Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 15:33:00 -
[1]
Edited by: De''Veldrin on 03/07/2009 15:33:57 From http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577
Originally by: CCP Fear
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.
That was from almost a year ago. August 2008, to be more precise, and we still don't have this implemented. Why are criminals (as defined by the fact that CONCORD jumped on you) still being paid insurance payouts when CONCORD WTFOMGBBQPWNs them?
I would like the CSM to push this issue with CCP and try and determine why this hasn't already been implemented.
--Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 15:33:00 -
[2]
Supporting myself. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 17:42:00 -
[3]
No.
Highsec isnt risk free, it isnt intended to be. Your proposal is motivated by a desire to see Highsec become safer, riskless gameplay strikes at the heart of what makes EVE unique.
No.
You want to nerf an entire profession without providing ample recompense or alternatives to gankers.
Further, Suicide Ganking is the only way to engage in pvp with people in NPC corps abusing the fact they cant be wardec'd. Remove insurance payouts and NPC corps will be totally unassailable by nature of suicide ganking being economically impossible to support.
No.
You already have the tools as a player to defend yourselves and more, strike back at gankers; stop whining, start doing something about it in game.
You may gather i dont support removing insurance from CONCORD shiploss.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
Oam Mkoll
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 18:03:00 -
[4]
Supported. AGAIN. We were promised a fix to this and I'd like to see it happen. Paying insurance for CONCORDOKKEN is beyond moronic. It's so stupid it would be out of place in a ridiculous fantasy My Little Pony MMO, much less the logical, economy-driven world of New Eden. ---
|
Warped Pestilence
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 18:04:00 -
[5]
Please pardon any percieved attempt at cross-posting.
This issue used to be of much more concern to alot more people. And for some reason seems to have fallen to the wayside.
I believe the first CSM was influential in getting CCP to admit there was an issue with, and promised to fix insurance from CONCORD actions. And now it is clearly back in the forefront again and I humbly ask the current CSM to at least please keep this as a top issue of discussion.
Thank you,
~wp
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 18:31:00 -
[6]
Insurance should be removed from all ships more expensive than t1 battlecruiser
In the old days when making money was tough and owning a t1 bs actually meant something, insurance was justifiable. But in today's age when a month old noob is already flying Raven, where real battleship cost is 3-5 mil, where isk is being printed in record numbers, we really don't need the insurance crutch.
This game is supposed to be tough and losses are supposed to mean something. We are losing that.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 18:40:00 -
[7]
Originally by: RedSplat No.
Highsec isnt risk free, it isnt intended to be. Your proposal is motivated by a desire to see Highsec become safer, riskless gameplay strikes at the heart of what makes EVE unique.
Wrong.
Highsec will never be risk free, and this proposal in no way prevents gankers from doing what it is they do. This in no way prevents them from locking my ship in a high sec system and pushing the fire button.
Originally by: Redsplat
No.
You want to nerf an entire profession without providing ample recompense or alternatives to gankers.
Further, Suicide Ganking is the only way to engage in pvp with people in NPC corps abusing the fact they cant be wardec'd. Remove insurance payouts and NPC corps will be totally unassailable by nature of suicide ganking being economically impossible to support.
Wrong.
Once again, this proposal in no way prevents suicide ganking from occurring. If you want to fly into Noob space, lock some guy in a noob frigate, and blast him to hell and back, I have absolutely no problem with you doing that. Please tell me how removing insurance payouts turns off your ability to press F1-F8.
It does however mean that you may have to choose your targets more intelligently instead of ganking everything that crosses your path. But please don't presume that I am stupid enough to believe that everyone in an NPC corp is flying an Ibis with civilian fittings. mmkay?
Originally by: Redsplat
No.
You already have the tools as a player to defend yourselves and more, strike back at gankers; stop whining, start doing something about it in game.
I know I have the tools to defend myself, and I use them. My hulk is tanked, and I have combat drones loaded. My corp uses cov-ops scouts and escorts for high value merchandise. As for striking back at the gankers, it's kinda pointless to shoot at them once CONCORD has asploded them all over the asteroid field.
However, what the gankers are doing is defined, by the game mechanics, as a crime. Please name one other criminal profession that offers insurance payouts to cover lost material.
I'll wait while you come up with one. Take your time, I have all year.
And please stop misconstruing my arguments. I'm not telling you you can't suicide gank. By all means, feel free. I'm just don't want it to be free (or nearly free). Talk about risk vs reward. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
Venkul Mul
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 18:56:00 -
[8]
Originally by: RedSplat
whining
Suicide ganking for isk will not be touched as it serach for good targets worth the attack even if there is no insurance subsiding.
