EVE Search - Terrorism in Eve Online as a tool for forcing game design change

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Terrorism in Eve Online as a tool for forcing game design change

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Megan Maynard Minmatar Clown Punchers. Clown Punchers Syndicate	Posted - 2009.12.21 02:35:00 - [91] I like the idea, player controlled insurance should be the ONLY option. Originally by: F'nog Originally by: Stareatthesun No no no ... Polaris is where CCP keeps the death star that will destroy eve when the servers shut down. Thankfully I've got Interceptors trained to V. S
Allen Ramses Caldari Typo Corp	Posted - 2009.12.21 03:01:00 - [92] Wow, Bellum Eternus using a wall of text to QQ about something as a way to mask his hate for bears? What an original and exciting concept! Anyway, the only thing that needs to go is the 40% unconditional payout. The 2:1 payout (without the 40% on top of it) is more than acceptable. 'Nuff said. ____________ I'd make a forum signature that didn't suck, but I'm restricted by a character limit that does.
Destrous Light Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.21 03:16:00 - [93] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Once insurance is removed, then all mineral prices will reach a true market equilibrium because there is no artificial cap on what their price will be due to insurance payouts. What we'll see are less expensive ships, although the amount of ISK per loss will increase. Both of these are good things. Currently people fly the largest most powerful ship they can because it doesn't cost much more than the smaller versions. If insurance goes away then some of the smaller ships like T1 cruisers and BCs will increase in popularity due to better cost per performance. I'd just like to point out two things, if insurance creates a base price for minerals, then how is the insurance fraud industry possible at all? (hint: if that was actually the case, minerals would cost more than they do now) And second, haven't you noticed that flying those big powerful ships makes the game more fun? What makes you think removing the "average" players ability to fly those on a regular basis will increase the number of pvp pilots there are? I like the idea that there are "special" ships that give basically no insurance, they're more powerful or more specialized or just give you that all important epeen. But at the same time, an average pilot making little if any actual isk can still pvp basically whenver he wants thanks to insurance.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.12.21 03:35:00 - [94] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 21/12/2009 03:37:44 Whats the OP on about anyway? Apart from the fact that a single individual rarely has the option to turn "mined minerals" into "automobile", thats exactly how it works in the real world. Its actually a basic industrial concept that a finished product is worth more than the sum of its parts (including the worktime put into it) ... Now removing insurance coverage from stuff that gets destroyed by police (aka concord) might be a sound concept, as well as increasing premiums for people claiming 300 insurance contracts a day, but the basic idea of 100% insurance is sound (and works in the real world).
Taedrin Gallente The Green Cross DEFI4NT	Posted - 2009.12.21 03:39:00 - [95] Originally by: Megan Maynard I like the idea, player controlled insurance should be the ONLY option. Hexxx alt spotted. ---------- There is always a choice. The choice might not be easy, nor simple, nor the options be what you desire - but, nevertheless, the choice is there to be made.
Governor LePetomane Rock Ridge Brokerage Solutions	Posted - 2009.12.21 04:25:00 - [96] Originally by: Bellum Eternus And everyone posting in this thread are just super smart, right? Right? This proposition and the condition, "Bellum Eternus has posted in thread" are mutually exclusive.
Professor Tarantula Hedion University	Posted - 2009.12.21 04:41:00 - [97] Ship insurance should work like car insurance does. Any damage you do to other ships while in hisec is reimbursed to them through your insurance policy, and your price for insurance goes up. Flying without any kind of insurance will make CONCORD keep impounding your ships. My deepest sympathies. Prof. Tarantula, Esq.
