Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mahai Ano
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 15:52:00 -
[31]
Thumbs up, even if there are quite some whiny yarrs here.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 21:13:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Malcanis on 04/07/2009 21:16:27
Originally by: Venkul Mul
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.
But you're fine with empire carebears getting a massive free protection subsidy.
Or do you think should CONCORD protection be paid for? That would be an excellent idea IMO - instead of basing the concord response time on system sec, base it on the level of the contract you have with them. That gives the gankers their risk level - they cant be sure if they're shooting someone with platimum protection (CONCORD turn up in 5 seconds) or just basic (faction police arrive after 1 minute)
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 21:45:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Malcanis
But you're fine with empire carebears getting a massive free protection subsidy.
Oddly enough, most civilized societies consider it a good practice to protect their law abiding citizens. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 22:01:00 -
[34]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Originally by: Malcanis
But you're fine with empire carebears getting a massive free protection subsidy.
Oddly enough, most civilized societies consider it a good practice to protect their law abiding citizens.
Oddly enough, pod pilots aren't considered citizens.
Oddly enough, policemen normally need paying.
Which way do you want it: are you a citizen with rights - and obligations? Or are you an independent pod pilot with the freedom to do as you please - but with no right to expect protection you contribute nothing towards?
|
Hesod Adee
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 22:15:00 -
[35]
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 22:25:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Malcanis
Oddly enough, pod pilots aren't considered citizens.
I'd be curious to know why you think this. I wasn't aware that we handed in our citizenship when we left orbit.
Originally by: Malcanis
Oddly enough, policemen normally need paying.
Which way do you want it: are you a citizen with rights - and obligations? Or are you an independent pod pilot with the freedom to do as you please - but with no right to expect protection you contribute nothing towards?
Taxes are what normally support public services like crime prevention, not direct payment from citizens. And oddly enough, the EVE empires collect taxes in the form of sales taxes. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
Solo Player
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 01:14:00 -
[37]
Agreed, plus raise insurance costs for frequent victims, too.
|
Ms Murda
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 02:50:00 -
[38]
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.
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.
Hey moron, ccp tried to gimp empire ganking afew times now, so you argument is a fail, think before you blog nub.
/agreed, dont live in empire but pussies who try to pvp in empire without a wardec should be nerfed as mouch as posible
|
Victor Michaelle
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 05:25:00 -
[39]
I support this mainly because the current system really don't make any sense.
How powerful Concord is doesn't really make any sense either though. I would certainly prefer it if Concord ships were possible to beat in a direct confrontation, and possible and not considered an exploit to evade.
|
Uronksur Suth
Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 07:12:00 -
[40]
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.
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.
Supported. And the above post doesn't bother addressing why criminals would receive insurance payouts for their destroyed ships, and for "Suicide ganking"
Since when should blowing up your own vessel, or going kamikaze, or self-destructing yield insurance payouts? The same principle applies to this issue.
|
|
NereSky
The Good old Days
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 07:27:00 -
[41]
Both self destruct and Ship loss through Concorde should invalidate the insurance on the ship -- i totally agree, what insurance company in their right mind would insure ships lost in these circs?
|
Uronksur Suth
Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 07:29:00 -
[42]
Originally by: NereSky Both self destruct and Ship loss through Concorde should invalidate the insurance on the ship -- i totally agree, what insurance company in their right mind would insure ships lost in these circs?
*admits to having done it so he wouldn't have to move his Mining Barge through 0.0*
No one would, but every time its proposed, and I've seen it proposed several times, the pirate community, especially those who go suicide ganking, go absolutely ballistic
|
NereSky
Gallente The Good old Days
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 08:48:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Uronksur Suth
Originally by: NereSky Both self destruct and Ship loss through Concorde should invalidate the insurance on the ship -- i totally agree, what insurance company in their right mind would insure ships lost in these circs?
*admits to having done it so he wouldn't have to move his Mining Barge through 0.0*
No one would, but every time its proposed, and I've seen it proposed several times, the pirate community, especially those who go suicide ganking, go absolutely ballistic
Yep they would wouldnt they
|
Gone'Postal
Void Engineers Mass - Effect
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 09:24:00 -
[44]
Supported.
Originally by: masternerdguy
Officer mods arent spread out because the bpos are innacesible to 99% of eve.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 11:42:00 -
[45]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Originally by: Malcanis
Oddly enough, pod pilots aren't considered citizens.
I'd be curious to know why you think this. I wasn't aware that we handed in our citizenship when we left orbit.
In what meaningful way are pod pilots citizens?
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 11:51:00 -
[46]
Originally by: NereSky Both self destruct and Ship loss through Concorde should invalidate the insurance on the ship -- i totally agree, what insurance company in their right mind would insure ships lost in these circs?
