EVE Search - Risk Aversion

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Risk Aversion

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Origin. Black Legion. 2176	Posted - 2015.04.28 14:45:40 - [1] - Quote The case for dank(er) replacement insurance. F Would you like to know more?
Mario Putzo 1292	Posted - 2015.04.28 14:47:25 - [2] - Quote No thanks.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1118	Posted - 2015.04.28 14:50:13 - [3] - Quote I remember the days when ideas were in the body of the post and not some stupid link to a third party site.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Origin. Black Legion. 2176	Posted - 2015.04.28 14:52:45 - [4] - Quote afkalt wrote: I remember the days when ideas were in the body of the post and not some stupid link to a third party site. But then there would be no pretty embedded pictures...which reminds me, post is missing something important...Thanks! Would you like to know more?
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1118	Posted - 2015.04.28 14:55:05 - [5] - Quote These kids and their need for pictures these days!!! PAH! I say PAH!!!
Solecist Project Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 21940	Posted - 2015.04.28 14:55:23 - [6] - Quote Sorry, can't agree at all. For the most part people do not care about the money, they care about losing. It's not the blow to the wallet ... ... it's the blow to the ego. For too many people it's about avoiding to realise one sucks. Of course there are also people who avoid losing ships because of the costs ... ... but these people eventually learn how to make enough money not to care. The comparison to E:D is rather weird. E:D does not compare to EVE ONLINE. It's your attitude that made you undock and go at him. Carebears go to the forums ... ... real players go kick asses. And besides... too low prices are bad ... ... and too high insurance is bad as well. If you want to address risk aversion ... ... then don't make the same freaking mistake everyone does. The ISKcentric way of thinking does not work. It's faaar less about money ... ... and faaar more about ego. .... sorry. Bumping is fine, Ganking is fine. The real issue are Carebears. Bad people wishing ill and death upon on all of us. The obvious solution is to wipe them out and make sure they don't come back. Let's kill them all for the good of EVEmanity.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23673	Posted - 2015.04.28 14:56:04 - [7] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: which reminds me, post is missing something important! Gratuitous Jessica Alba? Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Sibyyl Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 24472	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:01:17 - [8] - Quote Feyd, it seems like you are suggesting we tackle risk aversion by removing risk. I'm a bit surprised that you are advocating this position. fluorescent adolescent
Minmatar Citizen 534612187 Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 7	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:03:46 - [9] - Quote This is stupid.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Origin. Black Legion. 2176	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:04:43 - [10] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Feyd, it seems like you are suggesting we tackle risk aversion by removing risk. I'm a bit surprised that you are advocating this position. Removing you say... Would you like to know more?
Otso Bakarti Aliastra Gallente Federation 104	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:06:05 - [11] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Sorry, can't agree at all. For the most part people do not care about the money, they care about losing. It's not the blow to the wallet ... ... it's the blow to the ego. For too many people it's about avoiding to realise one sucks. Of course there are also people who avoid losing ships because of the costs ... ... but these people eventually learn how to make enough money not to care. The comparison to E:D is rather weird. E:D does not compare to EVE ONLINE. It's your attitude that made you undock and go at him. Carebears go to the forums ... ... real players go kick asses. And besides... too low prices are bad ... ... and too high insurance is bad as well. If you want to address risk aversion ... ... then don't make the same freaking mistake everyone does. The ISKcentric way of thinking does not work. It's faaar less about money ... ... and faaar more about ego. .... sorry. I survived Win95
Solecist Project Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 21940	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:06:50 - [12] - Quote Minmatar Citizen 534612187 wrote: This is stupid. No it's not. His views simply are a symptom of the flawed, ISKcentric way of thinking. Everyone is about materialism and no one looks at where it's coming from. Bumping is fine, Ganking is fine. The real issue are Carebears. Bad people wishing ill and death upon on all of us. The obvious solution is to wipe them out and make sure they don't come back. Let's kill them all for the good of EVEmanity.
