open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked A Suicide Ganker's Final Solution for the Insurance Problem
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Author Topic

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2009.12.23 01:27:00 - [1]
 

Well, I am a fairly regular suicide ganker. I've enjoyed Eve immensely since the patch, nailing 19 Hulks in the last 10 days.

Seems we get the carebear viewpoint a lot - screw the gankers so we stay safe and keep the ISK faucet so mineral prices stay inflated. This would be bad for Eve.

Here's my take:

I propose another solution to the 'insurance faucet' problem.

Add another ISK sink.

My proposal:

Concord starts a pirate 'amnesty' program - where you pay ISK to have your sec-status improved.

- Its realistic - governments have done it before, especially during the 'classic' age of privateering and piracy on the Spanish main.

- It flexible - he exact 'cost' of purchasing 'security status' can be debated, but the higher cost, the more effective the sink.

- It helps solve he underlying economic problem of oversupply of minerals. How?
------
Fact is, mineral prices currently are resting on the 'insurance price floor'.

Why? We have too many miners and mission runners in Eve flooding the market with cheap minerals.
This is a classic ecological case of 'too many rabbits - not enough foxes.'
The bunnies WOULD be starving 'en masse' by now, except for the artificial ISK 'bunny food' pumped into the system via insurance.

We need to introduce more predators into hi-sec, and thin out the bunny population.
The solution would play out like this:

1. ISK disappears as some pirates buy their way into hi-sec and cause havoc. (ISK sink)
2. Ships are destroyed in the process, increasing demand on minerals. (prices go up)
3. Miners and mission runners die, and their mineral output is reduced. (prices go up)
4. With higher mineral price, insurance fraud ceases to be an issue at all. (realism goes up)
5. Insurance can stay, protecting the poor 0.0 dweller, as a proper sink has been introduced.

A quick easy way to convert ISK into sec status would do exactly that.

And for the whining carebears/bunnies: yes, piracy still costs the ganker, except now the price can be paid with ISK OR time 'ie ratting for sec status'. And really, they are more or less the same thing.

So come on, CCP - lets do the thing that must be done - enable us to cull the bunny herd. Start an amnesty program. Do not defy nature. Cool

Inappropriate text removed. Zymurgist

FunzzeR
Legion of the Scottish Fold
Posted - 2009.12.23 01:30:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: FunzzeR on 23/12/2009 01:31:55
There are undoubtedly some kinks to sort out, but I like the idea.

EDIT: In before the whining rabb-- carebears. Very Happy

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2009.12.23 01:33:00 - [3]
 

Oh, and that said:

That said, I am quite happy with the current situation, because now we are able to effectively wage economic war in highsec, entirely through suicide ganks on high value targets, such as hulks and haulers. The practice of singling out miners and corporations for regular ganking has been profitable, as ransoms are being paid. Wardec mechanics are leave much to be desired, due to high-value strategic targets dropping corp (frieghters or Hulks)....or very cumbersome to carry out (knocking out a large POS without Dreads.)

However, I recognize that insurance is an artificial crutch for mineral prices. As much as I would enjoy mineral values crashing - forcing miners to slave longer and harder hours for their ISK - insurance is probably here to stay.

So, lets have solve the problem another way.

Billy Cornpipe
Cornpipe Tactical and Logistics
Posted - 2009.12.23 01:51:00 - [4]
 

HI, I'm Billy Cornpipe and I approve this message.

I think it's a great idea. The cost should be fairly high though as not to be too easy to obtain and be a fairly substantial ISK sink.

