EVE Search - CCP, we NEED a ransoming mechanic!

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP, we NEED a ransoming mechanic!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.11.16 03:04:00 - [1] I've just blown up yet another cap ship (Rorq this time), and this has to be the 5th in a ROW to not pay ransom. When I ask why they don't all I get is 'you'd just blow me up anyway'. Come ON, us pirates need something to make ISK with.
Thak'ur Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.11.16 03:06:00 - [2] Originally by: Bellum Eternus I've just blown up yet another cap ship (Rorq this time), and this has to be the 5th in a ROW to not pay ransom. When I ask why they don't all I get is 'you'd just blow me up anyway'. Come ON, us pirates need something to make ISK with. yeah It would be cool to impose a sec hit for not following through your ransom oh wait
NoNah	Posted - 2008.11.16 03:07:00 - [3] How about... loot? The entire idea that you CAN blow it up anyway, and that you CAN let him go for a cheap chip is half the point imho. That you can ruine your reputation etc. Parrots, commence! Postcount: 486833
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.11.16 03:24:00 - [4] Originally by: NoNah How about... loot? The entire idea that you CAN blow it up anyway, and that you CAN let him go for a cheap chip is half the point imho. That you can ruine your reputation etc. Ship/module loss: 2bil+, loot recovered: about 70-80m, incl. salvage. It's just not worth that much to blow stuff up when they can pay half of what it's worth and still save a bil or more.
Ehronn Caldari Nutz N Boltz Skunk-Works	Posted - 2008.11.16 03:27:00 - [5] trust and piracy doesn't really go hand in hand... you have a tool for ransoming it's called chat :) just keep begging for isk, it works for newbies sometimes too -grin-
Leon vanUber	Posted - 2008.11.16 03:32:00 - [6] That would be something for the non consensual PvPers of EVE, but giving stuff to us wouldn't cross their minds. Eve has been pushed heavily towards avoiding PVP by CCP in the last few expansions.
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.11.16 03:37:00 - [7] I've been pirating for as long as I can remember, and I'm pretty much against the idea. Piracy and getting a ransom out of someone should be completely down to a corporation, their reputation and everything they've done to be known as a corporation who honors ransoms. Adding a mechanic is just feeding pirates ISK on a plate. I whoeheartedly disagree with the concept and think it's best left alone. People should have to work for their ISK, and face the consequences of their actions.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order	Posted - 2008.11.16 03:40:00 - [8] Originally by: Ehronn trust and piracy doesn't really go hand in hand... this Originally by: Bellum Eternus Ship/module loss: 2bil+, loot recovered: about 70-80m, incl. salvage. It's just not worth that much to blow stuff up when they can pay half of what it's worth and still save a bil or more. They can pay half and maybe save the ship. Or they pay half and get some back from insurance. Or they pay nothing and take the insurance option. Taking the insurance option costs less out of pocket (not everyone has a bil in the wallet), and the insurance is 100% guaranteed.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.11.16 03:50:00 - [9] Originally by: Crackzilla Originally by: Ehronn trust and piracy doesn't really go hand in hand... this Originally by: Bellum Eternus Ship/module loss: 2bil+, loot recovered: about 70-80m, incl. salvage. It's just not worth that much to blow stuff up when they can pay half of what it's worth and still save a bil or more. They can pay half and maybe save the ship. Or they pay half and get some back from insurance. Or they pay nothing and take the insurance option. Taking the insurance option costs less out of pocket (not everyone has a bil in the wallet), and the insurance is 100% guaranteed. Yes another reason to remove insurance completely...
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.11.16 03:51:00 - [10] Edited by: MotherMoon on 16/11/2008 03:52:10 To be honest I kinda agree with this. Or let other players mark players that don't let them go. Thus other players know they don't follow through. No isk or anything, just a new system that messures your trust or something?
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.11.16 03:54:00 - [11] Originally by: Verone I've been pirating for as long as I can remember, and I'm pretty much against the idea. Piracy and getting a ransom out of someone should be completely down to a corporation, their reputation and everything they've done to be known as a corporation who honors ransoms. Adding a mechanic is just feeding pirates ISK on a plate. I whoeheartedly disagree with the concept and think it's best left alone. People should have to work for their ISK, and face the consequences of their actions. Well, what about something that would allow a public record of ransoms? So that you could at least have some in-game credentials?