Stuart Price Caldari The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2009.12.21 04:47:00 - [98] Personally, I won't be happy until ALL Empire systems are basically lowsec, GCC is removed from 'actual' lowsec, stations have windows and a full sixty second redock timer and I can shoot actual beams of burning plasma from my eyes. I can see entirely why CCP wouldn't agree with my line of thinking though. While I'm on the wish bus can I have people whose characters are more than 3 months old be incapable of being in an npc corp? Force them into a 1 man corp of their very own if you have to CCP, cunningly titled, "This Character's Corporation". Oh yeah, and the insurance thing. SOME insurance is good, crazy levels of insurance is bad. Remove the ability to insure at platinum if you've lost a ship within 7 days. Job done. Putting the 'irate' into 'Pirate'
Ghoest	Posted - 2009.12.21 04:51:00 - [99] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Yep. Myself and a few of my mates are going to become terrorists in game in the hope of forcing CCP to change their game design. The issue is insurance. It's a huge ISK faucet, and when exploited on an industrial scale it's capable of dumping literally hundreds of billions of raw ISK into the game every month. This is a bad thing. Carebears want insurance removed from suicide ganking payouts but they don't want the insurance removed from their own ships. I simply want insurance removed completely from every ship, at every level. Let new characters enjoy a three month grace period of insurance use and ban people for using 'insurance alts' for insurance fraud, just like you would if you were using alts as disposable hitmen and recycling them after their sec is ruined. Right now it's very easy to use a T1 fit Geddon as an example and have the total loss be around 4m ISK after insurance. I can kill just about any sort of smallish cruiser size ship solo in high sec with this, and I can kill BCs and BS with only a pair or maybe three or four. No ship is safe in highsec with some simple tactics and a little bit of coordination from a few friends. Ramp up the scale and you can kill freighters and Orcas quite easily. But my goal isn't to simply kill freighters. It's to make CCP sit up and take notice of the horribly broken game design that is insurance. Currently there are multiple players that are self destructing ships on a literally industrial scale, making tens of billions of raw ISK per month with 'insurance fraud'. This causes inflation and will in the long term hurt the economy. So I'm going to start using this mechanism to inflict the pain of financial loss upon as many players as possible so that they now have a direct and personal stake in seeing insurance removed from the game completely. Is this griefing? Absolutely not. I'm profiting from my actions, so it's piracy. Completely legit gameplay. Insurance simply facilitates my particular tactics, and once those are made obsolete by the removal of insurance, I'll revert to more traditional ways of doing things. The in game killings will continue on as wide a scale as possible until the game is changed for the better with the removal of insurance. Anyone interested in assisting me with this campaign of militant destruction can contact me in game. The more the merrier. Oh, and one more thing- jump freighter pilots, we're coming for you. LOL I quote the silly giant post. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.12.21 04:56:00 - [100] No insurance scheme more complex than 'it blows up and you get isk' would ever get introduced. Too much room for gaming the system. KISS If CCP has any plans for removing insurance or changing it, they'll never tell us until it's deployed due to market manipulation.
NEMESIS SIN FURY.	Posted - 2009.12.21 05:13:00 - [101] From this moment on, you and this south park episode will forever be tied together in my mind. Linkage Kiss <3
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2009.12.21 05:23:00 - [102] Originally by: Professor Tarantula Ship insurance should work like car insurance does. Any damage you do to other ships while in hisec is reimbursed to them through your insurance policy, and your price for insurance goes up. Flying without any kind of insurance will make CONCORD keep impounding your ships. EVE Online - now with real insurance action!. I like it. _____________________ R.I.P Old face
Par'Gellen Gallente Tres Hombres Psychiatric Hospital Uno Chica Loco	Posted - 2009.12.21 05:25:00 - [103] I agree with Bellum 150% about the insurance fraud -> inflation issue. I don't like his method of trying to get CCP to get off their asses and do something about it though... In the end it may be the only way to get through their thick skulls but it still seems rather harsh. In my opinion there should be no payouts on self-destruct, sentry gun, or CONCORD kills. The other types of kills are what insurance is in the game for in the first place. On a daily basis I find myself wondering how devs that can create a game as wonderful as Eve can get some aspects of it so completely and totally assbackward wrong. --- To err is human but it shouldn't be the company motto...
Saint Germain The Orthography Commandos	Posted - 2009.12.21 05:45:00 - [104] How about having the insurance company replace your ship instead of paying out cash? If they buy the nearest available replacement ship from the market then it even supports player industry. Text Editing Service
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2009.12.21 06:03:00 - [105] Originally by: Saint Germain How about having the insurance company replace your ship instead of paying out cash? If they buy the nearest available replacement ship from the market then it even supports player industry. There's no way to do it that's fair to the manufacturers and balanced in terms of isk injection. The system can't fairly know how much or little to pay for a ship everywhere in the universe _____________________ R.I.P Old face
Jitko	Posted - 2009.12.21 07:00:00 - [106] Because no one answered me directly, I take it my understanding was correct: insurance keeps ship prices stable, so it creates a price floor on minerals. Right?
