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


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Shadowed Broker
Posted - 2011.02.21 20:30:00 - [1]
 

Should one who is killed by concord receive insurance?

Arguments as I see it.
Pro - Insurance is provided by a third party which is independent entity and not affiliated with concord or empires.

Con - Concord is sanctioned to implement criminal punishments approved by the empires, and criminal activity is grounds for contract cancellation (example).

Example - Courier contracts are voided and the courier loses the collateral if the package is opened.

This is Eve, not Earth, and Earth laws or examples do not apply.

Sullen Skoung
Posted - 2011.02.21 20:35:00 - [2]
 

Ibtl for talking about hulkageddon

Darth McDarth
Posted - 2011.02.21 20:35:00 - [3]
 

Yes.

If they took away the insurance then suicide ganking would become impractical. It would take a major feature away from the game.


Dead Bait
Posted - 2011.02.21 20:37:00 - [4]
 

If insurance payments were removed it would not affect ones ability to kill another in Empire.

Cindy Marco
Minmatar
The Warp Rats
Apotheosis of Virtue
Posted - 2011.02.21 20:40:00 - [5]
 

It really wouldn't change anything for ships smaller then battleships. And even then, if your cargo (or fittings) are very expensive, its still going to happen. I know people that would do it at a huge loss just to make people mad.

Shadowed Broker
Posted - 2011.02.21 20:55:00 - [6]
 

What is this Hulkaggedon? Is it a new Amarr Mining Battleship?

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.21 20:58:00 - [7]
 

Yes one should.
Because no useful reason has been presented as to why this combat enabler should be removed.

Shadowed Broker
Posted - 2011.02.21 21:06:00 - [8]
 

I would argue that it is not a combat enabler, but rather it assuages the punishment for criminal behavior.


Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.21 21:21:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Shadowed Broker
I would argue that it is not a combat enabler, but rather it assuages the punishment for criminal behavior.
In other words, it enables combat.

Shadowed Broker
Posted - 2011.02.21 21:43:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Shadowed Broker on 21/02/2011 21:46:38
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Shadowed Broker
I would argue that it is not a combat enabler, but rather it assuages the punishment for criminal behavior.
In other words, it enables combat.


I think a combat enabler would be the slower response time for Concord.

Enable generally means to make possible, allow, or make practical.
and because it is often misused,
Practical means to allow success in action, able to be done.

It could be considered a combat facilitator in situations where ones ability to engage in criminal behavior is limited by income.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.21 22:00:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Shadowed Broker
Enable generally means to make possible, allow, or make practical.
Yes. Lowering the cost for combat makes it more practical and possible.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.02.21 22:03:00 - [12]
 

Of course "Insurance" for ganking is bull****. For the love of mike, how many times have we been through this exact discussion?
The whole "suicide ganking shouldn't get insurance because insurance for crimes is silly" is based on a compeletely wrong assumption. No insurance company would insure ANY pod pilot for any ship, because we're an astoundingly hi-risk category. We dont get "insurance" money because there are little NPC gnomes who think that surely this quarter, PEND will turn a profit. We certainly dont get "insurance" based on real-world notions of whether it's "right" for us to do so. We get "insurance" because CCP have deemed that a partial ship replacement mechanic is required to balance gameplay and keep the economy moving. Realism doesn't come in to it. Huge aspects of EVe are vastly more unrealistic than the Insurance mechanic, and for the same reason: game balance and game play.

There is no good reason to remove "insurance" from hi-sec gankers unless you can objectively demonstrate (that means using facts and data) that hi-sec is too dangerous compared to the amount of wealth that can be amassed there (Good luck with that). Saying "Well, State Farm wouldn't pay me insurance if I used my car to ram raid a jewellers" is not a good reason. You might as well petition a ship loss on the grounds that your ship should constantly accelerate towards lightspeed, not be limited to a few kilometers per second.

You could cite all the Newtonian and Einsteinin physics you liked, but they wouldn't matter a bit, because the game isn't based on Newtonian physics just as it's not based on western financial rules and laws.

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2011.02.21 22:06:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Mag''s on 21/02/2011 22:10:06

What a new and refreshing topic.

INB4 RL comparisons. Very Happy

Edit: Damn it Malcanis Laughing

Allyson Vannote
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2011.02.21 22:24:00 - [14]
 

I'm going to have to say I'd like to see this implemented. Just to make suicide ganking a more intellectual practice.

Kengutsi Akira
Posted - 2011.02.21 22:39:00 - [15]
 

well given that they "dont do it for the isk" then it shouldnt matter if they remove the insurance or not right suicide gankers?

Sporked
Posted - 2011.02.21 22:53:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Allyson Vannote
I'm going to have to say I'd like to see this implemented. Just to make suicide ganking a more intellectual practice.


How on earth would it make it more intellectual? If anything it would make it completely impractal to gank high value targets outsite of lowsec, thereby effectively removing an entire mini-profession. Guess how often anyone with half a brain carrying a high value cargo goes to lowsec unless it's their final destination? That's not making anything intellectual at all, it would just make it neccessary to stalk each and every freighter and indy carrying sufficiently valuable cargo to be worth ganking on the off chance it has a lowsec destination.

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.02.21 22:58:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Malcanis


You could cite all the Newtonian and Einsteinin physics you liked, but they wouldn't matter a bit, because the game isn't based on Newtonian physics just as it's not based on western financial rules and laws.