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.11.16 03:55:00 - [12] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Verone I've been pirating for as long as I can remember, and I'm pretty much against the idea. Piracy and getting a ransom out of someone should be completely down to a corporation, their reputation and everything they've done to be known as a corporation who honors ransoms. Adding a mechanic is just feeding pirates ISK on a plate. I whoeheartedly disagree with the concept and think it's best left alone. People should have to work for their ISK, and face the consequences of their actions. Well, what about something that would allow a public record of ransoms? So that you could at least have some in-game credentials? there you that's what I was trying to say :)
Soporo Caldari	Posted - 2008.11.16 03:56:00 - [13] Originally by: Ehronn trust and piracy doesn't really go hand in hand... you have a tool for ransoming it's called chat :) Yeah. Someone reasonable and persuasive will do better than some cat who's excessively greedy and a mouthy jackass. In other words: I imagine it takes a bit of practice and some sense to get right, like so many other EVE things. I might pay VETO (if reasonable) because I know it will be honored and I know why it will be honored. But that's just because they've been around forever and earned a rep for it. Other folks...meh, probly not. Why? Because I aint sure...
Lurisa	Posted - 2008.11.16 04:02:00 - [14] There's a freeform contract option, and IIRC those are recorded in your contract history. Write a freeform contract stating that you have let the victim go after he paid the given ransom, and tell him to accept it once he's safe. Instant ransom history.
Apoctasy The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.11.16 04:07:00 - [15] Edited by: Apoctasy on 16/11/2008 04:06:52 Originally by: Bellum Eternus Well, what about something that would allow a public record of ransoms? So that you could at least have some in-game credentials? http://www.ransomboard.com/boards.php EVERYONE GO HERE^^
TheG2 Gallente Failure Ink.	Posted - 2008.11.16 04:09:00 - [16] Originally by: Lurisa There's a freeform contract option, and IIRC those are recorded in your contract history. Write a freeform contract stating that you have let the victim go after he paid the given ransom, and tell him to accept it once he's safe. Instant ransom history. Takes too long to complete the contract, by that time, odds are he's dead or his buddies have jumped you.
BongoMongo	Posted - 2008.11.16 04:17:00 - [17] Bellum, i don't get why you're so opposed to insurance. If players didn't have insurance to cover some of their loss they would simply just stop going anywhere dangerous. If you think low-sec is a lonely place now, think about how lonely it will be when players start calculating how much they lose when just flying cruiser? Insurance is a good thing, exploitable insurance, not so much. If you want ransom it sucks, because there are way too many dishonest pirates out there for you to benefit from it. Don't change the game, try to change the way pirates act instead. I'm sure changing the behaviour of ALL the pirates in eve will be faster than getting CCP to make a ransoming mechanism anyway. Just my thoughts.
Celedris Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2008.11.16 04:31:00 - [18] Edited by: Celedris on 16/11/2008 04:34:05 A possible solution is docking escrow. A potential ransomed player puts up X amount of ISK in a game-administered ransom escrow account for a safety contract on their current piloted ship, and the pirate in question can choose to accept or decline that contract. If accepted, the money is removed from the ransomed player and put in escrow to be given to the pirate when the ship is next docked at a station. If the ship is abandoned, left at a POS, or otherwise not docked within 24 hours the escrow then goes through to the pirate. If the ship is destroyed before it docks or before the 24-hour window closes, the escrow account is refunded to the ransomed player. The risk to the pirate here is that the ransomed player, once free, can have a friend blow him up before he docks or the 24-hour window closes, and then he collects the insurance/loot and has the ransom refunded. This would obviously encourage the pirate to set a ransom price which is well below the insurance payout + value of rigs + value of lost modules. So maybe a 3-rig, T2-fit battleship that was premium insured could be reliably ransomed for 30-40mil. If, however, you set up a 150-mil ransom, then the ransomed player would just have a corp mate blow him up and refund the ransom + insurance and take the loss on rigs/modules. T2 hulls like HACs & marauders could obviously be ransomed for close to the hull value of the ship since there is very little insurance payout relative to their cost. Maybe there is some potential abuse of this system that I am not thinking of, but I think it would work pretty well.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.11.16 05:40:00 - [19] I kinda like the escrow idea, but there are a few too many problems with it as suggested, mostly with someone else blowing the ship up after it's released, and the pirates not getting paid. Maybe if you set a time limit, adjusted by the pirates on completion of the agreement, of say, 5 minutes, that would allow said player to dock, and if they don't dock then the ship explodes and he loses his ISK as well to the pirates. So basically the ship will self destruct in the time limit specified, and he loses his ISK if he doesn't dock in time. But the problem there is that if the victim, er, I mean, customer, agrees to a ransom, and is then released by player one, and player two immediately scrams the same target, then he's hosed.