Esercitare	Posted - 2009.12.21 07:03:00 - [107] eve economy doesnt count for anything \thread.
Kirsi Kirjasto	Posted - 2009.12.21 07:20:00 - [108] Actually the OP is missing the point. In my opinion, this is a fantastic situation. Its well known that wardec mechanics are kind of FUBAR, due to the relative simplicity of evading it through NPC corps or corp hopping. Strategic targets like haulers and Hulks are generally never going to be in a position to be attacked during any wardec, barring sheer incompetence. Aggressive economic hi-sec war is REALLY possible now - waged entirely by suicide ganking, especially with the new high-alpha artillery. 1. Pick out individual miners mining in Hulks - and blow them up with a single Arty-BS. 2. Give them 'the black spot' - and a ransom note for several hundred million. 3. After the grace period expires, if no ransom is paid, track them with address books and locator agents. 4. Blow them up again and again until they get the message. Eventually they either pay - or are forced to start mining in Retrievers/Ospreys again. 5. If a CEO threatens you with petitions - extend the threat to the ENTIRE corp, using a standing flag to quickly identify them, and increase the ransom five-fold. Ransoms from targeted miners/bearcorps more than pay for further punitive action against those that are defiant. Some of them whine that this is 'griefing' and actually petition us, and it makes us LOL. Complain to CCP = ransom request go away? Don't think so. All actions taken are within legal game mechanics, and we acknowledge that others are perfectly free to do the same to us. Advantages: - Targets can NOT escape by dropping corp. In fact, these individuals are singled out for 'special' attention. - No weekly wardec fee - Complete suprise - local chat is no longer effective radar. (no WT flags, alts avoid neg standing flags) - Targets end up 'always' having to be alert and afraid - they can't just 'wait out' the dec. Disadvantages: - expense of ships (though this is rather negligible now) - sec status grinding required to stay in hi-sec. - you collect dozens and dozens of 'kill rights' - which means you have to be alert, even if they are 'just miners' Blowing up random Hulks is fine - but when you start concentrating on a single player or group of players, forcing interaction with them becomes much more interesting - and profitable. After all, it takes 40-50 hours of hi-sec mining to pay for a rigged and fitted Hulk. Finding the miner takes only minutes - and blowing them up takes mere seconds.
Elena Laskova	Posted - 2009.12.21 07:35:00 - [109] Edited by: Elena Laskova on 21/12/2009 07:38:25 Originally by: Par'Gellen .... On a daily basis I find myself wondering how devs that can create a game as wonderful as Eve can get some aspects of it so completely and totally assbackward wrong. TLDR: the easy way deal with a complex problem is to hide from it: if you dont change anything, maybe your problems won't get worse. The "Law of Unintended Consequences" says that anything which is done to change a complex system will have unforseen counterproductive side-effects. And of course any system which allows for personal gain will be "gamed" by people. These issues can sometimes be addressed by active tuning of the system. MMO suppliers don't do this because they don't have to. Their customers are in denial, so they can ignore the facts too. I read somewhere that CCP has a serious professional economist on staff, so they probably know that EvE's economy is deeply flawed. But that's not the point: change means risk. And like EvE's players, they talk risk=reward, but avoid risk. The easy plan is always "change nothing and it won't get any worse". We'll know CCP wants to fix the economy if/when they do something about the T3 mess.
Eliza Dagon Amarr	Posted - 2009.12.21 07:36:00 - [110] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Yep. Myself and a few of my mates are going to become terrorists in game in the hope of forcing CCP to change their game design. . Fail. And boring, too. Suck it up and quit being a pu$$y... Oh, and I get the impression you're too stupid to understand what you're talking about.