In what circumstances of ship loss would an insurance company pay?
0.0 - never lo-sec - never ratting - never mining in a 0.8 or lower - never missioning - never pirating - never anti-pirating - never war-dec (either side) - never paying 40% above market value for a single 30% premium? - never
"Insurance" in EvE has nothing to do with RL concepts of insurance.
Just as RL concepts of law enforcement have nothing to do with a situation where immortal pilots who are allowed to fly battleships with nuclear weapon around "safe" areas. And where we can pay off the police to ignore huge battles directly outside public ports. You're trying to apply the rules and mores of 21st century western suburban civilization to a a game set in a hypertechnological far future with radically different cultures.
|
Tsumei Meyren
Creative Cookie Procuring
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 13:08:00 -
[47]
One of the silliest proposals ever.
This isn't an issue. I'm sorry, but you're saying criminals should be treated differently from how "legal citizens" are when it comes to finances.
Personal property is personal property, and insurance is not the same as the police, You may notice that you get paid from an insurance company, and not from concord? no? This is because you are insured by the -COMPANY- Not by the police. The contract is simply that when the ship blows up, insurance will be paid out.
It's a non-issue.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 16:59:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Tsumei Meyren One of the silliest proposals ever.
<snip>
It's a non-issue.
For a "silly...non-issue" it sure seems to be generating a lot of support. Doncha think? --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 17:05:00 -
[49]
Edited by: De''Veldrin on 05/07/2009 17:05:47
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: De'Veldrin
I'd be curious to know why you think this. I wasn't aware that we handed in our citizenship when we left orbit.
In what meaningful way are pod pilots citizens?
In the same meaningful way that an infant is. You seem to be laboring under the Heinlein-esque notion of citizenship through service. Of course, by that definition, anyone with a positive faction standing towards one of the empires could be considered a de facto citizen, since they have obviously rendered a service to that empire (they don't just hand out faction standing at the door, now do they?) --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
Oam Mkoll
Caldari The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 18:12:00 -
[50]
Fact: the current ******ed system is making highsec ganking a zero-risk issue. Stupid pirates can mis-gank worthless targets because their ships cost zero. ---
|
|
Jinx Barker
GFB Scientific
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 18:16:00 -
[51]
Removing Insurance for CONCORD Sanctionable actions makes perfect sense. CCP and Devs always said that this game has consequences.
So, Consequences for a carebear who hauls really good stuff is that he will be suicide ganked. Consequences to a ganker is that the carebear's cargo better be worth more than his ship and mods combined w/o insurance.
|
Al'hayat Wolflord
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 20:06:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Jinx Barker Removing Insurance for CONCORD Sanctionable actions makes perfect sense. CCP and Devs always said that this game has consequences.
So, Consequences for a carebear who hauls really good stuff is that he will be suicide ganked. Consequences to a ganker is that the carebear's cargo better be worth more than his ship and mods combined w/o insurance.
This really does sound like a no brainer. Oh wait, because it is! CCP, fix it like you promised! |
Cor Aidan
Imperium Forces Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 20:42:00 -
[53]
I won't support removing insurance payouts for some arbitrary criteria like "CONCORD Involvement" (because just what constitutes "involvement" in the first place?).
A better solution which would solve this and many other issues that I've been tossing around: The SCC decides that it needs to be profitable so changes premiums so that the total premiums it takes in are always some percentage higher than what it pays out. This could be based on ship class or globally; I've not spent much time on it other than the initial idea.
The other alternative is to remove insurance completely (though this would not solve one of the other issues with insurance that having variable premiums would solve). (I don't even like the idea "keep insurance for ships sized A and B" as that's arbitrary). After all, when you've basically got a 100% chance of having a ship destroyed, what company would insure it and hope to make a profit?
|
Hesod Adee
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 20:56:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Tsumei Meyren One of the silliest proposals ever.
This isn't an issue. I'm sorry, but you're saying criminals should be treated differently from how "legal citizens" are when it comes to finances.
Personal property is personal property, and insurance is not the same as the police, You may notice that you get paid from an insurance company, and not from concord? no? This is because you are insured by the -COMPANY- Not by the police. The contract is simply that when the ship blows up, insurance will be paid out.
It's a non-issue.
Don't most insurance companies refuse to payout on damage you intentionally caused to your own stuff ?
Wouldn't triggering CONCORD count as intentional damage ?
Originally by: Cor Aidan I won't support removing insurance payouts for some arbitrary criteria like "CONCORD Involvement" (because just what constitutes "involvement" in the first place?).
CONCORD involvement: You did something that makes CONCORD want to blow your ship up. In this case you attacked an unaggressed target in high sec.
