is how it should be.

Furthermore, evading Concord is against the rules, therefore you meet certain death after suicide ganking.
So it is the same as selfdestructing basically.



so basically, u've contributed nothing but a support without any of your own supporting statements...well besides the notion that a loss to an npc is somehow the same as self-destructing... Rolling Eyes

CyberGh0st
Minmatar
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
Posted - 2010.06.13 08:59:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera
Edited by: Anna Lifera on 11/06/2010 22:39:45
Originally by: CyberGh0st
Clearly it is under the current set of rules possible to do insurance fraud ( as it is looked at in RL ) legally within the game.


because it's a game and not real life?

Originally by: CyberGh0st
However, I agree with what Goose99 said, note my change :
"When you destroy the ship to collect insurance fees, it should be insurance fraud...
So this is how it should be.

Furthermore, evading Concord is against the rules, therefore you meet certain death after suicide ganking.
So it is the same as selfdestructing basically.



so basically, u've contributed nothing but a support without any of your own supporting statements...well besides the notion that a loss to an npc is somehow the same as self-destructing... Rolling Eyes


It is the same in the sense that you know you will loose your ship with 100% certainty.
This while other ship losses are not certain and on many occasions my insurance ran out without ship loss.
This is the difference between on the one hand concord kills and suicides and on the other hand all other ship losses.
One can also allow other people to kill you ( like between corpmates ) to then claim the insurance, however, this would be too hard to find a workable solution for. So I am content with no insurance payout for suicides and concord kills.

The main reason why I support this is that I believe suicide gankers should have more consequences than they have now.
So thats all there is too it, pretty simple.

So I agree we disagree and that you think the current consequences are enough.

Harrent
Posted - 2010.06.13 09:15:00 - [103]
 

No support.

Reason:
highsec pirating is part of the game, Autopiloting is dangerous and part of the raeson its dangerous is because its feasible.

Please leave us our freedom/options.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.06.13 16:07:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: CyberGh0st

It is the same in the sense that you know you will loose your ship with 100% certainty.
This while other ship losses are not certain and on many occasions my insurance ran out without ship loss.
This is the difference between on the one hand concord kills the ship, making it an npc loss and on the other hand all other ship losses.
One can also allow other people to kill you ( like between corpmates ) to then claim the insurance, however, this would be too hard to find a workable solution for. So I am content with no insurance payout for suicides and concord kills.

The main reason why I support this is that I believe suicide gankers should have more consequences than they have now.
So thats all there is too it, pretty simple.

So I agree we disagree and that you think the current consequences are enough.



1. fixed in bold.
2. now u're proposing a loophole of corpmates to blow up your ship to collect insurance, just after u were crying about insurance fraud in a game... Rolling Eyes
3. and now it just all boils down to punishing an intended mechanic just because u simply hate it and want high sec would be 100% safe.

CyberGh0st
Minmatar
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
Posted - 2010.06.13 22:07:00 - [105]
 

Edited by: CyberGh0st on 13/06/2010 22:08:57

Originally by: Anna Lifera
Originally by: CyberGh0st

It is the same in the sense that you know you will loose your ship with 100% certainty.
This while other ship losses are not certain and on many occasions my insurance ran out without ship loss.
This is the difference between on the one hand concord kills the ship, making it an npc loss and on the other hand all other ship losses.
One can also allow other people to kill you ( like between corpmates ) to then claim the insurance, however, this would be too hard to find a workable solution for. So I am content with no insurance payout for suicides and concord kills.

The main reason why I support this is that I believe suicide gankers should have more consequences than they have now.
So thats all there is too it, pretty simple.

So I agree we disagree and that you think the current consequences are enough.



1. fixed in bold.
2. now u're proposing a loophole of corpmates to blow up your ship to collect insurance, just after u were crying about insurance fraud in a game... Rolling Eyes
3. and now it just all boils down to punishing an intended mechanic just because u simply hate it and want high sec would be 100% safe.


1. NPC loss or not, it is suicide all the same.
2. I don't introduce it, it is already part of the game. Also it takes a bit more effort to do it and you need to be in a real corp ( non-npc ), anything promoting joining a corp is a good thing.
3. The intended mechanic is already being punished, just not enough imho. I don't hate the mechanic, since I live mainly in lowsec, I understand the risks of EVE. I just want to raise the bar for suicide kills from low value ships/cargo to higher value ships/cargo.


Kenny Dalglish
Posted - 2010.06.14 12:22:00 - [106]
 


Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.06.14 15:49:00 - [107]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 14/06/2010 15:53:25
Originally by: CyberGh0st

1. NPC loss or not, it is suicide all the same.
2. I don't introduce it, it is already part of the game. Also it takes a bit more effort to do it and you need to be in a real corp ( non-npc ), anything promoting joining a corp is a good thing.
3. The intended mechanic is already being punished, just not enough imho. I don't hate the mechanic, since I live mainly in lowsec, I understand the risks of EVE. I just want to raise the bar for suicide kills from low value ships/cargo to higher value ships/cargo.