Danalee Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective 1451	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:08:16 - [13] - Quote I fear the risk-averse will remain risk-averse no matter what... Even if they get 100% of their ship refunded and something extra to make the pain go away. Look at nullbear land, no amount of full SRP can make those bears any less risk averse than they already are. (obligatory digg @ nullsec, love you guys) I would love to know why people are risk averse. I think it isn't isk but am subscribing here to find out what it is. D. Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Origin. Black Legion. 2177	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:11:32 - [14] - Quote Danalee wrote: I fear the risk-averse will remain risk-averse no matter what... Even if they get 100% of their ship refunded and something extra to make the pain go away. Look at nullbear land, no amount of full SRP can make those bears any less risk averse than they already are. (obligatory digg @ nullsec, love you guys) I would love to know why people are risk averse. I think it isn't isk but am subscribing here to find out what it is. D. Alliances typically replace doctrine ships, lost during a fleet. Not sure a dude hopping in a Sleipnir and 1 v 1'ing someone gets SRP. Would you like to know more?
Otso Bakarti Aliastra Gallente Federation 104	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:11:56 - [15] - Quote Why isn't everyone just like me?! It must be 'cause they have a personality disorder, character flaw and intelligence hiccup!! I survived Win95
Sibyyl Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 24472	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:12:33 - [16] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Sibyyl wrote: Feyd, it seems like you are suggesting we tackle risk aversion by removing risk. I'm a bit surprised that you are advocating this position. Removing you say... Removal of 95% the risk is akin to total removal. And it wrecks the market. fluorescent adolescent
Daerrol Furtherance. 130	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:13:46 - [17] - Quote Just make insurance on T2 and Faction ships increase ... Even to 50% it's market value. Heck 25% it's market value.
Danalee Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective 1451	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:14:05 - [18] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Sibyyl wrote: Feyd, it seems like you are suggesting we tackle risk aversion by removing risk. I'm a bit surprised that you are advocating this position. Removing you say... Removal of 95% the risk is akin to total removal. And it wrecks the market. are you saying that isk is the only thing at risk? D. Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Ma'Baker McCandless The McCandless Clan 71	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:15:01 - [19] - Quote TL;DC?
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Origin. Black Legion. 2177	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:18:32 - [20] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Sibyyl wrote: Feyd, it seems like you are suggesting we tackle risk aversion by removing risk. I'm a bit surprised that you are advocating this position. Removing you say... Removal of 95% the risk is akin to total removal. And it wrecks the market. Does 'better' mean it has to be 95%? We have insurance today, already. Is there a middle ground of elasticity that both decreases risk-aversion while not melting down the markets? Are there additional ways to buff the market in cases that did happen, like NPC buy orders? These are important questions, if someone is going to decry 'risk aversion' and lack of gudfights in EvE. I see lots of that, what I don't see is people confronting the elephant in the room, in that risk aversion is primarily driven by ship replacement costs. IMHO. F Would you like to know more?
Sibyyl Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 24472	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:19:16 - [21] - Quote Danalee wrote: Sibyyl wrote: Removal of 95% the risk is akin to total removal. And it wrecks the market. are you saying that isk is the only thing at risk? D. Not at all. There is egos, fears, killboard stats, a variety of human apprehensions.. but I was referring to the ISK contributor to risk. not sure there is any game mechanic to affect the non-ISK contributors.. I understand (and agree with) the point you were making. fluorescent adolescent
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 1020	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:22:31 - [22] - Quote Fights happen because there is a value to winning, a point to being the man standing at the end. I will fly my ship home through dangerous territory because I want to get my ship back alive. Why would I bother if there is no cost to doing so, might as well run it in to the nearesty gatecamp and save myself half an hour. Sure, once dying has no cost, everyone can run merrily in to the gunfire heedlessly, but whats the point? There is a reason I don't play FPS's, theres no investiture for me in the result. There is in EvE combat. And insuring mods completely flattens the risk/cost of faction, deadspace, and officer mods - now you have to make a judgement over whether the cost is really worth the miniscule benefit, faced with the fact the ship might be wreckage long before its given enough benefit to justify that cost. If you insure mods, there is absolutely no reason ever to not fit up the shiniest fit you can physically afford, since once its strapped on your ship, its "safe". Its a no-brainer, faction hardners and damage mods every time.
