These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

I don't understand the hate for removing insurance pay outs on Concorded ships.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teamosil
Good Time Family Band Solution
#121 - 2011-11-01 17:13:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Teamosil
Atrum Veneficus wrote:
before Goonswarm Federation started Gallente Ice Interdiction, i bought 25million units of oxygen isotopes at 440 isk/unit (11bil isk invested). I then sold those oxytopes at 1200 isk/unit (30bil isk returned).


Atrum Veneficus wrote:
Their wealth comes from other means and they are going to wreck you for laughs, not for profit.


You understand that these two statements conflict right?

So, lets dig in to your example a bit. How many hours did you spend ganking? Did you find it difficult or easy? The rewards in your case were 20 billion ISK. So if it was just moderately difficult or you spent less than say 200 hours, that would seem imbalanced, right?
Atrum Veneficus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#122 - 2011-11-01 17:18:25 UTC
Teamosil wrote:
Atrum Veneficus wrote:
before Goonswarm Federation started Gallente Ice Interdiction, i bought 25million units of oxygen isotopes at 440 isk/unit (11bil isk invested). I then sold those oxytopes at 1200 isk/unit (30bil isk returned).


Atrum Veneficus wrote:
Their wealth comes from other means and they are going to wreck you for laughs, not for profit.


You understand that these two statements conflict right?


No, because I made my wealth on economic speculation caused by the "market gurus" making a massive run on oxygen isotopes. At the point I sold my oxygen isotopes we'd probably only ganked a handful of ships.

Market manipulation is not equal to high sec ganking.
Teamosil
Good Time Family Band Solution
#123 - 2011-11-01 17:20:26 UTC
Atrum Veneficus wrote:
No, because I made my wealth on economic speculation caused by the "market gurus" making a massive run on oxygen isotopes. At the point I sold my oxygen isotopes we'd probably only ganked a handful of ships.

Market manipulation is not equal to high sec ganking.


Whether people overreacted or not is irrelevant. The ganking is all you had to do in order to make those profits. So you made 20 billion. How many hours of game play did that require? Would you consider the ganking to have been difficult? Or pretty easy? Do you think the level of difficulty and time you put into it is proportional with that reward? Or do you think it is imbalanced?
Gerard Gendri
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#124 - 2011-11-01 17:28:27 UTC
Teamosil wrote:
Atrum Veneficus wrote:
before Goonswarm Federation started Gallente Ice Interdiction, i bought 25million units of oxygen isotopes at 440 isk/unit (11bil isk invested). I then sold those oxytopes at 1200 isk/unit (30bil isk returned).


Atrum Veneficus wrote:
Their wealth comes from other means and they are going to wreck you for laughs, not for profit.


You understand that these two statements conflict right?

So, lets dig in to your example a bit. How many hours did you spend ganking? Did you find it difficult or easy? The rewards in your case were 20 billion ISK. So if it was just moderately difficult or you spent less than say 200 hours, that would seem imbalanced, right?

You understand that he had 11 billion before he ganked a single ship or bought a single unit of oxygen isotopes?

11 billion is a lot of brutixes.
Atrum Veneficus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#125 - 2011-11-01 17:31:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Atrum Veneficus
Teamosil wrote:
The ganking is all you had to do in order to make those profits.


No, it wasn't.

Goonswarm Federation ANNOUNCING they were going to do the ganking is all it took to make those profits. I made those profits before we did much of anything. So how much time did it take?

What, 10 minutes to log in, move isk, buy oxytopes, relist and log out? Yep, about 10 minutes to make 20billion.

The Mittani making an alliance update that was leaked to k*g*utsumen.com and to these forums caused a massive run on oxygen isotopes that occurred before the operation truly began.

That's why I'm making the point that market manipulation is not equal to highsec ganking. We could have announced the operation, done NOTHING, and I still would have made the same profit.

Regardless, none of this has any relevance at all to my initial points here:

Atrum Veneficus wrote:
Mirima Thurander wrote:
I don't understand the hate for removing insurance pay outs on Concorded ships.


I want to know why you the gank masters of eve have so much hate for having your ability to only lose a small amount of isk when you gank something removed.


Any post that can be summed up as "" because ganking wont be free any more"" is not valid.


