open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Should suicide gankers get insurance payout?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic

Allestin Villimar
Zebra Corp
Posted - 2007.08.20 00:22:00 - [61]
 

I would say no. The game warns you any time you're about to do something concord will attack for unless you turn it off, so there's not much point in arguing "but the noobs!".

Nito Musashi
Posted - 2007.08.20 01:14:00 - [62]
 

^very good point^

I agree no payments, anyone flying anything of value ought to know better, noobs being noobs and ignoring the warning they get arent out much a noobie ship and a few garbage mods.

Frug
Omega Wing
Snatch Victory
Posted - 2007.08.20 01:16:00 - [63]
 

No, of course not. At least, not the full payout.

RtoZ
Posted - 2007.08.20 01:31:00 - [64]
 

Not a dime.

asgghsfdgsgsg
Posted - 2007.08.31 11:27:00 - [65]
 

Why shouldn't they? It isn't like CONCORD pays the insurance claims.

Ildryn
Posted - 2007.08.31 13:48:00 - [66]
 

Just to make everyone happy remove insurance...and remove concord :)

Else....stfu and leave things as they are....use a scout. dont undock, etc

Maj Disaster
Posted - 2007.08.31 14:40:00 - [67]
 

No one who is shot by concord should receive insurance payout.

No one who commits an act of aggression against another player should receive insurance payout.

No one who is destroyed whilst fighting war targets should receive insurance payout.

ttrrwafsfamfjkasjf
Posted - 2007.08.31 14:42:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Maj Disaster
No one who is shot by concord should receive insurance payout.

No one who commits an act of aggression against another player should receive insurance payout.

No one who is destroyed whilst fighting war targets should receive insurance payout.
No one who goes to low security or 0.0 ... oh wait.

Audri Fisher
Caldari
Burning Bush Enterprises
Posted - 2007.08.31 14:47:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon
Insurance companies are independant comporations from concord. So I don't see any particular reason to not get it, aside from it helping to stop high sec ganking :P

No, they are not. the insurance corporations are subsidies of concord. Wink one subsidy of concord is blowing people up while another is saying "poor baby, let me hold your hand"

Tzrailasa
Tzrailasa Corp
Posted - 2007.08.31 14:54:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Tzrailasa on 31/08/2007 14:54:36
Suicide gankings are low in numbers, so not too big a problem. Seen from a RL perspective there shouldn't be a payout since the loss of the ship is caused by committing what is defined as a crime.

More relevant, Insurrance payouts should be sec.level dependent:
100% payout in High-Sec Empire
50% payout in Low-Sec Empire
0% payout in 0.0 Space YARRRR!!

ISK has depreciated so much in value over time that the loss of a BS now is something just to shrug off, where it in the past was a REAL loss.

EVE is supposed to be a hardcore game.... Make it so!

Bo Bojangles
Interstellar eXodus
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2007.08.31 15:29:00 - [71]
 

Messing around with the way insurance is paid out would be to obtuse in implementation, and if you want to compare it to RL, would any insurance company carry a note on any of these ships? Not a chance! Besides, removing insurance payouts for ships destroyed by Concorde wouldn't dissuade these gankers from their prey anyway. I do like the idea for low security status players having higher insurance premiums or not being insurable at all, though.

But in Eve, things need to get from one place to another, lots of things, and it's just too easy to pop a hauler. Traveling in hi-sec space should give some sense of uhh, security. Instead what we have are obvious suicide camps that are being protected by the police that should be protecting the space lanes and haulers instead.

Maybe replacing DST's generally reviled shield boosting bonus with added resistance vs. smartbomb attacks.

Talianas Unger
Minmatar
Brotherhood of Mithra
Black Sheep Alliance
Posted - 2007.08.31 16:35:00 - [72]
 

Edited by: Talianas Unger on 31/08/2007 16:35:49
Remove insurance? Naw. I think that would create people too afraid to take out anything above a Frigate for fear of losing lots of ISK.

Personally, I think the solution would be to let people pay for a CONCORD escort. Real policeman moonlight as rent-a-cops, let CONCORD do the same. Say X number of ISK per jump, depending on the size and number of the escort ships. It should be prohibitively expensive to all but those who have a lot to lose (i.e. freighter pilots). That at least provides some protection until more CONCORD forces arrive. Just my two cents.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2007.08.31 17:13:00 - [73]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 31/08/2007 17:16:32
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 31/08/2007 17:14:28
Either remove insurance completely (or nerf it veeeery heavily) or leave it as it is.

You see people autopiloting megas through low-sec. You get people logging off their megas when scrambled at a gate. Should they get payout for something that is basically sucide?