Luna Arindale Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Curatores Veritatis Alliance 67	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:27:19 - [23] - Quote If I have no chance to survive, then I am not engaging. It isn't risk aversion, I just don't see the point of engaging someone if I have no chance to survive. It's a waste of my time and well, money. I just don't see why people thinking higher insurance payout will change that to get people to fly shiny ships. If everyone is flying one, it isn't quite so Shiny now is it.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 6616	Posted - 2015.04.28 15:48:12 - [24] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: The case for dank(er) replacement insurance. F Things must be really bad when even one of top tier "dark lords" are playing something else. But I can see a lot of risk aversion. I was expecting another "grrr highsec why they no show up in my bubble camp?" issue but I've been caught red-handed in WHs with a poor DPS exploration fit BC (back when exploration sites in K-space were also combat sites) by gangs ranging 4 - 6 and have all run off. Why? Because all of them, individually, feared that I could take at least one of them out, so being afraid of being the one getting taken out, they all ran off. Quote: The end result? EvE is often mired in a risk-averse culture where many don't engage unless victory is assured, and like unicorns the mythical gudfight becomes a beast of legend that only infrequently appears. We revel in the pain of big losses we inflict on others, yet we denounce those who show any signs of risk-aversion with taunts in local about not bringing a fight. Yes the player base has degenerated somewhat. It's not all about ISK and risk though. There's a lot of sperg thrown in. Quote: In EvE online most players (especially in their fragile 'will I even stay' formative years) grind to generate skill points and the ISK to fund the ships they want to fly. Some buy PLEX with cash to get around the ISK grind drudgery, as I do. When a player loses a nice ship however, paying 100% of the replacement costs quickly adds up, and this creates both a direct economic and psychological dis-incentive to continued fighting in what is supposed to be a spaceship combat game. As my good friend Dracvlad says, people WILL fight when they have (p) "skin in the game". That also means a chance at even a draw instead of a highsec wardec bittervets versus noobs ROFLstomp. But having skin in the game means loss potential. Thus, as per my theory from several years ago, there are neural pathways that go on in this game that mimic real life. That's the big draw. That's why players keep coming back. You can experiment with real world outcomes in a parallel nature whereby unlike the Matrix you don't die on a chair in RL with a spark plug sticking out the back of your head when you fail. Quote: Now many players think that pain of ship losses in EvE is a good thing because there is competitive joy to be hand in depriving other players of their shinies. **** yeah, I love that feeling too, I get it. As anyone who has read this blog will attest, I really really do. It's ultimately a choice between two options though. Do we keep the status quo of widespread risk-aversion and gudfights being the exception and not the norm... OR, do we reduce the underlying driver for that risk-aversion in the first place, by giving all pilots a cheap & better ship replacement program? To that I would say that the leet PVP crowd should pat themselves on the back. All the highsec wardecs and ganking and bubble camps have had their effect it seems. The leet PVPers have won Eve. In lowsec just about everything that moves gets killed. They won lowsec too. Congrats all around! Now nobody wants to fight and even the leet PVPers are in highsec for the same reason their prey is in highsec. I think the root of the problem is comparable to "racing for pinks". This is a term (from the 1970s or earlier) when the registration of a car was on a pink-ish document. These days cars have "titles" which tend to be green in color (in the USA as far as I know). But the old registration card enabled owners to easily sign a car over to someone else. That's right. You could sign a car over to a new owner right on the spot with those old registrations. So "Racing for Pinks" existed back then which basically was this: You drag race. Win: you get their car. Lose: you lose your car. I knew people in this culture. If you wanted to look under their hood, you had to pay for it. To look at what kind of engine, carb, nitro, supercharger, etc. they had, you have to fork over several hundred bucks. OR Beat them in a drag race and then you own the car and look under the hood all you want (kind of like a kill report). Or fail to beat them and they own yours and look under your hood. You