I haven't read the rest of this thread but essentially all you are doing is cutting poor pilots out of ganking.

Let me put it to you this way: before Goonswarm Federation started Gallente Ice Interdiction, i bought 25million units of oxygen isotopes at 440 isk/unit (11bil isk invested). I then sold those oxytopes at 1200 isk/unit (30bil isk returned).

I have enough isk to suicide gank for years. Concord insurance makes no impact on my choice to kill your stuff. Most "professional" suicide gankers have similar stories. Their wealth comes from other means and they are going to wreck you for laughs, not for profit. So changing the insurance policy makes no difference to them and they are probably the largest portion of suicide gankers.

So who does removing insurance hurt?

Scenario 1: The clueless newbie. At one point in our eve careers we were all this guy. I'm sure we all have stories about how we were blown up in empire by concord with no idea what we did wrong. Sometime back in 2007 when I first started, I was repping some corpmate doing missions in my Exqueror, a salvager/loot stealer came in, my corpmate did something to him, and concord blew up my corpmate and my exequeror. I have no idea what I did, thinking back it was probably because I'd assigned my drones to the corpmate.

Regardless, my clueless corpmate and I doing L4 missions died to Concord for no other reason than being bothered by a buzzard in a mission. No insurance payout in the world you are proposing for the reason of being helplessly new at the game. Let's not ignore all the Concord executions that occur during Empire Incursions. Some of those are pure accidents. No insurance payouts there?

Scenario 2: The guy wanting to try something new. In your adolescent phase of Eve Online, you are still trying to figure out who you want to be. A miner? A mission runner? A 0.0 bitter political arm-chair general? A low-sec pirate? An NPC 0.0 pirate? A mercenary corp? An empire war-dec corp? An inventory, production, market, or logistics services? A scammer? A ganker? Most of us have tried several roles and the biggest barriers to entry are the initial capital cost. You don't leap into moon mining or capital ship production because they cost billions of isk in start-up capital. Instead you stick to areas that are cheap to get into with minimal losses if you find you don't like it.

Your proposed changes would essential create a barrier of entry for trying out empire ganking. Empire ganking would become the province of the individually wealthy, the elite, those for whom price is no object. The poor huddled masses will be excluded from trying out this hilariously fun past-time because you've introduced a barrier of entry to keep them from even trying out the sport. How very Republican of you. Let's watch Fox News together while clubbing baby seals.

So for the tldr crowd: your proposed changes make no difference to the truly dedicated crowd while hurting a lot more people than your intent.
Teamosil
Good Time Family Band Solution
#126 - 2011-11-01 18:59:11 UTC
Atrum Veneficus wrote:
No, it wasn't.

Goonswarm Federation ANNOUNCING they were going to do the ganking is all it took to make those profits. I made those profits before we did much of anything. So how much time did it take?

What, 10 minutes to log in, move isk, buy oxytopes, relist and log out? Yep, about 10 minutes to make 20billion.

The Mittani making an alliance update that was leaked to k*g*utsumen.com and to these forums caused a massive run on oxygen isotopes that occurred before the operation truly began.

That's why I'm making the point that market manipulation is not equal to highsec ganking. We could have announced the operation, done NOTHING, and I still would have made the same profit.


That's half true. If ganking were harder or more costly or easier to protect against the threat would have carried less credibility and have had less of an effect. Just because the change in price came before the actual ganking doesn't mean it wasn't tied to the actual ganking. If market speculators were accurately predicting the impact it would have then it doesn't matter whether they took action early or late.

Atrum Veneficus wrote:
Regardless, none of this has any relevance at all to my initial points here:


I don't totally disagree with you. I'm suspicious that removing insurance isn't the right solution. My gut instinct is that the best solution would be to make ganking more challenging. In fact, I just lean that way in general with everything in eve. More challenge = good. You guys are experienced players fighting noobs. Stacking the deck in favor of the noobs would make the game more fun and challenging for both sides. They'd stand more of a chance so when they did their jobs well (given their limited experience and resources) they'd be rewarded for that by surviving. That is a more meaningful kind of challenge. Think of it like this. Are first graders more challenged by giving them a test on their ability to read or by giving them a calculus problem? I'd say the former because the later is so far outside of their abilities that they can't even really take on the challenge. At the same time,you'd have to play at the height of your game to take them down, so you'd be getting more challenge too. That's good for everybody, right? Wouldn't you deep down rather do stuff in the game that tests your abilities pretty rigorously?