Oh, and yes, you get people who suicide / whatever their ships because they're too lazy to sell them and want the cash immediately, thereby removing stuff (ships) from the game and importing raw ISK. Should they get a insurance payout, too?

Edit: to the guy above me, people would still fly larger ships. On many well-fitted and rigged ships, the modules greatly surpass the ship cost.

Edit: forgot to say, nerf concord, or put their jammers & guns on the market! ;)

Arana Tellen
Gallente
Clan Death Corps
Posted - 2007.08.31 18:03:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Talianas Unger
Edited by: Talianas Unger on 31/08/2007 16:35:49
Remove insurance? Naw. I think that would create people too afraid to take out anything above a Frigate for fear of losing lots of ISK.

Personally, I think the solution would be to let people pay for a CONCORD escort. Real policeman moonlight as rent-a-cops, let CONCORD do the same. Say X number of ISK per jump, depending on the size and number of the escort ships. It should be prohibitively expensive to all but those who have a lot to lose (i.e. freighter pilots). That at least provides some protection until more CONCORD forces arrive. Just my two cents.


The solution is simple, hire 2 oneiros pilots. That gives you the equivalent of 2 capital repairers.

Nanobotter Mk2
Posted - 2007.08.31 19:09:00 - [75]
 

The real question is if concord should place a crime tax upon them that equals 1/2 the value of the ships the tried to suicide.... so they also have some risk in place and not every kill is profit.

Falbala
Gallente
Ishtar's Destiny
Posted - 2007.08.31 19:34:00 - [76]
 

Edited by: Falbala on 31/08/2007 19:34:21
Yes they should as long as there are real newbies that get killed by Concord for various reasons, from playing with smartbomb, shooting a drone or getting harassed by ore thiefs.

If you ask me is the insurance system wrong? I would say yes it is but it supports PVP and risky PVE missions. So not completely wrong.

Gort
Minmatar
Federation of Freedom Fighters
En Garde
Posted - 2007.08.31 19:36:00 - [77]
 

I believe that insurance should not be payable for losses arising from "criminal" acts.

I also believe that there should be a very substantial recycle delay for characters with a negative sec standing.

G

Jenny Spitfire
Caldari
Posted - 2007.08.31 19:38:00 - [78]
 

Say 'No Insurance' to suicidists. Lame-play kills this game.

Desiderious
Gallente
Black Star Corp
Posted - 2007.08.31 20:39:00 - [79]
 

I just had a crazy idea, probably a lot of things wrong about it but... If you want to go suicide and get killed by concord you wont get insurance money. However, you could get insurance through some shady faction (IE pirates). This insurance wouldnt be as good as the normal insurance but it would allow you to get money from Concord killing you. Something like a really short insurance time, higher cost, or less payout.

Desiderious
Gallente
Black Star Corp
Posted - 2007.08.31 20:40:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2
The real question is if concord should place a crime tax upon them that equals 1/2 the value of the ships the tried to suicide.... so they also have some risk in place and not every kill is profit.


Something like this could also work, /signed. Having concord fee you part of your ship's cost.

Laboratus
Gallente
Invicta.
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2007.08.31 20:49:00 - [81]
 

Yes they should.

Empire should have consequense in line with other consequense, it should be safer, removing insurance would make it safe, and that is wrong.

OneSock
Crown Industries
Posted - 2007.08.31 21:40:00 - [82]
 

No, it's just silly that concord pays out when you purposely perform an action which will get you concorded. Just daft.

Corfu
Posted - 2007.08.31 22:54:00 - [83]
 

No insurance payouts

Lavinrac Krad
Caldari
Posted - 2007.08.31 23:39:00 - [84]
 

Yes Suicide Gankers should get insurance UNLESS

1- Concord is SEVERELY Nerfed.

AND

2- It is no longer considered an exploit to evade Concord.

If we are going to use "Real Life" examples, well in "Real Life" cops can die and yesterday in "Real Life" a bank robber in Chicago got away from the FBI and CPD. There were like a hundred officers/agents there too.

Maj Disaster
Posted - 2007.09.01 10:28:00 - [85]
 

Edited by: Maj Disaster on 01/09/2007 10:42:02
Originally by: Laboratus
Yes they should.

Empire should have consequense in line with other consequense, it should be safer, removing insurance would make it safe, and that is wrong.


and what exctly are the consequences for the ganker now except for a nice big payout from an npc insurance company. there would still be opportunity to hit frieghters and indys in empire theyd just have to pick targets a bit more carefully and get scanners out etc.

