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)
Forge Lag Jita Lag Preservation Fund	Posted - 2009.12.22 18:35:00 - [241] Yeah it is kinda funny that communist gestures end up getting against whom they were ment to protect in the first place - here insurance makes ships considerably less affordable for new players while not really helping covering loses. It is BC, BS and capital pilots who profit from insurance most. Unfortunately completely removing insurance would obsolete half or more of BSs. Sure, budget minded people like me would hop into BB and be fine as always.
Bicx	Posted - 2009.12.22 18:36:00 - [242] Edited by: Bicx on 22/12/2009 18:40:16 1) Insurance is removed 2) Ship and mod prices go down a little, but not much due to still-high mineral prices. "Power sellers" use their ability to mass produce ships at extremely slim profit margins, pushing out smaller manufacturers who see no way to compete and make any considerable ISK (think Wal-mart vs the vegetable stand) 3) Fewer and fewer ships are destroyed due to inability to commit "fraud" and due to increased desire to stay in one piece :) 4) The market is flooded with minerals, and supply exceeds demand. Mineral prices begin plummeting. Miners start crying. 5) The manufacturing newbies think they can make a comeback, but their sucky BPOs and limited production capability still don't allow them to compete with more advanced manufacturers because there is no price floor. 6) The mineral market begins to adjust to demand after players find that they can make much more ISK doing something else like running lvl IV missions, begin trading in other goods, or just quit playing as much. It's not like mining is that fun and exciting in itself. It's a means to an end. 7) With supply dropping to meet the decrease in demand, mineral prices slowly begin to increase. 8) The mineral supply and demand reaches an equilibrium, and the result is that mining is no longer a viable career for some, just like in the real world. Who wins? Experienced, well-skilled manufacturers who can survive the removal of a market floor, as well as most non-industrial players who now pay lower prices. Who loses? Miners, and small manufacturers who need a price floor to compete (meaning only material costs determine the majority of profit margins). Sure, ships may now be more affordable for them, but it all depends on how much the market changes. It also depends on whether or not miners set their own price floor. Personally I think at some point, miners just won't sell any lower, or enough miners leave the market to allow those with market power to set a floor. Anyway, that's my guess. I could be overlooking something. Either way, I don't think it's going to have that significant of an effect. I don't think the insurance system is being taken advantage of as much as some believe.
Destrous Light Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.22 18:37:00 - [243] Originally by: Tippia Actually, they do to some extent, and insurance is the mechanism that allows them to do this. Right now, it is their fault if they sell too low because they could have gotten more out of their minerals by blowing them up in the way illustrated earlier û if they sell for less than that, they're just being silly (or, rather, they have no interest in making money, which raises the question why they put the minerals on the market to begin with)à You assume the average miner also has the capabilities to manufacture with the appropriate skills that make insurance fraud possible. Odds are that's not the case for the "average player" trying to make a living in high sec.
Ryusoath Orillian Minmatar INDUSTIENCE	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:09:00 - [244] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Because when I kill someone's ship, I want them to LOSE THE VALUE OF THAT SHIP. Not just what they had fitted on it. Or in the case of a T1 fit BS, actually make money on the LOSS FFS. and there it is. i knew you'd say it if waited. this is a ****ing game. do you understand ? A GAME. its supposed to be fun.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:28:00 - [245] Originally by: Ryusoath Orillian Originally by: Bellum Eternus Because when I kill someone's ship, I want them to LOSE THE VALUE OF THAT SHIP. Not just what they had fitted on it. Or in the case of a T1 fit BS, actually make money on the LOSS FFS. and there it is. i knew you'd say it if waited. this is a ****ing game. do you understand ? A GAME. its supposed to be fun. Chess is a fun game, but no-one wins if you get your peices back when they are captured. アニメ漫画です
Jagga Spikes Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:32:00 - [246] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Ryusoath Orillian Originally by: Bellum Eternus Because when I kill someone's ship, I want them to LOSE THE VALUE OF THAT SHIP. Not just what they had fitted on it. Or in the case of a T1 fit BS, actually make money on the LOSS FFS. and there it is. i knew you'd say it if waited. this is a ****ing game. do you understand ? A GAME. its supposed to be fun. Chess is a fun game, but no-one wins if you get your peices back when they are captured. riiight. your have to bring your own pieces, and if you lose your opponent breaks them into smithereens. then you have to work for hours for new set before you can play again. /sarcasm off
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Undivided	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:42:00 - [247] Quote: riiight. your have to bring your own pieces, and if you lose your opponent breaks them into smithereens. then you have to work for hours for new set before you can play again. /sarcasm off If you're dumb and dump all your ISK into one ship then yes, that's true.