Just because some parts of the game are immersion breaking does not mean every part of the game should be immersion breaking.

If a change can be made to improve immersion, I'm all for it. To me, not paying insurance to criminals would improve immersion.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.21 22:59:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Allyson Vannote
I'm going to have to say I'd like to see this implemented. Just to make suicide ganking a more intellectual practice.
…yes. And then tripple the CONCORD response time just to make hauling and other semi-afk activities more intellectual practices as well.

Zeus Fatale
Posted - 2011.02.22 01:33:00 - [19]
 

Privatize Insurance after a player has reached 12 months game time.
Let the community set the rate of insurance\payout after the 12 month period has been reached.

Any change to insurance has a dynamic effect on all that is eve.

Or
Add a Social skill named some crap like "Smooth talk" -Every level trained increases the Concord response time. The skill would require some serious training time to achieve but would guarantee safe passage through Hisec @ Lvl 5.

Shooting from the hip of course.

Kengutsi Akira
Posted - 2011.02.22 01:35:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Allyson Vannote
I'm going to have to say I'd like to see this implemented. Just to make suicide ganking a more intellectual practice.
…yes. And then tripple the CONCORD response time just to make hauling and other semi-afk activities more intellectual practices as well.


Better yet remove concord

Cambarus
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2011.02.22 01:50:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
Originally by: Malcanis


You could cite all the Newtonian and Einsteinin physics you liked, but they wouldn't matter a bit, because the game isn't based on Newtonian physics just as it's not based on western financial rules and laws.


Just because some parts of the game are immersion breaking does not mean every part of the game should be immersion breaking.

If a change can be made to improve immersion, I'm all for it. To me, not paying insurance to criminals would improve immersion.
Do you know what else would improve immersion? Police that don't automatically know where you are, with the ability to stop you from using a cloak, nerfing your bandwidth to 0, insta-neuting all your cap, and then one volleying your ship.

You want insurance removed from concord deaths? Make concord deaths avoidable. Make it possible to warp+cloak and get out of an impending concordokken. THEN talk about how it would help immersion.

Naomi Wildfire
Amarr
Spricer
Raiden.
Posted - 2011.02.22 01:57:00 - [22]
 

remove insurance completely i say :D

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.22 03:22:00 - [23]
 

The simplest way to "fix" insurance is this:

Rename it to "industry subsidy refund" and people will no longer be confused about the purpose of the mechanic. With a bit of luck, that will stop people from expecting it to work in a way that is completely counter to what it's supposed to do.

Echo Mae
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.02.22 04:33:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Shadowed Broker
I would argue that it is not a combat enabler, but rather it assuages the punishment for criminal behavior.




One mans 'crime' is another mans 'Business'.

Echo Mae
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.02.22 04:36:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Kengutsi Akira
well given that they "dont do it for the isk" then it shouldnt matter if they remove the insurance or not right suicide gankers?


I never insure my gank ships anyway. So your argument is moot for me.

Kengutsi Akira
Posted - 2011.02.22 05:00:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Naomi Wildfire
remove insurance completely i say :D


Remove concord, I say lol

Space Tarantula Haklar
Posted - 2011.02.22 06:28:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Tippia
(...)In other words, it enables combat.


u mad? Combat? What combat? We don't want combat! We want easy targets for no work! It's not like Eve was supposed to be a cold harsh world Twisted Evil


Sullen Skoung
Posted - 2011.02.22 06:44:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Space Tarantula Haklar
Originally by: Tippia
(...)In other words, it enables combat.


u mad? Combat? What combat? We don't want combat! We want easy targets for no work! It's not like Eve was supposed to be a cold harsh world Twisted Evil




Thats not far off the attitude the gankers seem to have, just without the sarcasm lol

Dian'h Might
Minmatar
Cash and Cargo Liberators Incorporated
Posted - 2011.02.22 07:24:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Sullen Skoung
Originally by: Space Tarantula Haklar
u mad? Combat? What combat? We don't want combat! We want easy targets for no work! It's not like Eve was supposed to be a cold harsh world Twisted Evil
Thats not far off the attitude the gankers seem to have, just without the sarcasm lol
If I kill someone who puts up some defense, it's what's known as a "~~good fight~~". If I kill someone who doesn't have the brains or guts to put up some sort of defense, it's referred to as a gank. Basically, you as the target have just as much say as to whether or not it's a gank or a fight as the attacker does.

Aiwha
Caldari
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.02.22 07:27:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Sporked
Originally by: Allyson Vannote
I'm going to have to say I'd like to see this implemented. Just to make suicide ganking a more intellectual practice.


How on earth would it make it more intellectual? If anything it would make it completely impractal to gank high value targets outsite of lowsec, thereby effectively removing an entire mini-profession. Guess how often anyone with half a brain carrying a high value cargo goes to lowsec unless it's their final destination? That's not making anything intellectual at all, it would just make it neccessary to stalk each and every freighter and indy carrying sufficiently valuable cargo to be worth ganking on the off chance it has a lowsec destination.



It means you'd have to check your targets carefully. Keep careful track of your profit margin, plan, scheme. It might be more viable to have a half dozen ruptures suicide something rather than a battleship. It will make it a challenge, not a loot pinata. YARRRR!! HTFU


Pages: [1] 2

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