Ethaet
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.09.01 10:52:00 - [86]
 

Getting concorded should definitely not pay out insurance. It makes no sense like this, and means the price of a kill is effectively a couple of mil, weapons, and a sec hit. they should lose their ship with no compensation, its risk vs reward.

As for the noobs and newbs, just make the warning a bit bigger and more obvious, if they still do it, its their stupid fault (what newb insures a ship anyway?)

dgsdfgasgasgsdfg
Posted - 2007.09.01 11:04:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Ethaet
Getting concorded should definitely not pay out insurance. It makes no sense like this, and means the price of a kill is effectively a couple of mil, weapons, and a sec hit. they should lose their ship with no compensation, its risk vs reward.

As for the noobs and newbs, just make the warning a bit bigger and more obvious, if they still do it, its their stupid fault (what newb insures a ship anyway?)
Look at it from another perspective. You will remove 90% of risk in empire.

Laboratus
Gallente
Invicta.
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2007.09.01 11:10:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Tzrailasa

ISK has depreciated so much in value over time that the loss of a BS now is something just to shrug off, where it in the past was a REAL loss.



I'd like to correct that a bit.
The loss of a BS is a shrug for us multi year 0.0 veterans.
And considering that most players play for an average of less than a year, so it just isn't true for the majority of the playerbase...

Ethaet
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.09.01 11:13:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: dgsdfgasgasgsdfg
Originally by: Ethaet
Getting concorded should definitely not pay out insurance. It makes no sense like this, and means the price of a kill is effectively a couple of mil, weapons, and a sec hit. they should lose their ship with no compensation, its risk vs reward.

As for the noobs and newbs, just make the warning a bit bigger and more obvious, if they still do it, its their stupid fault (what newb insures a ship anyway?)
Look at it from another perspective. You will remove 90% of risk in empire.

if you want to make a point, don't alt post. especially as that alt makes you look like an isk spammer.

Protheroe
Posted - 2007.09.02 05:52:00 - [90]
 

I think there are some interesting suggestions here.

My view is that gate camps in low sec and 0.0 enhance the game - they're a realistic result of the absence of law and order and a legitimate tactic - you expect bandits to exist in areas where there is no police force and ambush is an essential part of warfare. However, a real State with a powerful security service just wouldn't tolerate people routinely killing and robbing merchants and passers by at the entrances to its cities, especially at places it's supposed to be guarding.

First of all, I agree with those who've suggested that the insurance system should be reformed. Ganking in high sec is basically a criminal act, and so most reputable insurance companies should not pay out - however, it should be possible to find insurers that will pay out - either less reputable companies that maybe charge more and are less reliable (certain percentage chance of not getting a payout if you lose your ship), or, especially with the proposed new faction war elements of the game - insurers that will reliably pay out to those who lose ships to the forces of a rival faction, or to Concord upholding the law in enemy territory. So for example, it may be possible to be insured by an Amarrian company that will not pay out if you lose a ship to Concord in Amarr space, but will payout a reduced sum if you lose a ship to Concord in Gallente space and the two empires are at peace, or a full amount if the Amarrians and Gallente are at war.

I also agree that, with any realistic insurer, there should be penalties for those who routinely demand payouts, but clearly being involved in combat is part of the game, so insurers could offer special plans for different kinds of pilot with different premiums. Standings could also be involved.

Secondly, I think there should be an end to gate camps in high sec, simply because I don't think the local authorities would realistically tolerate it. If criminal gangs were routinely hanging round bottlenecks on commuter routes and attacking people in sight of the police, any responsible State would put a stop to it. In addition to sentry guns, there should be traffic controllers at every gate in high sec. As when you exit a station, these could employ a kind of tractor beam to move ships automatically a certain distance from the gate (the in game explanation being firstly safety - gates are powerful pieces of technology and it seems a little crazy that you can sit right next to one as a huge starship materialises after being catapulted from light years away, like aircraft sitting around on runways as others land right next to them - and secondly to prevent loitering and criminal activity). It would be possible to terminate this process by attempting to destroy the traffic controller, but this would obviously get you attacked by the sentry guns and Concord.

Also, I was recently reading a thread that discussed the power of the weapons in Eve, and it seems as if even some of the basic missiles could level cities. I therefore think it makes sense that the Empires would want to protect their most sensitive star systems from threats by only allowing their own navy to carry weapons inside their local space. A select few systems clustered around the Home systems like Amarr and New Caldari would become demilitarised - anybody wishing to enter would have to unfit weapons modules before jumping, the stargates would refuse to activate for armed ships, and Concord would attack anybody within the system with active weapons fitted. There could be certain exceptions however, maybe standing related and/or determined by module type and special circumstances. Perhaps special passes with large security deposits could be purchased, similar to Starbase charters.


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