What form more making it more challenging would take I don't know. IMO it shouldn't be something that just like dictates a specific fitting of a particular ship to get your alpha high enough, or that means you need to bring more ships, it should be something more nuanced like a better way for players to come to each others' defense or ways to make the gankers be on the move the whole time they're in system like when they have -5 standing or whatever. Something that requires really being on the ball.

But, I haven't ever ganked and I was only ganked once while transporting stuff like 2 years ago, so I don't really know if it is in fact too easy to pull off for the ganker. It certainly seems like it would be from the outside, but if it honestly is already quite challenging, that would certainly change my view. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.

I do think using the insurance system to collect for ships you committed suicide in is fishy. IMO CCP should fix stuff like that just on principle I guess. If you self destruct your insurance is voided, so I don't see why "suicide by cop" would be treated differently. But yeah, I don't really think that's a big deal either way.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#127 - 2011-11-01 20:16:08 UTC
Everyone says that hi-sec ganking is Risk-free and unbalanced and needs an economic disincentive by distorting insurance payouts against suiciders.

So I sat down and did some accounting.

I've counted up the many hours I've spent suicide ganking between my main and alts. My targets are generally miners - Mackinaws and Hulks. I've counted up the hours spent on sec-status repair.

Added up the gains from the salvage and loot drops and insurance, and subtracted premiums and mods lost from ganking.

Turns out I'm actually earning NEGATIVE income per hour. Only the odd Intact Armor Plate drop / faction booster allows you to turn a profit.

I could have earned FAR more ISK just running LVL 4 missions - or just mining myself.

Tell me again, why does this activity need a nerf? I would figure that LVL4 bounties need to be reduced long before insurance payments need to be skewed against people who make a living suicide ganking.

Is this just a strategic whine thread from miners who want to force professional gankers to go after haulers instead?
MeestaPenni
Mercantile and Stuff
#128 - 2011-11-01 20:29:34 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:

Turns out I'm actually earning NEGATIVE income per hour.

[snip the blah blah blah]

Is this just a strategic whine thread from miners who want to force professional gankers to go after haulers instead?


You may not need to worry about the effect on professional gankers.

Just sayin'.......

I am not Prencleeve Grothsmore.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#129 - 2011-11-01 20:51:18 UTC
Meh. Ruptures are cheap. Thrashers are cheaper. It will just force us to adjust our calculations on what is and isn't profitable.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Justin Credulent
Luv You Long Time
#130 - 2011-11-01 20:58:34 UTC
Quote:
Why don't people just take responsibility for properly fitting and flying their ships? If they did then suicide ganking would probably drop by 80%. All the so called fixes I've seen are exploitable and in the long run would solve nothing. Basically most of the fixes proposed are trying to protect failbears who don't want to take the initative and harden themselves against ganks.


Why not hold criminals responsible for their actions?

I swear, EVE would be a great game for Republicans, the way everyone blames the victim around here and lets criminals do whatever they want...

Null-Sec needs to HTFU and stop crying to CCP. If null-sec wants PvP, they need to stop being carebears and start fighting eachother - after years of bot-mining, they have the ships!
Gritz1
Ice Fire Warriors
#131 - 2011-11-01 21:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Gritz1
Originally, I was completely for not paying out insurance to someone who goes GCC and commits a crime. That seems like a no brainer.. However, upon reading more, why should a pirate in low sec who gets ambushed by other pirates get paid out? Why should I say, a SB in null get paid out when he makes a mistake and gets blown up by a ratting drake (ahem, terrible mistake on my part.)

Remove insurance completely. It's not needed. Or work out a system for insurance on rookie players or something, just to help keep a new player base.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#132 - 2011-11-01 21:22:19 UTC
Justin Credulent wrote:
Why not hold criminals responsible for their actions?


Yeah, Concord should, like, blow up their ship or something. Seeing as they blew up yours.

Justin Credulent wrote:
I swear, EVE would be a great game for Republicans, the way everyone blames the victim around here and lets criminals do whatever they want...