Greywolf One
Posted - 2009.12.23 01:57:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Greywolf One on 23/12/2009 01:58:33
I must say I do support insurance fraud however with that said I honestly think you have a great idea. I mean we can buy a toon with isk we can hire mission runners for isk y not be able to buy IE market your faction or sell your excess faction on the market it's ur faction need a little
isk sell some faction in your favorite NPC corp or sell some of your concord faction can't sell empire faction because thats based on npc corp faction. How much would you
sell or buy a full concord faction point for or a full npc corp faction point for and what about selling say 10 percent of a point it would be a buyer and sellers market. One word.
COOL

Professor Tarantula
Hedion University
Posted - 2009.12.23 02:05:00 - [6]
 

Uh, all i see is a lazy suicide ganker who wants an easy way to get sec status back after podding people.

norty
Posted - 2009.12.23 02:15:00 - [7]
 

actually there aren't enough miners :P

Sicardae Bad'ia
Posted - 2009.12.23 02:16:00 - [8]
 

You used to be able to do this, there were concord agents floating in space a la cosmos that you could pay off to get your sec status up, idk what the reason was for pullin it out...

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.12.23 02:19:00 - [9]
 

"Bunny food". I LOLed.

Aloriana Jacques
Amarr
Royal Amarr Institute
Posted - 2009.12.23 02:24:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Aloriana Jacques on 23/12/2009 02:25:34
As a carebear, I approve. But, as I understand it the only people who'll actually be contributing to this isk sink are pirates and nullsec players, a considerably smaller percent of the player base compared to those who play in Empire.

It also entirely avoids the inherent problems with insurance, which you've completely neglected to actually address with your prospective solution. IE: Payouts greater than the ship is worth, self destructing ships in mass numbers for insurance and salvage profits, etc.

Sure it's a nice work around, but it doesn't actually change the core problems with insurance, just offers a temporary work around.

Pesets
The Hunt Club
Posted - 2009.12.23 02:28:00 - [11]
 

What if they don't agree to pay you ransoms for bringing your sec status up so you can gank them again, and instead become fed up with this bull, either switching their profession or leaving the game altogether? Mining already seems to be a pretty miserable occupation as it is, despite being one of the foundations of the economy...

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2009.12.23 02:42:00 - [12]
 

Aloriana;

When the cost of minerals goes up - the insurance system, while still an ISK faucet - acts as it was intended - a device for softening the blow when you lose a ship.

I start to have problems with it when the act of self-destructing a ship actually becomes profitable, due to the static nature of insurance. Industrial scale destruction of thousands of ships or 'insurance fraud' was simply not an issue when Tritanium was 4.20/unit last summer.

My proposal seeks to create pressure within the game that will naturally drive up the value of minerals - with combat, not 'sit outside a station self destruct, and repeat for hours.'

I build hundreds of battleships a week, and consume hundreds of millions of units of minerals. Over and over it happens - once they hit a certain price, like clockwork they start disappearing at 5 minute intervals until they are all gone. (I still clear a profit, I can't be bothered to sit around blowing up my own ships....so I keep making them..)

Others:
Also, for those who want to dismiss me as 'just a ganker.' I've lost far more to suicide ganks than probably 99% of the Eve population. As in, multiple frieghters and industrials. Billions of ISKies. And I don't complain. It IS PVP - simply the cost of doing business.

If one tried to balance my marginal suicide profits on one side and my 'ganking' losses on the other, you would likely be able to catapult an elephant into high orbit.



Pesets
The Hunt Club
Posted - 2009.12.23 03:18:00 - [13]
 

You are actually making a half-valid point, despite economy having nothing to do with ecology. It has to do not with "artificial bunny food", but rather lack of "hunger" in the first place. There are next to no operating costs in Eve; even if you think that your minerals are free, it's impossible to go broke. In real life, you are motivated to run the economic treadmill for the whole life simply by the fact that otherwise you will starve or at least observe your living conditions drastically decrease. Problem is, this is a game.

Players aren't nearly as motivated to keep playing as they are to stay alive in real life. In fact, many leave the game out of boredom even while doing fine financially. I'm not sure they would stay if you force them to work their ass off just to break even. Also, with operating cost, you constantly run the risk of bankruptcy due to an unforeseen loss - and guess what, there is no shortage of people who can and will arrange an unforseen loss for you in Eve, even at a loss to themselves, simply because they can. In fact, that's exactly what you're planning to do.

So guess what, by "culling the rabbit population" you will probably cull the playerbase, who pay to keep this whole Eve thing running. Of course you may or may not care; even if CCP itself goes under, Eve has never been more than just a game.