Clenis Wooden Wang Enterprises	Posted - 2009.12.21 07:51:00 - [111] Nerfing insurance is a stupid idea. You will see one change. People will no longer use bcs to suicide others. Cruisers and bses will still be viable because highsec idiots will still deadspace fit their ships, which is what makes it all viable. So, if your goal is hurt bc producers, you're on the right track. Otherwise, you're just an idiot.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.21 08:04:00 - [112] Originally by: Jitko Because no one answered me directly, I take it my understanding was correct: insurance keeps ship prices stable, so it creates a price floor on minerals. Right? Correct. Insurance payout minus the insurance cost fixes the minimum price for each ship. Anything lower than that and the ship can be insured and destroyed for a profit. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
LittleTerror Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.21 08:08:00 - [113] Op is a clueless moron... Removing insurance will only cause the market to collapse making prices plummet to a level which would eventually balance out to what people would be willing to pay/lose. It would ruin any chance of finding decent pvp because people would be too scare of losing their ships without insurance and as for titans and cap ships you could simple forget it.
Melor Rend	Posted - 2009.12.21 08:26:00 - [114] Your idea has merit but there is one main issue that I can't see how you'll get around it: security status. You can go out on your terrorist killing spree and murder a few people but very soon you'll be falshy red and have to go grind sec status for 3 weeks until you can re-enter highsec. Using recycled alts is out of the question (bannable offence) so you have about 3-5 kills per character until you have to go to 0.0 and grind sec status. Beside this small flaw your idea is good.
Elena Laskova	Posted - 2009.12.21 08:50:00 - [115] Edited by: Elena Laskova on 21/12/2009 08:51:32 So many PvPers crying over actually being exposed to ISK-risk. This thread is almost as good as the "Mothership" one. Rookies get told they are wimps if they care about their losses. It seems high-SP players get to squeal like little piglets if they might face significant losses. Face it whiners: the only good reason for insurance is to make PvP more attractive to rookies. And since the majority of EvE players view ganking and insulting helpless rookies as a solemn duty, it's pointless for that purpose. Non-rookies have to accept the costs of PvP (or get even better at running away from it). Remove insurance. The only people it actually helps are those who least deserve it. EvE's economy should be built on player's time (the only real resource in the game), not insurance. It will be better for taking away the fake floor on some ship prices.
LittleTerror Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.21 09:01:00 - [116] Edited by: LittleTerror on 21/12/2009 09:03:46 Because high end players understand the effects it would have, hell most of the rookies or non pvpers would probably quit the game upon losing a battleship without insurance If they had started this game without insurance it could have worked out but try and remove it now and it will be a disaster. obviously you don't understand supply and demand and have never lost a fully T2 fitted ship which last time I checked can bring a loss of well over 100mill and that's with insurance. More grinding isk = less pvp = boring game.
Elena Laskova	Posted - 2009.12.21 09:07:00 - [117] Edited by: Elena Laskova on 21/12/2009 09:14:56 Apart from rookies, who exactly will be hurt by removing insurance? And how? If you're really trying to say "high-SP players will be scared to PvP, therefore ship-manufacturers will be affected", please do it in clear text. Edit(after yours): lol - you did it. I already know high-SP players talk up a storm about ignoring losses, but fight in cheap ships, or require their Corp to replace losses. See my post above: The most notably insane thing about EvE's economy is that T2 and T3 ships are stupidly expensive. I'm staying away from T2 because it's "water under the bridge". But T3 represents a chance to fix the worst distortions in EvE's economy. Currently being passed up by CCP, because EvE's players are so frightened of change they won't let CCP make major changes.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.21 09:13:00 - [118] Originally by: Melor Rend Your idea has merit but there is one main issue that I can't see how you'll get around it: security status. You can go out on your terrorist killing spree and murder a few people but very soon you'll be falshy red and have to go grind sec status for 3 weeks until you can re-enter highsec. Using recycled alts is out of the question (bannable offence) so you have about 3-5 kills per character until you have to go to 0.0 and grind sec status. Beside this small flaw your idea is good. Lol. Just check my killboard. I'm already -10 and downed three Hulks earlier today. I would have killed more, but there weren't more than three in easy reach. Plus I ran out of Tempests to experiment with. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.12.21 09:23:00 - [119] Originally by: Elena Laskova Remove insurance. The only people it actually helps are those who least deserve it. Strong words from someone who hasnt even been playing for long enough to get their forum avatar.
Vysnaite Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.12.21 09:24:00 - [120] lol That is all... Not really. So your saying: I will suicide attack other ships that are insured, with my own insured ship? I'm sorry but this is an intended game mechanic called pvp. FYI Terrorism is largely a failcascade, but it gets a lot of attention.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.