Faife Noctiscion	Posted - 2008.11.16 06:03:00 - [20] in fairness to the shootee, you are in a corp called Death of Virtue. that's sort of a strike against you as far as trust goes, before the convo even starts
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.11.16 06:13:00 - [21] I like the idea of anything like, the money goes to the pirate once the player docks or jumps out of system or something. I mean that's how it works in real life with bank money, so if the pirates let himj live they get the money if they don't they don't get the money seems simple.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order	Posted - 2008.11.16 06:24:00 - [22] Originally by: Celedris This would obviously encourage the pirate to set a ransom price which is well below the insurance payout + value of rigs + value of lost modules. This is a big issue currently. The amount asked for by the pirates often makes it not worth the risk. Risk versus reward. The victim is risking the payment for the reward of escape. If you ask for 100% of the value of a t2 hull or 50% of a t1 ship, then the reward is only worth it if the risk is minimal. Since payment of ransom is fairly risky for the victim then it needs to be fairly low to be worth the risk. Say if the ransom asked was 30% of the out of wallet cost of replacement. If ransom is honored 30% of the time then it starts to be appealing.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.11.16 06:40:00 - [23] Originally by: Crackzilla Originally by: Celedris This would obviously encourage the pirate to set a ransom price which is well below the insurance payout + value of rigs + value of lost modules. This is a big issue currently. The amount asked for by the pirates often makes it not worth the risk. Risk versus reward. The victim is risking the payment for the reward of escape. If you ask for 100% of the value of a t2 hull or 50% of a t1 ship, then the reward is only worth it if the risk is minimal. Since payment of ransom is fairly risky for the victim then it needs to be fairly low to be worth the risk. Say if the ransom asked was 30% of the out of wallet cost of replacement. If ransom is honored 30% of the time then it starts to be appealing. there should be no reason I can't call the bank and tell them the charge is fualty and remove the money I sent. just saying.
Tiirae The New Era HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2008.11.16 06:59:00 - [24] Originally by: Verone I've been pirating for as long as I can remember, and I'm pretty much against the idea. Piracy and getting a ransom out of someone should be completely down to a corporation, their reputation and everything they've done to be known as a corporation who honors ransoms. Adding a mechanic is just feeding pirates ISK on a plate. I whoeheartedly disagree with the concept and think it's best left alone. People should have to work for their ISK, and face the consequences of their actions. That's all very well in theory, but the reality is different. Enough pirates have dishonoured ransoms in the past so now your victims just assume you can't be trusted. I can't see any way that a single corp, no matter how honest, could turn back the tide in that respect. Veto may be a different case, but you have years of reputation and something of a public celebrity factor; not many pirate corps operate in that environment. I definitely support some game mechanic where the demand for and payment of a ransom is recorded and made official. You could even go so far as to invoke concord if the pirate then blows the victim up anyway. That's probably going a bit far, but it would be good to have something. They could implement this right after fixing the bounty system LOL.
Davina Braben	Posted - 2008.11.16 07:10:00 - [25] It's an interesting idea actually. Seems like the major obstacle to being a pirate. I can see the argument against (i.e. trust is valuable etc. etc.) but it seems at the minute like things are slanted too much against pirates wanting to do the ransom thing. The mechanisms are problematic though. If player X and player Y have snagged and immobilized a Raven and ransom it what's to stop them from having player Z fly in and gank it as soon as they get their ransom. If player Z is not with them, player Z can still do them out of ransom. Not necessarily a deal breaker, I'm sure some clever person can work out a way round.
Tiirae The New Era HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2008.11.16 07:14:00 - [26] Originally by: Davina Braben It's an interesting idea actually. Seems like the major obstacle to being a pirate. I can see the argument against (i.e. trust is valuable etc. etc.) but it seems at the minute like things are slanted too much against pirates wanting to do the ransom thing. The mechanisms are problematic though. If player X and player Y have snagged and immobilized a Raven and ransom it what's to stop them from having player Z fly in and gank it as soon as they get their ransom. If player Z is not with them, player Z can still do them out of ransom. Not necessarily a deal breaker, I'm sure some clever person can work out a way round. Bu then they are explicitly avoiding the intended consequences. Say hello to the ban hammer.
Mutabae	Posted - 2008.11.16 07:24:00 - [27] We have a ransoming mechanic. Invite to chat channel, demand isk. Kill them if they don't pay. You whine too much. Shut up.
Seth Ruin Minmatar Ominous Corp Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2008.11.16 07:30:00 - [28] 3rd party escrow?
Arcon Telf Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.11.16 08:05:00 - [29] The IRONY of this situation is that this pilot attempted to log off to avoid his loss all together! Who is dishonorable now? Most pirates - career pilots - honor ransoms. It's bad for business not to! Pirates, quite frankly, are some of the most trustworthy people in New Eden. In this case, the Rorqual pilot logged off in an attempt to circumvent legitimate game mechanics (I was there, I got the damn killmail). Don't you think we would have much preferred a reasonable ransom to some points on a killboard? I think Bellum's idea is an excellent one.
Furb Killer Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2008.11.16 08:44:00 - [30] He got insurance back, so his loss costed probably less than the 1 billion you asked. And while logging off is lame, he would be an idiot if he would have payed the ransom imo. And not just because of insurance, but because of trusting pirates. Yes i know some can be trusted and have a bit of honour left. But i have seen too many pirates being proud in chat channels about how they blowed up someone after he payed ransom. And many pirates would think that those points in kb is important enough to justify it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: 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.