1. by your logic, if even high sec pvp is suicide, then bringing a ship into low sec and especially 0.0 wouldn't be any safer, especially to warrant a payout.
2. no--what u want is to introduce is a nerf to suicide ganking in the disguise of anti-insurance fraud, while at the same time, proposing a loophole for corpmates to kill each other for insurance... and the best part? u think that's gonna get ppl to hold your hand when they can use alts... Rolling Eyes
3. with your flimsy excuses, this goes back to my previous #3, despite what u say, especially since u claim it does not affect u in any way.

CyberGh0st
Minmatar
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
Posted - 2010.06.14 20:47:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera
Edited by: Anna Lifera on 14/06/2010 15:53:25
Originally by: CyberGh0st

1. NPC loss or not, it is suicide all the same.
2. I don't introduce it, it is already part of the game. Also it takes a bit more effort to do it and you need to be in a real corp ( non-npc ), anything promoting joining a corp is a good thing.
3. The intended mechanic is already being punished, just not enough imho. I don't hate the mechanic, since I live mainly in lowsec, I understand the risks of EVE. I just want to raise the bar for suicide kills from low value ships/cargo to higher value ships/cargo.




1. by your logic, if even high sec pvp is suicide, then bringing a ship into low sec and especially 0.0 wouldn't be any safer, especially to warrant a payout.
2. no--what u want is to introduce is a nerf to suicide ganking in the disguise of anti-insurance fraud, while at the same time, proposing a loophole for corpmates to kill each other for insurance... and the best part? u think that's gonna get ppl to hold your hand when they can use alts... Rolling Eyes
3. with your flimsy excuses, this goes back to my previous #3, despite what u say, especially since u claim it does not affect u in any way.


1. I never said highsec pvp is suicide, "suicide" ganking however is. Are you honestly saying that bringing a ship into lowsec or 0.0 is just as dangerous as a 100% certainty of death by concord?

2. Yes I want another nerf to suicide ganking as promised by CCP, did I ever deny that? I want to up the ante, and if someone then still feels it warranted to suicide gank a low value cargo/ship, then so be it.

3. Well it does affect me when I cruise around in highsec of course, it is not because I live in lowsec that I never visit the big city :p

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.06.15 16:22:00 - [109]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 15/06/2010 16:30:49
Originally by: CyberGh0st

1. I never said highsec pvp is suicide, "suicide" ganking however is. Are you honestly saying that bringing a ship into lowsec or 0.0 is just as dangerous as a 100% certainty of death by concord?

2. Yes I want another nerf to suicide ganking as promised by CCP, did I ever deny that? I want to up the ante, and if someone then still feels it warranted to suicide gank a low value cargo/ship, then so be it.

3. Well it does affect me when I cruise around in highsec of course, it is not because I live in lowsec that I never visit the big city :p



1. depending on the situation, why couldn't it be? ppl have gotten into impossible situations with 100% destruction and they still get insurance. and r u honestly saying that high sec is more dangerous than low sec/0.0? Rolling Eyes
2. when is ccp ever obliged to turn eve into wow? how about making an actual effort on your part by using a better hauler for once instead of making excuses for ccp to hold your hand?
3. define "cruise around" because unless u always "cruise around" high sec carrying high value cargo, there's no reason why u'd somehow be scared to death of high sec after supposedly "living in low sec"... Laughing

CyberGh0st
Minmatar
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
Posted - 2010.06.15 17:00:00 - [110]
 

Edited by: CyberGh0st on 15/06/2010 17:00:39

Originally by: Anna Lifera
Edited by: Anna Lifera on 15/06/2010 16:30:49
Originally by: CyberGh0st

1. I never said highsec pvp is suicide, "suicide" ganking however is. Are you honestly saying that bringing a ship into lowsec or 0.0 is just as dangerous as a 100% certainty of death by concord?

2. Yes I want another nerf to suicide ganking as promised by CCP, did I ever deny that? I want to up the ante, and if someone then still feels it warranted to suicide gank a low value cargo/ship, then so be it.

3. Well it does affect me when I cruise around in highsec of course, it is not because I live in lowsec that I never visit the big city :p



1. depending on the situation, why couldn't it be? ppl have gotten into impossible situations with 100% destruction and they still get insurance. and r u honestly saying that high sec is more dangerous than low sec/0.0? Rolling Eyes
2. when is ccp ever obliged to turn eve into wow? how about making an actual effort on your part by using a better hauler for once instead of making excuses for ccp to hold your hand?
3. define "cruise around" because unless u always "cruise around" high sec carrying high value cargo, there's no reason why u'd somehow be scared to death of high sec after supposedly "living in low sec"... Laughing


1. I give up, and agree we disagree.
2. It is about risk vs reward, I want more risk for suicide gankers, just as I think that moving level 5 missions to lowsec was a good move ( fix or nerf, whatever you call it ). However when people start to kill, for example hulks, just for fun, then the price for suicide ganks has to go up. It has gone up, but not enough imho.
3. I am not scared of death, and take calculated risks when hauling stuff from empire to lowsec or back. Thing is, I really don't have to carry high value cargo, because people do it for fun.