Suicide gank for lulz and "any target is good as my ship cost nothing" will be hit hard.
I (and I think most of the carebears) have noting against people suicide ganking against a worthy target to gain more than you spend. But I have a lot against people doing suicide attack only because the cost is 0, counting on insurance to make the 1 attack on 100 against a target with good stuff worth doing it.
Look the call for the new jihadswarm. It suggest suiciding one or more meghatron with faction ammo to get 1 tanked hulk. At best the drop will be some millions in modules.
Where is the economic logic in that?
Only insurance make it possible.
There is no good quality target, no gain.
If all you want is the killmail you should pay it.
If insurance on CONCORD kills is removed CCP can even roll back the last increase in CONCORD reaction time, as that will help well thought suicide ganking attempts while insurance help the "kill all you see, maybe something will drop" people.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 19:10:00 -
[9]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Wrong.
Highsec will never be risk free, and this proposal in no way prevents gankers from doing what it is they do. This in no way prevents them from locking my ship in a high sec system and pushing the fire button.
Risk free, no. But a climate so adverse to risk as to make it a hugs n' rainbows carbear teaparty that might as well for all intents and purposes be called risk free- decidedly, yes.
Removing insurance payouts for concorded ships makes suicide ganking VASTLY less profitable. This translates directly to fewer ganks occurring and a safer highsec.
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Wrong.
Please tell me how removing insurance payouts turns off your ability to press F1-F8.
It doesnt. It just anihilates the economic incentive to do so in 90% of cases. Please leave the strawman alone.
Originally by: De'Veldrin It does however mean that you may have to choose your targets more intelligently instead of ganking everything that crosses your path. But please don't presume that I am stupid enough to believe that everyone in an NPC corp is flying an Ibis with civilian fittings. mmkay?
I dont think you are stupid, just that you are a carebear with an agenda that will change EVE for the worse- completely different. mmkay?
Originally by: De'Veldrin
I know I have the tools to defend myself, and I use them. My hulk is tanked, and I have combat drones loaded. My corp uses cov-ops scouts and escorts for high value merchandise. As for striking back at the gankers, it's kinda pointless to shoot at them once CONCORD has asploded them all over the asteroid field.
You know what killrights are, right? What Merc. corps are?
Hint: -10 players live in Lowsec. You can go there. You even get sentry guns to help you!
Originally by: De'Veldrin
However, what the gankers are doing is defined, by the game mechanics, as a crime. Please name one other criminal profession that offers insurance payouts to cover lost material.
I'll wait while you come up with one. Take your time, I have all year.
Lets see...Piracy. Or do you consider piracy griefing and not a 'profession'
Originally by: De'Veldrin Talk about risk vs reward.
Yep, you want to nerf the reward for the risk- We lose our ships, isk (Yes, even after insurance its significant) and sec status.
Meanwhile you are merrily mining away making 10+ p/h mining Veld in an essentially risk free enviroment; frankly if you get suicide ganked you are probably taking the shortbus, or too greedy to take precautions, or wound up the wrong people by whining on the forums.
Talk about risk vs reward.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 19:14:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
If insurance on CONCORD kills is removed CCP can even roll back the last increase decrease in CONCORD reaction time
I'll be truly shocked if that happens.
IF it does, then the change would be balanced; if CONCORD reaction times were increased above the previous prior to nerf times in order to make ganking specific targets more profitable; more time = less isk invested.
BUT
OP suggests nothing of the sort.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 19:27:00 -
[11]
Originally by: RedSplat
Removing insurance payouts for concorded ships makes suicide ganking VASTLY less profitable. This translates directly to fewer ganks occurring and a safer highsec.
And you don't see being subsidized to destroy ships by the same insurance that pay the destroyed ships as wrong?
Or needing to get paid by the insurance as you don't care to search for a isk worthy target?
Is, as it appear you are doing it the wrong way, caring only to kill something as you don't select your targets it is only right that you pay for the privilege of getting the killmail.
|
Velvet Sinner
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 19:32:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Velvet Sinner on 03/07/2009 19:34:18 My four paying accounts support this unimplemented, promised action by CCP. There should be NO payments of insurance to gankers in high-sec. A common argument is that to eliminate this payment to those who profess that it's a "profession" is ludicrous, and clearly evidenced by the fact that CONCORD spanks the actor. The majority of space in EVE is not patrolled by CONCORD, but these "professionals" choose to prey upon folks that rarely need to protect themselves from criminals?