Foraven
Gallente
Posted - 2009.12.23 03:43:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Pesets

Players aren't nearly as motivated to keep playing as they are to stay alive in real life. In fact, many leave the game out of boredom even while doing fine financially. I'm not sure they would stay if you force them to work their ass off just to break even. Also, with operating cost, you constantly run the risk of bankruptcy due to an unforeseen loss - and guess what, there is no shortage of people who can and will arrange an unforseen loss for you in Eve, even at a loss to themselves, simply because they can. In fact, that's exactly what you're planning to do.



I did try the trial a few years back, and back then it was hard to buy a better frigate. It took a while to raise isk to buy ships and skills and rats could kill (ie not the joke they are now). But that said, i though it was fun because there was a difficulty to this game. Now, outside pvp, the game is a joke, it's too easy, there is no sense of achievement since all you need is spend the time to get there...

Pesets
The Hunt Club
Posted - 2009.12.23 04:12:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Foraven
I did try the trial a few years back, and back then it was hard to buy a better frigate. It took a while to raise isk to buy ships and skills and rats could kill (ie not the joke they are now). But that said, i though it was fun because there was a difficulty to this game.


But that said, did you subscribe right then because of how hard the game was?

It still takes a while if you start out alone and without selling PLEX. Rats can still kill you if you're just starting out, aren't accustomed with the mechanics, and don't even know about the existence of most of the modules you need (not to mention no skills to use them anyways, and capping out just from shooting while using the afterburner).

Originally by: Foraven
Now, outside pvp, the game is a joke, it's too easy, there is no sense of achievement since all you need is spend the time to get there...


So what exactly do you miss, everything taking even more time? Or maybe the old skill training system?

You can still be a miner, lose expensive ships to people you can't do anything to, and be proud you can find the strength to keep them entertained by doing it again and again. But, "I" is a bad reference point when making marketing decisions. Some may derive their sense of achievement from activities which excessive Eve grind interferes with.

Ryhss
Caldari
The Excecutorans
Posted - 2009.12.23 04:22:00 - [16]
 

You keep mentioning realism. But this is a game. It's not real. Stop trying to make it real, I'm trying to escape the real world by playing EVE: Everybody Versus Everybody.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.12.23 04:36:00 - [17]
 

Am I the only one to be just a bit off-put by the fact some pilot named Herr <something> posted a thread with "Final Solution" in its title ?
Rolling Eyes

Other than that, yeah, sure, why not, allow people to raise their secstatus by paying off CONCORD.
I would suggest the lowball amount of 100 mil ISK per point of secstatus.

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2009.12.23 04:54:00 - [18]
 

A few other random thoughts, in no particular order.

-In terms of flavor, this fits Eve perfectly. Wardecs are what, exactly? Corporations paying a bribe for CONCORD to look the other way for a week. Paying a bribe to CONCORD to 'forget' past criminal activity is forgotten? Not a huge leap.

-As far as 'culling' the bunnies go, it doesn't neccessarily mean they quit playing the game. If mining (or mission running) becomes more difficult due to ganking, less people will mine (or will at least mine less efficiently, in cheaper ships or less efficient heavily tanked fits.) Some will quit, but most will find other avenues towards success. In the end, less minerals dumped upon the market, and prices will be pushed upwards. The last Economic Quarterly Report stated that the Hulk is now the most common ship in Eve. There are a LOT of miners out there (and they don't even supply the majority of the mineral supply.)

-As for the exact 'ISK' cost of sec-status forgiveness:
I somewhat hesitate to propose a 'hard number' for this - as it would probably lead to bickering over the details (too cheap! No! Too expensive! NO U) But I believe the underlying principle is sound - and as with most economic issues, there IS a sweet spot.

Wild guess, but I imagine the cost of one point of sec status could safely be pegged somewhere around 60M. To go from -10 to 0 instantly, is that worth 600M? - or put another way, two months of PLEX gametime? Reckon, some will say yes, and some will say no. If the split is 50/50 you've found the sweet spot.

See, if the price was stupidly high - say, 500M per point of sec status, almost nobody would take advantage of it, and it would utterly fail as an ISK SINK. (ie, tax tobacco at a million a pack, nobody smokes, and the tax is a failure as a revenue generator) People would merely opt to rat instead.

On the other side of the coin, at the low, low price of 1.0 ISK per point of sec status, the whole concept of sec status would become meaningless as EVERYONE would take advantage and be jetting around with +5.0 standings. Suicide ganking really WOULD be free and the gankers run wild....

(*Until, that is - the 'bunnies' became scarce! Lets just go down that fantasy nightmare scenario for a minute...Twisted Evil

Mining/MR wealth creation would become an inefficient, dangerous, heavily guarded activity (clumsy sabretooth bunnies evolve!) Supply is choked off. The cost of minerals and thus T1 ships would spike, far outstripping the insurance payment - and thus the 'foxes' begin to starve. (Almost nobody ganks in expensive TII ships, after all) In theory, a new, poorer, hungrier equilibrium would be reached and overall the game would become much more difficult. In fact, sounds a lot like 0.0, without the Empire 'safety net' for logistics and ISK generation.

Selrid Miamarr
Amarr
Posted - 2009.12.23 05:21:00 - [19]
 

Bad, bad, bad idea. Not so much the mechanic: I think ISK to improve standing is a fine idea. But the reasoning and purpose is bad.

Look at it this way. If your proposal would increase the amount of ganking, ransoming, and general wastage by a significant amount, you may very well cull the bunnies. But there is already a place where we have an example of this: lowsec.

Who mines in lowsec? Predators reign supreme there. If your proposal generated significant impact, you'd soon see miners simply vanish except as part of large 0.0 alliances that could guarantee their security. This would probably shoot prices through the roof as well.

Yeah I am a carebear (though its mostly because you can't really enjoy pvp when primaried and your life span is seconds) but I'm not unsympathetic to the idea. It's just you could very easily cull us to extinction.

SlayerOfArgus
Gallente
Hermes Enterprises
Posted - 2009.12.23 07:17:00 - [20]
 

As a carebear, I approve this idea. As long as the fine details can be worked out.

-I think that you could do for the cost. The higher you want your sec status, the more expensive it costs. That way you can't just buy a 5.0 security status and go hunting for a few weeks without having to worry about sec status, because it'd get increasingly expensive to get a higher sec status.
-And I agree that there are too many miners right now. Prices are in the crapper right now (this is due to a lot of people mining, but also the changes in respawn times of high sec roid belts).
-I do think though that this would in some way decrease the player base, but I highly doubt it would be anything noticeable.
-This could only solve the insurance problem IF the ship was sold at a price where it wasn't profitable when you self-destruct. This would make the game more realistic as well because I think there should be more lawlessness and destruction. It'd make everything a bit more exciting. And yeah where is all the under-the-table deals, and corruption and all that mess? This game is supposed to be realistic right?

Costomojin
Snakes and Arrows
Posted - 2009.12.23 07:19:00 - [21]
 

Get rid of NPC insurance offerings all together....problem solved for both the ISK faucet and mineral prices.

Boink'urr
Minmatar
Wasserette De Tarthorst
Posted - 2009.12.23 07:29:00 - [22]
 

I disagree that there's a 'need' for more suicide ganking in Hisec, since the whole idea is gamebreakingly returded for me personally - it only add's a feeling of 'oh right i forgot i play this game with a lot of Q&A nerds' to the immersion, and thus it breaks. I only got failganked once in a retreiver - but the guy couldn't even do that right, but even the discussions about it makes me want to quit Eve for it's tard magnetism.

I do am in favor of restoring Standing for ISK 4 all, but there's already something in place for that: tags. Buy them and check em in at your local hardware store :P

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.12.23 07:31:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Herr Wilkus

blah blah blah


Maybe you have missed it, but with minimal organization even -10 standing people can gank in high sec.

So stop your stealth crying on how hard is to recover standing and kill your rats like a good boy.

silentalleycat
Posted - 2009.12.23 09:11:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: silentalleycat on 23/12/2009 09:15:36
the idea is absolute fail, first you are to lazy to try and restore your standing second only thing you are after zre tears
On second thought this whole idea is absurd and only is a excuse to abuse the whole system, what are you trying to acomplish?? proving yours is bigger,

Shame on you

third thought why don't you try to gank something that fights back, see who has the biggest then ( probably can't stand losing in a real fight are we)

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.12.23 09:29:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Selrid Miamarr
Bad, bad, bad idea. Not so much the mechanic: I think ISK to improve standing is a fine idea. But the reasoning and purpose is bad.

Look at it this way. If your proposal would increase the amount of ganking, ransoming, and general wastage by a significant amount, you may very well cull the bunnies. But there is already a place where we have an example of this: lowsec.

Who mines in lowsec? Predators reign supreme there. If your proposal generated significant impact, you'd soon see miners simply vanish except as part of large 0.0 alliances that could guarantee their security. This would probably shoot prices through the roof as well.

Yeah I am a carebear (though its mostly because you can't really enjoy pvp when primaried and your life span is seconds) but I'm not unsympathetic to the idea. It's just you could very easily cull us to extinction.



And when mineral prices consequenty go through the roof, we'll be more than happy to accept you to our Industrial wing. Moderate obligations, lots of belts, including high-ends.

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2009.12.23 09:32:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Am I the only one to be just a bit off-put by the fact some pilot named Herr <something> posted a thread with "Final Solution" in its title ?
Rolling Eyes

Other than that, yeah, sure, why not, allow people to raise their secstatus by paying off CONCORD.
I would suggest the lowball amount of 100 mil ISK per point of secstatus.



I also found that to be severely lacking in taste...I doubt that was accidental.
So I'm already unsympathetic to the op. His idea is also fail.

1. If you don't pod people highsec ganking is a peace of cake with little sec loss, i.e. you're doing it wrong.
2. I hate it when people think up solutions that will only benefit the rich in isk or RL currency. So I hate Akita T's idea as well.
3. Fixing stupid game mechanics by adding more stupid game mechanics is really stupid. So I hate op's idea.

CCP has made highsec way too lucrative.
A. Move all high value content to lowsec (i.e. L4's and good mining asteroids).
B. Get rid of insurance. Or at least don't pay out for CONCORD-deaths.
=>
profit.
Carebears can still make a meagre living in highsec, but will be tempted to start operations in lowsec.
Targets will go to lowsec and pirates (and anti--pirates) can have fun.

As it is the only incentive to go to lowsec is to pester the pirates.

None of this will ever happen as it will **** off to many of CCP's customers.

Boink'urr
Minmatar
Wasserette De Tarthorst
Posted - 2009.12.23 09:51:00 - [27]
 

Louis, taking Hisec value to Losec is not going to do anything substantial as long as people run the risk of being harassed by other people at moments they don't want to be. The endless 'make L4 Losec only to fixxor all of Eve's problems' is going to do as much as L5's being Losec does. Nothing much in particular.

Elena Laskova
Posted - 2009.12.23 09:53:00 - [28]
 

Interesting that OP doesn't think he's a "carebear".

He cruises around looking for targets which can't shoot back, and where his spreadsheet says the grief is worth any loss of ISK or time.

This kind of risk-free time-wasting is only called "PvP" in EvE. In a real combat game it wouldn't be secStatus he was whining about, but being laughed at by everyone he knew in-game.

Wesfahrn
WESCORP 2.0
Posted - 2009.12.23 10:02:00 - [29]
 

Very risky solution to the problem. You dont know if it would work as intended. Much better of doing something simple. Like removing Platinum Insurance.

Then start developing EVE Online 2, learning from all the "mistakes" from EVE 1. GoGo

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.12.23 10:48:00 - [30]
 

The low mineral prices has little to do with the miners. Remove unnamed t1 drops from rats, and then look again what to do.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only