What I ask for is the implementation of CCP's promise :
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577


Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.06.15 18:56:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: CyberGh0st

1. I give up, and agree we disagree.
2. It is about risk vs reward, I want more risk for suicide gankers, just as I think that moving level 5 missions to lowsec was a good move ( fix or nerf, whatever you call it ). However when people start to kill, for example hulks, just for fun, then the price for suicide ganks has to go up. It has gone up, but not enough imho.
3. I am not scared of death, and take calculated risks when hauling stuff from empire to lowsec or back. Thing is, I really don't have to carry high value cargo, because people do it for fun.

What I ask for is the implementation of CCP's promise :
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577




1. fair enough.
2. ahh so it IS about exhumers too? 'cause a t2 ship should have have zero risk to use right? and games should NOT be played for fun right? Rolling Eyes
3. news flash--newbies don't really get suicide ganked in their rookie ships as they would in those nightmares u keep having so yes, it's still safe enough... Rolling Eyes and factoring this with all u've said (and claimed) so far only proves that u know almost nothing about this thread.

but let's see if u really give up and agree to disagree, which i seriously doubt. Wink

CyberGh0st
Minmatar
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
Posted - 2010.06.15 19:55:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: Anna Lifera


but let's see if u really give up and agree to disagree, which i seriously doubt. Wink


Only agreed to disagree on point 1, not the rest Laughing

But I will stop arguing, I gave my support to this proposal, and I hope that one day CCP keeps it's promise :

Quote from CCP Fear :
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.


http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2010.06.16 00:33:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Harrent
No support.

Reason:
highsec pirating is part of the game, Autopiloting is dangerous and part of the raeson its dangerous is because its feasible.

Please leave us our freedom/options.


1) Autopiloting??? You don't even know what you are talking about, now do you. Let me tell you a story (this actually happened some long long time ago). Armageddon + Warp Disruptor + rest sensor boosters in mids, damage mods in low slots, guns in high slots. Try passing that on gate without a cloaky blockade runner.

2) Pirating??? If you are pirating that means that your victim at least have guns. Blowing up industrials in high or lowsec is not pirating and you can't call yourself a pirate just because you're doing it.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.06.16 05:54:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: CyberGh0st

Only agreed to disagree on point 1, not the rest Laughing

But I will stop arguing, I gave my support to this proposal, and I hope that one day CCP keeps it's promise :

Quote from CCP Fear :
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.


http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577



1. u agree to disagree on one point because your semantics don't work on the others, not that it would've made a difference even if it did...
2. it ain't gonna happen since high sec is still very populated and active, even with other nerfs.

but plz, "not argue" some more--i'd really like to hear it... Laughing

BFish
Gallente
Bushwhackers
Rough Necks
Posted - 2010.06.17 05:12:00 - [115]
 

I only agree with this idea if it is only applied to the highest high sec space, like just 1.0 or 0.8 to 1.0. Trade hubs should indeed be a save haven, what with so much expensive ships floating about.

Supported

Simuun
Dark Future Inc.
Posted - 2010.07.01 23:11:00 - [116]
 


Shawshanke
Posted - 2010.07.02 00:41:00 - [117]
 


Fournone
Posted - 2010.07.02 00:50:00 - [118]
 

Yes

Corina Jarr
Posted - 2010.07.02 02:05:00 - [119]
 

One thing Anna:
Quote:
... u're not destroying the ship just to collect insurance--like i said before, u're taking out the target via suicide gank--gotta have a target to be a gank, moron. but by your logic, sending a ship into a losing battle is also insurance fraud since it's a "100% chance of destruction". and trying to warp out before concord arrives or the blob tackles u is technically trying to keep the ship alive to the best of your abilities and preventing insurance,...

A suicide gank is 100% guaranteed destruction. For if you are not destroyed, you are banned for breaking EVE.
1v20 (for example) is not 100% guaranteed destruction. There is still a chance of lag or something saving your butt.

Suicide ganking is the only "form of pvp" where you will (as the ganker) lose your ship, no matter what.

Anna Lifera
6....
HAWK Alliance
Posted - 2010.07.02 05:04:00 - [120]
 

Edited by: Anna Lifera on 02/07/2010 05:15:23
Originally by: Corina Jarr
One thing Anna:

A suicide gank is 100% guaranteed destruction. For if you are not destroyed, you are banned for breaking EVE.
1v20 (for example) is not 100% guaranteed destruction. There is still a chance of lag or something saving your butt.

Suicide ganking is the only "form of pvp" where you will (as the ganker) lose your ship, no matter what.


1. read the insurance contract.
2. lag is not a game mechanic/feature implemented by ccp so it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever in determining insurance payout.
3. lag can apply to the victim as well so u want to punish ppl for their connections and for ccp's mistakes, just so they cater to your incompetence.
4. lag applying to a suicide ganker results in the victim saving his own butt, just like in low sec/0.0. no gank, no criminal flag, no concord, no difference at all.

got anything else besides yet another sorry excuse to be babied? Laughing


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