I thought Republicans were the ones who wanted to shoot criminals for shoplifting or something like that. People really need to get their political stereotypes straight.

Please keep your stupid political hackery out of my Eve.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Nor Tzestu
Dos Pollos Hermanos
#133 - 2011-11-01 21:30:53 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…then again, the miners rather need that subsidy. Straight


Your just so far off base with the miners needing the subsidy I can only assume your being obtuse. Or maybe, just maybe you haven't bothered to measure the cost difference of building/buying a hulk and the appropriate insurance payout and compared that to the cost's for say a brutix. That or your completely clueless and are simply trolling. Neither scenario would shock me in the least.

I'd get into you continued proclamation of suicide ganking having some type of risk, but when your so clearly able to ignore simple mathematics I fear the conversation would be at best tiresome.
Atrum Veneficus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#134 - 2011-11-01 23:48:05 UTC
Gritz1 wrote:
Originally, I was completely for not paying out insurance to someone who goes GCC and commits a crime. That seems like a no brainer.. However, upon reading more, why should a pirate in low sec who gets ambushed by other pirates get paid out? Why should I say, a SB in null get paid out when he makes a mistake and gets blown up by a ratting drake (ahem, terrible mistake on my part.)

Remove insurance completely. It's not needed. Or work out a system for insurance on rookie players or something, just to help keep a new player base.


My opinion is actually very much in line with this. Get rid of insurance altogether. It's kind of ridiculous when you think about it. Who the hell would insure battleships in the jacked up universe that is Eve? How do you make that business model profitable? Here, pay me a fraction of the hull price, and when your ship inevitably dies, I'll pay you way more than you paid in!

Scrap insurance, reduce build minerals required by some percentage.

Then when ganking continues unabated, I can reference this thread, this post, these words, and say "I told you so."
Running Clam
#135 - 2011-11-01 23:55:26 UTC
Yay Less suicide ganks.
Maxpie
MUSE LLP
#136 - 2011-11-02 00:19:45 UTC
OP, the hate you preceive is the same complaint any player makes when something that has not consequence/counter is nerfed. I think it is completely illogical that any ship in Eve would be insured, particularly combat ships. If I were in charge, I'd get rid of insurance totally, or at a minimum after the first 30 days of a paid account with no insurance for trial accounts.

No good deed goes unpunished
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#137 - 2011-11-02 00:49:20 UTC
Atrum Veneficus wrote:
[quote=Gritz1]Scrap insurance, reduce build minerals required by some percentage.

Actually, you'd need to increase it. Right now ship insurance serves as a stopgap to prevent mineral prices from being bottomed out. If minerals get TOO cheap, it becomes profitable to buy minerals, build ships, and then destroy those ships for the insurance payment. Without it there's no safety net and mineral prices would get ridiculously low. You'd need to require a lot more minerals per ship to absorb the excess, but mining would still be hurt as an occupation.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Killstealing
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#138 - 2011-11-02 01:07:13 UTC
because it removes the opportunity of a ganking (aka fun) career for newbies while keeping the 'big power blocs' (lol) with all the fun

and that's just not kawaii, got that you baka?
Killstealing
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#139 - 2011-11-02 01:11:15 UTC
Justin Credulent wrote:
Quote:
Why don't people just take responsibility for properly fitting and flying their ships? If they did then suicide ganking would probably drop by 80%. All the so called fixes I've seen are exploitable and in the long run would solve nothing. Basically most of the fixes proposed are trying to protect failbears who don't want to take the initative and harden themselves against ganks.


Why not hold criminals responsible for their actions?

I swear, EVE would be a great game for Republicans, the way everyone blames the victim around here and lets criminals do whatever they want...

Do you know how many chances at new intelligent life are just lost because of those goddamn miners? Space genocide is what it is.
Z'Pax
Lamorei Prosapia Vexillum
#140 - 2011-11-02 01:59:13 UTC
Ok so I just read through this thread... It tells me this.

1, There seemed to be no real objection to the sensible removal of insurance from concorded ships. The few good points being oh its a noob, or its someone starting out ganking.. well meh this IS EVE some lessons are hard learned. Noobs have the pop up for protection, and a newbie ganker... lol

2, The gankers whined more than the miners in this thread.