davet517 Raata Invicti Undivided	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:45:00 - [248] The problem is self-balancing. Insurance serves as a base level price support for miners. If things (battleships mostly) get too cheap, people start blowing them up for the insurance until they get more expensive again. For a long time the price of shuttles (which was fixed) supported tritanium prices. That was changed a while back. Anything that you are likely to do will only help the economy rebalance itself, unless you start mining in high-sec and building battleships that you sell as if the mins you mined were "free", then you'll be contributing to the underlying reason that some battleships are selling for less than insurance payout. Sounds to me like you just want to do some suicide ganking, and you're looking for a way to justify it in the name of "fixing" the game. If role-playing the crusading terrorist is fun for you, cool, but it will neither have much of an impact on the economy itself nor will it put any pressure at all on CCP to change the game in the way you have in mind. If too many people follow your lead, they'll just make it harder and more expensive to suicide gank. ---------------- We're recruiting quality players. Check us out.
Weredel	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:47:00 - [249] Successful troll is successful...
Transmit Failure	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:49:00 - [250] Originally by: Jagga Spikes Originally by: Transmit Failure .... you are contradicting yourself. if "effective price of a T1 ship is zero for those that are in the know", how is it possible that "removing insurance will not change anything in Eve Online in terms of real prices"? if a pilot after insurance payoff pays 0 ISK to replace ship, without insurance payoff he would have to pay 0 ISK, as well. no matter how much miners enjoy mining, i doubt they would go that low. considering T2 fit and rigs prices will not significantly change No idea if I'm just not explaining myself adequately or you're just not getting it. For those that maximize utility when playing the game by maximizing their assets, the effective price is zero. For those that put a fun premium on certain activities, blowing up ships to collect insurance is actually a losing proposition to them, so the worth of their ships is NOT zero. I'm also assuming that you know demand curves are downward sloping so that when the price for all ships is no longer zero, there simply won't be as much output of t1 ships, not that no ships at all will be supplied and demanded in the market. A person may demand 10,000 ships if the price is zero, but demand 3 if the price is 10 million ISK. In this way there are still commodities on the market and the market will not collapse.* Minerals will still be worth something because the price of ships will still not be negative or zero. As to the other person that responded to me, I have no better way to explain the differences between what I said and what you said that I said, so I shan't comment any further.
Andrea Griffin	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:05:00 - [251] Removal of insurance from the game would be interesting. It would make losing a larger ship more meaningful. If losing battlecruisers and battleships becomes an actual loss, then we might see more people in smaller ships. It would be interesting to see what would happen with insurance removed... could even have an in-game reason for it. Due to widespread insurance fraud, Eve's insurance company has been forced into bankruptcy and has had to fold. Make the game insurance-free for a month or two, then introduce a revamped insurance system with a new company.
Rhanna Khurin Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:11:00 - [252] Do not have to remove insurance, merely remove it from self destruct and being concordokkened which is realistic.
Guttripper Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:15:00 - [253] There needs to be a popcorn eating emote, since this is one of the better threads I have read in a while. Seriously.
Rhanna Khurin Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:20:00 - [254] Originally by: Guttripper There needs to be a popcorn eating emote, since this is one of the better threads I have read in a while. Seriously. Maybe not an emote, but there sure is a gif
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:30:00 - [255] 25% insurance reduction will be fine imo posting in orange make you look like a moderator -fact
Zeredek Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:32:00 - [256] Insurance is not broken, it doesn't need to be fix'd _________________ rawr
Alt0101	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:53:00 - [257] Actually the insurance system works as a huge machine to "refine" ore into ISK. you can mine ore, refine it into minerals, manufacture a ship, blow it up and collect the cash... Rinse and repeat. Hell, CCP should make Roids to yield ISK straight away for the sake of time saving! Now seriously, the destruction of commodities should be a sink of ISK not a fountain..
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.22 21:13:00 - [258] Edited by: Tippia on 22/12/2009 21:17:02 Originally by: Transmit Failure As to the other person that responded to me, I have no better way to explain the differences between what I said and what you said that I said, so I shan't comment any further. I'm saying that the costs won't change; you're saying that no, the costs won't change… If you can't explain the "no", then perhaps it shouldn't be there. Originally by: Rhanna Khurin Do not have to remove insurance, merely remove it from self destruct and being concordokkened which is realistic. Realism isn't particularly relevant – it's a control mechanism for the economy, not a business. In addition, in those two cases in particular, it wouldn't really serve a good purpose. Originally by: Alt0101 Now seriously, the destruction of commodities should be a sink of ISK not a fountain.. It's already an item sink. Why should it be an ISK sink as well? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Sean Faust Gallente Swarm of Angry Bees	Posted - 2009.12.22 21:35:00 - [259] Edited by: Sean Faust on 22/12/2009 21:35:28 I dislike the idea of Insurance but not for the same reasons as you, Bellum. You see, I myself love flying T2 ships. I love my HACs and my Recons. But I can't bring them on alliance ops because it's all about fighting "cost effectively" which means BS gangs or drake armies because theyre "insurable" and thats the only thing that makes them more cost effective than ships such as HACs and Command Ships. If Insurance is nerfed or removed completely then I think we will see a lot more players running around in T2 ships which will take the PVP aspect of the game to a whole new level. Right now, the concept of insurance and how it currently works is essentially an anchor, making it so that even the most seasoned PVP veterans would rather bring a "throwaway" T1 ship to many gangs than T2. Take away that anchor and everyone will be upping their PVP game by bringing out the "good" ships a lot more often. And that isn't bad.
Dr Cron Northern Lights Number 5 Hydroponic Zone	Posted - 2009.12.22 22:05:00 - [260] Not Supported. Logic Fail. Stop making problems where there aren't any. The economy is perfectly suited to deal with this issue. If it aint broke... dont fix it. And stop attention whoring.
Alt0101	Posted - 2009.12.22 22:09:00 - [261] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Alt0101 Now seriously, the destruction of commodities should be a sink of ISK not a fountain.. It's already an item sink. Why should it be an ISK sink as well? Because an item is nothing but a bunch of minerals. Minerals spawn everyday in the form of roids and T1 loot. So, if you have a system to change minerals (ships/mods) into ISk (insurance payout) you have a daily spawn of ISK into the economy which create inflation.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.22 22:15:00 - [262] Originally by: Alt0101 Originally by: Tippia It's already an item sink. Why should it be an ISK sink as well? Because an item is nothing but a bunch of minerals. Minerals spawn everyday in the form of roids and T1 loot. So, if you have a system to change minerals (ships/mods) into ISk (insurance payout) you have a daily spawn of ISK into the economy which create inflation. So you're advocating that we remove missions and bounties and commodities, I take it? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Alt0101	Posted - 2009.12.22 23:14:00 - [263] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Alt0101 Originally by: Tippia It's already an item sink. Why should it be an ISK sink as well? Because an item is nothing but a bunch of minerals. Minerals spawn everyday in the form of roids and T1 loot. So, if you have a system to change minerals (ships/mods) into ISk (insurance payout) you have a daily spawn of ISK into the economy which create inflation. So you're advocating that we remove missions and bounties and commodities, I take it? No, these are actually the fountains of Isk into the system and should be like that ( we need Isk don't we?) but also should be some sort of isk sink to make the system a bit more "steady" A good way to get rid of the extra isk that come with the bounties and mission rewards by the mission runners/ratters/explorers AND the extra minerals that spawn in the roids and get mined by miners is destroying the final product made by manufactures by the pvp guys. That's what I think is a "steady" system in where everybody plays a role.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.22 23:32:00 - [264] Originally by: Selrid Miamarr I don't understand why you think removing insurance will make ships cheaper. A 20-30% reduction in list price with no insurance only makes them cheaper if they never get destroyed. If they do get blasted, they cost 70-80% more not factoring in the total loss in rigs and modules. I also don't understand how that would make the mineral market crash. You'd have to see a drastic reduction in the number of ships "consumed" in battle to see oversupply even more than exists now, and a corresponding price crash of the base materials. Especially since EVE, unlike other games, uses the same base mats for categories across the board. The argument about your own level of risk is that players vary in terms of playstyle, and it does matter in terms of insurance. A small corporation will feel the bite much more keenly than a large established 0.0 alliance, and you have to factor this in. It's a very bad idea in this game especially to only design for the 0.0 crowd, or empire crowd, as they have much different levels of risk. I'm also very unsure about your reasons supporting it. No ISK faucets will have to correspond to less use and consumption of ships, since people will have less money to purchase them. If insurance fraud is a problem, fix the fraud. You shouldn't remove something based on abuse if lots of people use it as intended. The cheaper ships argument makes zero sense, as you will have more expensive ships overall because you eat the full loss when they get destroyed. A kill removing ISK would be a very strong ISK sink, and would seriously deflate the economy. I've seen the effects of such sinks in other games-they can hurt players very much because the value of assets collapse and they lose tremendous value in items in a short period of time, with no guarantee of a market correction soon. A reason to keep insurance is that it gives a base payout to cover the real cost and ISK sink, loss of rigs, modules, and even implants if podded. You are looking at people suiciding unmodded ships with no pod loss. When the system works as intended, there is tremendous ISK loss relative to the value of the ship, and insurance prevents that from being total. I don't understand what is so difficult about this- The peak cost of ships will decrease once insurance is removed. Oversupply? Every ship priced under the insurance payout break even point is instantly bought and insured and self destructed. Once all those same ships are built but not destroyed due to insurance fraud there is your massive oversupply. Industrialists and miners will continue to overproduce if insurance goes away, simply because they can do it relatively AFK. It's the stuff that costs hard man-hours that remains expensive (see T3). Insurance subsidizes mineral prices, otherwise minerals would be driven into the dirt. So be it. Eventually they'll get a clue. And as for cheaper ships, but more 'real loss': DUH. That's the WHOLE POINT. The ships will cost less relative to other existing ships (T2) but now it'll actually cost you something when you lose one instead of MAKING ISK on the loss. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.22 23:43:00 - [265] Originally by: Alt0101 No, these are actually the fountains of Isk into the system and should be like that ( we need Isk don't we?) Yes we do, so why should the ISK faucet that is insurance be removed and not those when they all do the same thing? Quote: but also should be some sort of isk sink to make the system a bit more "steady" So the ones that exist are not enough? Quote: That's what I think is a "steady" system in where everybody plays a role. Everyone already do. PvE in general creates ISK and items (rewards, bounties, loot, salvage). Running missions, in particular, destroy ISK and convert items (LP store). PvP combat creates ISK and destroy or convert items (insurance, ammo, ship→salvage). Industry create or convert items and destroy ISK (mining, manufacturing). Traders destroy ISK (fees and taxes). …in the ciiiiiiircle of EVE… ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Kyra Felann Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies	Posted - 2009.12.23 00:21:00 - [266] Originally by: Ryusoath Orillian Originally by: Bellum Eternus Because when I kill someone's ship, I want them to LOSE THE VALUE OF THAT SHIP. Not just what they had fitted on it. Or in the case of a T1 fit BS, actually make money on the LOSS FFS. and there it is. i knew you'd say it if waited. this is a **ing game. do you understand ? A GAME. its supposed to be fun. This is probably the dumbest thing said in this thread. Many games, including EVE are competitive**. If you want a game where everyone wins, try WoW or Hello Kitty Online. Or if you want riskless, casual PvP, try just about any other MMO out there, or even better, a online FPS.
Kyra Felann Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies	Posted - 2009.12.23 00:42:00 - [267] Originally by: Rhanna Khurin Do not have to remove insurance, merely remove it from self destruct and being concordokkened which is realistic. ding ding We have a winner. It would fix the problems with insurance, plus it'd be more realistic and immersive. Sounds like a double-win to me. Maybe even make it where the more risky behavior you engage in, the more you start to pay for insurance.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.23 01:12:00 - [268] Originally by: Kyra Felann Originally by: Rhanna Khurin Do not have to remove insurance, merely remove it from self destruct and being concordokkened which is realistic. ding ding We have a winner. It would fix the problems with insurance, plus it'd be more realistic and immersive. Sounds like a double-win to me. Maybe even make it where the more risky behavior you engage in, the more you start to pay for insurance. ding ding No we don't. Not only would this not stop insurance fraud, but one of my corpmates is currently grinding standings on a factional warfare alt SPECIFICALLY to kill the insured ships. This would get around your 'no insurance for concorded and self destructed ships', but in addition to that he's GAINING LP for every ship destroyed with this method. Hmm, let's see here: FW LP, Salvage and insurance payout for self destructing a ship. The total profit is huge when you do it right. Insurance is bad mmkay? Get rid of it. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
FunzzeR Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.23 01:37:00 - [269] Edited by: FunzzeR on 23/12/2009 01:37:33 Originally by: Kyra Felann Originally by: Rhanna Khurin Do not have to remove insurance, merely remove it from self destruct and being concordokkened which is realistic. ding ding We have a winner. It would fix the problems with insurance, plus it'd be more realistic and immersive. Sounds like a double-win to me. Maybe even make it where the more risky behavior you engage in, the more you start to pay for insurance. That fixes nothing, as a astute insurance frauder like myself will shift over to destroying battleships with a pos guns or by shooting them with another ship. Either way I can continue on my merry way and collect my shiny insurance isk. Sorry but the notion that removing insurance for concord and self destruct is tired, fail argument that solves really nothing. PRAISE THE SCOTTISH FOLD!!
Forge Lag Jita Lag Preservation Fund	Posted - 2009.12.23 01:56:00 - [270] It is really not about people getting rich any more. It is about lapse of player driven economy, lasting for months now. CCP can go back to NPC sold ships and NPC bought minerals, it would hardly get any worse than it is now. Mineral prices are artificially inflated, market tries to drive them down but they won't budge as they are bought by central authority at fixed prices and to that end new money are being printed en masse. You have to be blind to not see this Absurdistan. Sure it can kinda work, Monopoly real estate market kinda works too.

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.