Sure PvP is going to be very high risk. But only triggering CONCORD is guaranteed to destroy your ship.
|
Uronksur Suth
Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 22:06:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Originally by: Malcanis
Oddly enough, pod pilots aren't considered citizens.
I'd be curious to know why you think this. I wasn't aware that we handed in our citizenship when we left orbit.
In what meaningful way are pod pilots citizens?
We pay taxes. We join militias. We run missions for empire corporations.
|
tartan pixie
Minmatar Connoisseurs Of Hallucination
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 00:04:00 -
[56]
While i agree that suicide ganking is currently risk free, high sec mining is pretty much risk free too. In this thread some pirates claim that killing 168 hulks is a good bragging number yet it must only be a tiny fraction of all the hulks in empire so the issue has been blown out of all proportion by paranoid idiots.
Even as a manufacturer and trader who routinely moves high value goods in empire i believe high sec is too safe and each time the whiners succeed in getting another nerf applied to high sec piracy the game gets a bit more sterile.
Would only support the proposal if greater risk vs reward was applied to both sides of the equation, eg by increasing concord response times in 0.4 and 0.5 and moving the best ores to these systems or some other means to make your proposal balanced.
Without balance this is just another step on the road to this.
sig---------------------------------------------
No your honour my defence is that the pixies did it in the middle of the night. Prove me wrong. |
Theodore Kaczynski
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 07:26:00 -
[57]
Not supported. Insurance doesn't make suicide ganking risk free, and suicide ganking has already been nerfed. This thread is full of whiners who want highsec mining to be 100% safe - and it shouldn't be, not in a game like EVE. Otherwise EVE loses that which makes it unique in the first place. And no, suicide ganking isn't risk free, like some in this thread are claiming. Insurance might make it profitable if done right, but one runs into the risk of trying to gank a pilot who has basic fitting knowledge. In such a case, the ganker loses his ship, gets a criminal countdown, and loses sec status (which takes a very long time to recover).
"Realism" is an idiotic reason to change such a game mechanic. Unless those who want "realism" also want a 15 or so minute response delay on CONCORD intervention.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 08:35:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Oam Mkoll Fact: the current ******ed system is making highsec ganking a zero-risk issue. Stupid pirates can mis-gank worthless targets because their ships cost zero.
They dont cost zero. The ships themselves cost marginally above zero; then they must be fitted.
And there is a significant non-zero time factor, plus the sec hit.
God we had all this last year. CCP increased the penalties for ganking already, AND improved CONORD response time quite a bit as well. I said then that it was futile to do so because however much they increased the sec hit, carebears like you would never be satisfied until they were perfectly safe. Whatever you get, you always demand more safety, more NPC protection.
Tell you what: let's be fair. Let's just remove insurance altogether.
|
Nidhiesk
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 11:44:00 -
[59]
Quote: EVE loses that which makes it unique in the first place
I hear this alot in this thread. This means what ? that ganking is highsec is very unique to Eve ? Don't make me laugh...its a pathetic reason. First and foremost, think of the insurance company thats in Eve. Would you as a CEO (that tries to make ISK) would want to "give" an insurance service to a ganker or someone that goes to low or zero sec when you know yourself that theres a high risk of losing that ship...hell no. No company or no agent would give a service to a person considered dangerous like that. Your company would go bankrupt.
Ok, I used the story and logic behind eve to get this argument which makes sense by me. This proposal wont make ganker disappear...just more selective
p.s: I also hear lots of pirates go beserk when they hear the word carebear and hates them to their bones..well wake up, its because of them your flying that shiny ship.. lmao.. dumb a**
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 11:54:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Oam Mkoll Fact: the current ******ed system is making highsec ganking a zero-risk issue. Stupid pirates can mis-gank worthless targets because their ships cost zero.
They dont cost zero. The ships themselves cost marginally above zero; then they must be fitted.
And there is a significant non-zero time factor, plus the sec hit.
The sec hit is laughable, and frankly a non-issue, since you can roll up an alt to do your shopping, and if worse comes to worse, you can roll up another gank alt in under a week. Let's face it, all it has to be able to do is fly a destroyer and fit moderate weapons, as long as you can run in a pack. Hell you can eve go ratting and get your security hit back. So don't feed me this "we lose security status" like it actually means anything to you. If it meant something, you wouldn't be ganking people, amirite?
As for the rest of it - no, I don't want to be completely safe. I do, however, demand that people suffer the consequences for their choices. I chose to undock my ship, so yes, that means I chose to be available for non-consenual PvP - absolutely. Nothing I can about that, except fit the best tank I can, and hope it's enough.
However, you chose to throw your ship away - you chose to lose that ship, it's fittings, and the related sec status for attacking a neutral target in High Security space. So come down off your "save the gankers" high horse like you're some kind of a martyr for suffering those things. You nailed yourself to that cross. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |