These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Buff Ganking--Nevermind, Nerfed Again

First post First post
Author
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#621 - 2012-10-07 20:08:30 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

If CCP wanted to just remove the profitability aspect of the exhumer ganking, then all CCP would've had to do is to make it so salvaging a hulk did not yield any valuable salvage.

Which would have made it unprofitable.

Lord Zim wrote:

It wasn't what CCP did, because it's not what CCP wanted. They wanted to stop all hisec ganking of exhumers, period, so they went overboard.

And made it unprofitable.


wtf you on???

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#622 - 2012-10-07 20:18:19 UTC
Eureka!!!

How about we make exhumer insurance actually pay what the exhumer cost and make the gankers insurance actually pay what the ganker lost too.

Artificial mineral pricing fixed. Check.
Ganker happy. Check.
Miner happy. Check.
Ganker still hero. Check.
Miner still stupid. Check.
Goons profit from increased T2 sales. Check.
Miners profit from increased mineral sales. Check.
CCP receive subs from miners, gankers and bots. Check.

OK. We're done here...


"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#623 - 2012-10-07 20:29:25 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Which would have made it unprofitable.

And would've been a soft touch tweak to reduce the ganking that was going on. Instead, they decided to blow it out of the water with an atom bomb.

Touval Lysander wrote:
And made it unprofitable.

They did more than just "make it unprofitable", they more or less made sure people wouldn't bother anymore, because the poor poor miners were completely and utterly unable to fit tanking mods to their ships. And in the process they made mining an even more AFK activity than ever before, and they've failed pretty hard in assigning roles to the ships. They wanted to make the hulk less of a instant go-to ship, and they wanted the skiff to have a role. Currently, skiffs aren't used much, nor are hulks. Most people are going for the mackinaw or the t1 variant.

Touval Lysander wrote:
wtf you on???

You ask me that, and then you spew forth this:

Touval Lysander wrote:
Eureka!!!

How about we make exhumer insurance actually pay what the exhumer cost and make the gankers insurance actually pay what the ganker lost too.

Artificial mineral pricing fixed. Check.
Ganker happy. Check.
Miner happy. Check.
Ganker still hero. Check.
Miner still stupid. Check.
Goons profit from increased T2 sales. Check.
Miners profit from increased mineral sales. Check.
CCP receive subs from miners, gankers and bots. Check.

OK. We're done here...

which makes no sense at all. vOv

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#624 - 2012-10-07 21:00:07 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:

Artificial mineral pricing fixed. Check.
Ganker happy. Check.
Miner happy. Check.
Ganker still hero. Check.
Miner still stupid. Check.
Goons profit from increased T2 sales. Check.
Miners profit from increased mineral sales. Check.
CCP receive subs from miners, gankers and bots. Check.

OK. We're done here...

which makes no sense at all. vOv


TLDR just for you. The call for proper mining insurance was made a long time ago.

That would have solved the gankers and miners problems without any buffs/nerfs to either party. The miner would never have cared much about ganks if he didn't lose 200m everytime it happened. The ganker never lost more than a 10th of that.

When risk/reward is taken into account, the inequity of the losses was the biggest stimulator of angst.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#625 - 2012-10-07 21:02:11 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:

Artificial mineral pricing fixed. Check.
Ganker happy. Check.
Miner happy. Check.
Ganker still hero. Check.
Miner still stupid. Check.
Goons profit from increased T2 sales. Check.
Miners profit from increased mineral sales. Check.
CCP receive subs from miners, gankers and bots. Check.

OK. We're done here...

which makes no sense at all. vOv


TLDR just for you. The call for proper mining insurance was made a long time ago.

That would have solved the gankers and miners problems without any buffs/nerfs to either party. The miner would never have cared much about ganks if he didn't lose 200m everytime it happened. The ganker never lost more than a 10th of that.

When risk/reward is taken into account, the inequity of the losses was the biggest stimulator of angst.

Because of Inflation. Roll

High-end insurance (in other words for t2, t3, and faction hulls) would be a huge ISK faucet. That's no better than the huge materials faucet miners got instead. Cool

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#626 - 2012-10-07 21:02:33 UTC
Mining barges don't have that problem. Only the exhumers do. I'll leave you to figure out why that is.

If you want insurance, fly a barge.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#627 - 2012-10-07 21:06:50 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
TLDR just for you. The call for proper mining insurance was made a long time ago.

That would have solved the gankers and miners problems without any buffs/nerfs to either party. The miner would never have cared much about ganks if he didn't lose 200m everytime it happened. The ganker never lost more than a 10th of that.

When risk/reward is taken into account, the inequity of the losses was the biggest stimulator of angst.

And as usual, you're trying to call for changes without considering the ramifications thereof. vOv

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#628 - 2012-10-07 21:10:25 UTC
Yeah, making exhumer insurance payouts comparable to ship cost is a sure fire way to kill off suicide ganking almost completely.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

NickyYo
modro
The Initiative.
#629 - 2012-10-07 21:10:32 UTC
And so it should be nerfed, theres no skill in buff ganking, just cowardness and easy kills..
PVP will be

very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very,

INTERESTING!!
When pvpers are forced to actualy tank and gank a ship!

..

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#630 - 2012-10-07 21:12:14 UTC
That face matches that post perfectly.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#631 - 2012-10-07 21:13:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
NickyYo wrote:
And so it should be nerfed, theres no skill in buff ganking, just cowardness and easy kills..
PVP will be

very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very,

INTERESTING!!
When pvpers are forced to actualy tank and gank a ship!

Content per word: 0.

PVPers are forced to fit ships based on various scenarios. A tank is often a part of that fit.

In high-sec, fitting a tank for a gank is the equivalent for gankers of miners fitting their exhumers with drone link augmentors and tanks to up their yield.

It's simply not appropriate for the job and it never will be.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#632 - 2012-10-07 21:17:21 UTC
NickyYo wrote:
And so it should be nerfed, theres no skill in buff ganking, just cowardness and easy kills..
PVP will be

very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very,

INTERESTING!!
When pvpers are forced to actualy tank and gank a ship!

Yet another clueless poster who thinks game balance should have anything to do with virtues and ideals of how the game should be played

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#633 - 2012-10-07 21:24:23 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Because of Inflation. Roll

High-end insurance (in other words for t2, t3, and faction hulls) would be a huge ISK faucet. That's no better than the huge materials faucet miners got instead. Cool

You see, this is where I get confused.

We repeatedly try to mimic the market to the model we use in RL. And yet, I can insure a BMW (for higher premiums ofc) and it does not create inflationary pressure at all.

So why would it be a faucet? Because NPC pays the insurance? NPC insurance is not artificially generated isk from what I understand. It's collected from funds from isk sinks (premiums, station fees etc.) do they not?

And really. If I insure a 200m or a 15m ship, what it is made of should be irrelevant? My premium determines the value of the policy. (BMW for example)

If we accept that, consider the point at which insurance might work AND put miners in charge of their own risk reduction (tanking, relocation) insofar as where risk is ignored.

Just like real insurance, constant losses will increase your premiums. Think what that would do to educate miners if ganking was made much easier and their payouts decreased (or premiums increased) for every "untanked" or "bad system" loss.

Ignorant miners will get punished (by their own hand) and those that educate themselves are "safer" from financial losss. (And educate may mean not mining during peak gank periods, relocating etc. - it may/may not mean tanking)

(Conversely ofc, gankers premiums would increase proportionally to the number of kills too.)


I'm not trying to be a smartass here, just looking at this from a "what do we do in RL" POV.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#634 - 2012-10-07 21:30:09 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
We repeatedly try to mimic the market to the model we use in RL. And yet, I can insure a BMW (for higher premiums ofc) and it does not create inflationary pressure at all.

Not even remotely the same thing. The insurance companies in real life doens't spawn money out of thin air, eve's insurance does.

Touval Lysander wrote:
So why would it be a faucet? Because NPC pays the insurance? NPC insurance is not artificially generated isk from what I understand. It's collected from funds from isk sinks (premiums, station fees etc.) do they not?

Yeah, see, the problem, yet again, is that what you understand, and what reality is, doesn't match up. There's no link between station fees etc, and the premiums are (in anything T1 and dockable) a miniscule part of the equation.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#635 - 2012-10-07 21:38:31 UTC
Matriarch Prime wrote:
What engaging gameplay does ganking add to the game? Is it a behavior that needs to be explicitly supported, or was it always just an emergent phenomenon born out of loopholes in the systems? Should players be rewarded greatly for commonly little risk? How many players would find the game less fun with out the loopholes that make it possible? Wouldn't increased risk by gankers encourage more discriminate risk assessment?

Its as risky as the target makes it and we do not use loopholes.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#636 - 2012-10-07 21:40:39 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Because of Inflation. Roll

High-end insurance (in other words for t2, t3, and faction hulls) would be a huge ISK faucet. That's no better than the huge materials faucet miners got instead. Cool

You see, this is where I get confused.

We repeatedly try to mimic the market to the model we use in RL. And yet, I can insure a BMW (for higher premiums ofc) and it does not create inflationary pressure at all.

So why would it be a faucet? Because NPC pays the insurance? NPC insurance is not artificially generated isk from what I understand. It's collected from funds from isk sinks (premiums, station fees etc.) do they not?

And really. If I insure a 200m or a 15m ship, what it is made of should be irrelevant? My premium determines the value of the policy. (BMW for example)

If we accept that, consider the point at which insurance might work AND put miners in charge of their own risk reduction (tanking, relocation) insofar as where risk is ignored.

Just like real insurance, constant losses will increase your premiums. Think what that would do to educate miners if ganking was made much easier and their payouts decreased (or premiums increased) for every "untanked" or "bad system" loss.

Ignorant miners will get punished (by their own hand) and those that educate themselves are "safer" from financial losss. (And educate may mean not mining during peak gank periods, relocating etc. - it may/may not mean tanking)

(Conversely ofc, gankers premiums would increase proportionally to the number of kills too.)


I'm not trying to be a smartass here, just looking at this from a "what do we do in RL" POV.

Thanks for not being a smartass here (this time anyway)! Blink

The situation is as Zim describes. Those ISK sinks do not balance with the ISK faucets, no. Not even remotely close.

Eve is a virtual simulation of RL economics. The gross theories still work here, but the problem is there isn't a "supply" of Insurance Payouts. It's infinite, which breaks the equation Value = Demand / Supply.

Eventually insurance value= nothing. So we don't see insurance payout for "bling."

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#637 - 2012-10-07 21:50:21 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
We repeatedly try to mimic the market to the model we use in RL. And yet, I can insure a BMW (for higher premiums ofc) and it does not create inflationary pressure at all.

Not even remotely the same thing. The insurance companies in real life doens't spawn money out of thin air, eve's insurance does.

Touval Lysander wrote:
So why would it be a faucet? Because NPC pays the insurance? NPC insurance is not artificially generated isk from what I understand. It's collected from funds from isk sinks (premiums, station fees etc.) do they not?

Yeah, see, the problem, yet again, is that what you understand, and what reality is, doesn't match up. There's no link between station fees etc, and the premiums are (in anything T1 and dockable) a miniscule part of the equation.

So where do the NPC insurance funds come from?

If it's "generated out of thin air" then that is a solvable problem. There is no reason why an independent insurance system can't be created that mimics RL insurance.

In such a scenario, risk management falls back to the player and 3rd party intervention (ie. CCP) to "prevent unfair losses" (and I use the term loosely) become void.

Those that choose to repeatedly and recklessly endanger their vessel (miner, ganker, freighter pilot) are held personally and financially responsible for the loss. A insurance rating system combined with an independent income stream would most certainly be workable and shift responsibility for financial loss back to the individual - without interference from an external entity.

And yes, there would be a potential for inflation during the settling period but once the bad risks are identified, it would level out. In fact it could prove to be an isk sink if for example, premiums were "compulsory" as they are in many RL countries.

Just a thought.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#638 - 2012-10-07 21:58:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Insurance in eve don't mimic anything resembling RL insurance.

"oh certainly sir, you'll want platinum insurance on your warship. And you'll be flying it in a fleet fight tomorrow, you say? Certainly no problem, that'll be some money."
the day after:
"oh dear, sir, your ship was blown up, here's a huge wad of money. Oh, what's that sir? you have another warship you'd like to insure for reshipping? Why certainly sir, but do try to bring it back alive this time."
15 minutes later:
"oh dear, sir, your ship was blown up, here's a huge wad of money. Oh, what's that sir? you have another warship you'd like to insure for reshipping? Why certainly sir, but do try to bring it back alive this time."
5 minutes later:
"oh dear, sir, your ship was blown up, here's a huge wad of money. Oh, what's that sir? you have another warship you'd like to insure for reshipping? Why certainly sir, but do try to bring it back alive this time."

Compare that to real life insurance:
"Certainly sir, we can definitely insure that car for a reasonable fee of 2x the car's actual value, since it's most often driven by people who crash it."
the day after:
"What, you drove the car into a warzone, and it was blown up? you're not getting any money. Oh, what's that, you'd like to insure another car to drive the exact same route? ARE YOU ******* SHITTING ME?!? GET OUT OF MY OFFICE! OUT! OUT!"

Meaning if we were to look at mimicing "RL insurance", we might as well just yank it out in its entirety, since it'd never be paying out anything to anyone.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#639 - 2012-10-07 22:30:05 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
We repeatedly try to mimic the market to the model we use in RL. And yet, I can insure a BMW (for higher premiums ofc) and it does not create inflationary pressure at all.

Not even remotely the same thing. The insurance companies in real life doens't spawn money out of thin air, eve's insurance does.

Touval Lysander wrote:
So why would it be a faucet? Because NPC pays the insurance? NPC insurance is not artificially generated isk from what I understand. It's collected from funds from isk sinks (premiums, station fees etc.) do they not?

Yeah, see, the problem, yet again, is that what you understand, and what reality is, doesn't match up. There's no link between station fees etc, and the premiums are (in anything T1 and dockable) a miniscule part of the equation.

So where do the NPC insurance funds come from?

If it's "generated out of thin air" then that is a solvable problem. There is no reason why an independent insurance system can't be created that mimics RL insurance.

In such a scenario, risk management falls back to the player and 3rd party intervention (ie. CCP) to "prevent unfair losses" (and I use the term loosely) become void.

Those that choose to repeatedly and recklessly endanger their vessel (miner, ganker, freighter pilot) are held personally and financially responsible for the loss. A insurance rating system combined with an independent income stream would most certainly be workable and shift responsibility for financial loss back to the individual - without interference from an external entity.

And yes, there would be a potential for inflation during the settling period but once the bad risks are identified, it would level out. In fact it could prove to be an isk sink if for example, premiums were "compulsory" as they are in many RL countries.

Just a thought.

A miner pulling for personal accountability in a buff ganking thread after what miners have been/are being given is pretty much the funniest thing I have ever seen!

But not necessarily a particularly "good" kind of funny.

Do you have any idea how bad that would be for driving conflict in Eve, and combined with an endless faucet of materials, drive the value of any conflict to oblivion at the same time?

Let me rephrase the question: Do you understand the economic equation I keep mentioning or not?

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#640 - 2012-10-07 22:36:51 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

Meaning if we were to look at mimicing "RL insurance", we might as well just yank it out in its entirety, since it'd never be paying out anything to anyone.

Except to those who actively mitigate their risks.

Seriously. So we can't have a system where players are responsible for their losses? Constant losses doesn't stop you flying and dying, just means insurance would remain as irrelevant as it is now.

If you repeatedly fly and die in shiney you don't get paid out? So?

Remember, if someone died, someone didn't. His rating stays high and he pays less premiums. A reward for excellence and risk mitigation.

The moron with cruiser skills trying to fly a marauder pays the price.
The miner who doesn't tank or flies afk all day etc. pays the price.
The freighter pilot who AFK's with 3b of BPO's pays the price.

The incentive to fly better is in cheaper premiums and better payouts if things do go bad. If you repeatedly do stupid things, well, you pay the price.

And really, having an insurance system that might ultimately pay next to nothing - changes nothing to what we already have.

The sky is blue Zim.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."