can bet this was a very small culture. And the guys in it all had several things in common: they were all mechanics deep in the auto industry and losing a car in a race was no big deal to them. They had several more lined up. If you won a car, you improved it, and used it to race again. Maybe you lost it, maybe you got other cars. A single car will cycle through a half dozen guys several times before it got ultimately wrecked or if it was an old car, a collector bought it. Now, imagine Joe Blow who works two jobs all summer to buy an old Camaro. Is he going to want to race for pinks? I doubt it. And I have never seen someone who actually had to work to pimp their ride do that. I have seen some of the racing for pinks crowd try to get them to race, and when word got around that they tried that, the other guys would shame them for that. Because basically, it's like trying to play up someone's ego to steal their car. You see, they had a code of sorts. (if it were the other way around though, well then you have a fool in need of a lesson) Why am I bringing this up? Because I see a large set of parallel factors in all this. The guys who sit on endless piles of moon goo can lose ships to other guys on piles of moon goo all day. Yet they get bored and go and... gank freighters in highsec and what does that do? It drives up the price of.... ship replacement End the ganking and prices may come down. Therefore I welcome the OP to the anti-ganking movement. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Danalee Somalian Coast Guard Authority The Marmite Collective 1452	Posted - 2015.04.28 16:02:13 - [25] - Quote Did you just type out the entire plot to Grease just to force the discussion onto anti-ganking... I applaud your effort... I guess... Now, put the same amount of effort into EVE. D. Proud member of the Somalian Coast Guard Authority Member and Juror of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Cataca Aspiring Nomads 2	Posted - 2015.04.28 16:12:11 - [26] - Quote As-is the only thing that keeps the market afloat despite the hundreds of billions that get injected via isk faucets is that people tend to blow up their ships and effectively get rid of their stuff. If you'd get back your investment on your ship (near total) people would just pile up money and the value of isk would plummet to nothingness. Think about this for a second. You pay some industrialist for your ship (effectively, he sold you "refined materials" at a ~5-10% profit margin, but going back all the way through the chain is going too far) You go buy your fit, you pew, you lose your ship and get 95% of its value back. What is now happening is that the isk you spent on that ship, virtually doubled. You have the value of the ship and the industrial has the value of the ship. This is happening over and over and over again. For every ship lost you inject more money into the market that nobody worked for. Minerals are suddenly the only chokepoint to ensure ship replacement and the price rises to accomodate increased demand, which in turn increases insurance payout which in turn increases.... So yes, dumbest idea ever. Hyperinflation in a bottle.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1734	Posted - 2015.04.28 16:17:24 - [27] - Quote You get called "risk averse" for the stupidest reasons sometime in this game. No dude your I-HUB bash is not important enough for me to do 13 jumps solo in an ABC in the warzone...
March rabbit Federal Defense Union 1613	Posted - 2015.04.28 16:28:43 - [28] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Sorry, can't agree at all. For the most part people do not care about the money, they care about losing. It's not the blow to the wallet ... ... it's the blow to the ego. ... Completely agree. If my Vindicator with heatsinks costs me nothing (or almost nothing) you can have as many killmails with it as you want and blame me as you wish. I would not care anyway. I will just fit it for the kicks and get it blown on undock. Because it costs nothing. And i think most players will just stop hunting for things like bling bears. Because after first HOORAY went you left with lots of useless killmails. What is the reason to bait someone if you can just ask him "give me your killmail for 5 million ISK which is what you pay for insurance after losing' and you both have little fun. The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Ma'Baker McCandless The McCandless Clan 77	Posted - 2015.04.28 16:31:37 - [29] - Quote So how come T1 Cruiser and frigate fights Dont happen far more often They dont cost much At all
Cartheron Crust Matari Exodus 167	Posted - 2015.04.28 16:36:05 - [30] - Quote I agree CCP should remove ALL insurance. Maybe give a leeway for new players. First three months on your sub and you still get insurance.

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.