Yes. It's a criminal activity in high-sec; go to low sec or null sec and your profession can roam free with no risk of CONCORD death and with, as many will undoubtedly declare, much HIGHER payout and enjoyment.
Yes. You know you stalk high-sec ONLY because you can't survive with your "profession" in low sec or null sec. The real reasons why you choose to stay our of low sec is known only to you guys, but I think we all know the answer.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 19:33:00 -
[13]
By all means let's make "insurance" more 'realistic'.
As long as it's balanced by making CONCORD more 'realistic' too.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 19:42:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Velvet Sinner
Yes. You know you stalk high-sec ONLY because you can't survive with your "profession" in low sec or null sec. The real reasons why you choose to stay our of low sec is known only to you guys, but I think we all know the answer.
Everyone knows i dont actually play this game, i only like o post about it on the forums.
Everyone also knows that i'm in no way a Lowsec pirate with a -10 sec status in a corp that lives in Amamake; when they arent being ****s in 0.0
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
Furb Killer
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 19:44:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Furb Killer on 03/07/2009 19:44:38 Yep, concord should be more realistic. They should bubble your pod and take you to prison for rest of your eve career for mass murder.
Quote: You know what killrights are, right? What Merc. corps are?
Yeah because having killrights or mercs attacking alts is really usefull and definately not a waste of time. And they will care so much when you kill one of their fully insured ships.
Suicide gankign should be done only when there is decent economic profit to be made, removing insurance wont change that much about that. You might use some other ships. But it does help against the: Hey it moved lets gank it idea.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 21:08:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Furb Killer Edited by: Furb Killer on 03/07/2009 19:44:38 Yep, concord should be more realistic. They should bubble your pod and take you to prison for rest of your eve career for mass murder.
They should take 4-24 hours to turn up to the crime scene, ask you a lot of questions, make you feel like it's you that did something wrong, arrest you if you did anything like eg: shoot back, then take the nearest minmatar pilot back to the CONCORD station and beat a confession out of him. All empire income will be taxed at 30% to pay for this service.
Now that would be realistic...
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 21:10:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Furb Killer
Suicide gankign should be done only when there is decent economic profit to be made.
Yes indeed. Just shooting spaceships for fun has NO PLACE in a PvP spaceship game.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 21:27:00 -
[18]
Originally by: RedSplat
Risk free, no. But a climate so adverse to risk as to make it a hugs n' rainbows carbear teaparty that might as well for all intents and purposes be called risk free- decidedly, yes.
Removing insurance payouts for concorded ships makes suicide ganking VASTLY less profitable. This translates directly to fewer ganks occurring and a safer highsec.
And the solution to that, as the pirates are so quick to point out to us, is to move out of High Security space.
Originally by: RedSplat
It doesnt. It just anihilates the economic incentive to do so in 90% of cases. Please leave the strawman alone.
It's not a strawman. Your argument is it stops you from doing it. But you've just pointed out yourself that it doesn't - it just makes you have to be smarter about doing it. I thought that was what EVE was all about? Deciding if the risk is actually worth the reward. Why should suicide gankers be the only profession that don't have to care about the risk, because it's subsidized?
Originally by: RedSplat
I dont think you are stupid, just that you are a carebear with an agenda that will change EVE for the worse- completely different. mmkay?
You say carebear like it's a bad thing.
Originally by: RedSplat
You know what killrights are, right? What Merc. corps are?
Hint: -10 players live in Lowsec. You can go there. You even get sentry guns to help you!
Originally by: RedSplat
Originally by: De'Veldrin
However, what the gankers are doing is defined, by the game mechanics, as a crime. Please name one other criminal profession that offers insurance payouts to cover lost material.
I'll wait while you come up with one. Take your time, I have all year.
Lets see...Piracy. Or do you consider piracy griefing and not a 'profession'
Piracy, in and of itself, is not considered a crime by the game mechanics. CONCORD does not jump out of the shadows and blast you into metal scrap if you lock someone in low sec, web them, point them, and then try and ransom their ship - or even if you destroy their ship.
Good try, but wrong. Care to try again?
Originally by: RedSplat
Yep, you want to nerf the reward for the risk- We lose our ships, isk (Yes, even after insurance its significant) and sec status.
Let's talk about this for a minute. You didn't "lose your ship". You made a conscious decision to throw it away. And that, frankly, makes all the difference in the world. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
Dirk Mortice
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 23:05:00 -
[19]
Remove insurance full stop.
Insurance breaks the risk-reward of suicide ganking, there's nearly nothing to lose, but also breaks the risk-reward of every other thing which involves flying a T1 ship. As such it should go completely. Either that or overhaul with a more realistic system, which isn't just a blatant isk faucet to create isk from thin air
|
steave435
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 23:11:00 -
[20]
Sure, the ganker doesn't loose much isk when his ship gets blown up by concord, but he do loose sec status, which is a pain to rat back up again. Gankers still need to consider if the profit is worth the 15 minutes of sitting in a station, possibly missing The Motherload, waiting for gcc to expire and the sec hit that will take hours to recover.
Getting insurance after comitting a crime might be unrealistic by RL standards, but so is a society that encourage scamming and stuff like that.
|
|
Yaay
The Players Club
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 23:47:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Yaay on 03/07/2009 23:47:39
Originally by: steave435 Sure, the ganker doesn't loose much isk when his ship gets blown up by concord, but he do loose sec status, which is a pain to rat back up again. Gankers still need to consider if the profit is worth the 15 minutes of sitting in a station, possibly missing The Motherload, waiting for gcc to expire and the sec hit that will take hours to recover.
Getting insurance after committing a crime might be unrealistic by RL standards, but so is a society that encourage scamming and stuff like that.
Insurance should not be a justification for crime, which it is at the moment. Nobody gives a crap about sec status because there's so many ways to neutralize any hit you might take. Nobody gives a crap about 15 minutes in a station because almost everyone has an alt. The real life argument is always the weakest one... it's the common sense argument that holds. Don't pay people for being ****s to newbs.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Fille Balle
Dissolution Of Eternity Event Horizon.
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 00:10:00 -
[22]
Originally by: RedSplat Highsec isnt risk free, it isnt intended to be.
Spot on. That's why you should support this topic.
|
Pajama Sam
Copia-WarRages Armaments
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 00:44:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Fille Balle
Spot on. That's why you should support this topic.
First, that makes no sense.
Second, if you're going to do this, just remove insurance completely, not just for ships that get CONCORDOKKEND.
|
Tortugan
Internal Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 01:16:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Tortugan on 04/07/2009 01:16:05
Originally by: Malcanis By all means let's make "insurance" more 'realistic'.
As long as it's balanced by making CONCORD more 'realistic' too.
QFT.
Let's remove insurance from CONCORD deaths and increase CONCORD's response time to 5-10 minutes :)
----
Need Mercenaries? Contact me in-game to hire Internal Anarchy. Killboard |
Xenon Barinade
Caldari Helix Protocol
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 01:30:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Xenon Barinade on 04/07/2009 01:31:31 Wheres the fun in this, gankers make the game fun and you will just kill it if you do this, gankers help the market and also makes couriering deadly and mining interesting. I really am against this idea and like the way gankers work atm.
Ofc in regards to topic, they would be less gankers, the insurance companies are different to concorde (I think) so I guess it is fine :D, insurance to all that die (except mission runners)
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 02:31:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Xenon Barinade Edited by: Xenon Barinade on 04/07/2009 01:31:31 Wheres the fun in this, gankers make the game fun and you will just kill it if you do this, gankers help the market and also makes couriering deadly and mining interesting. I really am against this idea and like the way gankers work atm.
Ofc in regards to topic, they would be less gankers, the insurance companies are different to concorde (I think) so I guess it is fine :D, insurance to all that die (except mission runners)
Your definition of fun differs vastly from mine, apparently. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Endemic Aggression Exalted.
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 06:48:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Laechyd Eldgorn on 04/07/2009 06:48:02 All NPC insurances should be removed and new contract type: insurance made.
-> you can issue insurance contract which reserves certain amount of isk for certain ship type lost and put a price on it. You could also define time period from 1 day to whole year. This could be issued to corp, alliance, private, public etc.
|
Izo Alabaster
Friendly Neighbourhood Extortion Company
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 07:01:00 -
[28]
No.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 10:34:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Furb Killer
Suicide gankign should be done only when there is decent economic profit to be made.
Yes indeed. Just shooting spaceships for fun has NO PLACE in a PvP spaceship game.
What has no place is being subsidized by the game when doing that.
And yes, I am fully aware that could and would include ship replacement losses in missions.
As things stand today I would not be excessively troubled if insurance was removed for older characters or larger ships and not only for CONCORD kills.
|
Nico Minoru
Weird Cat Research
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 14:45:00 -
[30]
Errrr, sorry. This current insurance "scam" is simply and logically wrong.
What book of logic states that any criminal behavior is rewarded and paid for by the same society (hisec empires) that give other penalties for such behavior (sec standing loss)?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |