Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 11:28:00 -
[31]
No need to remove insurance. Just :
1- remove insurance form concord kills 2- limit insurance to 70% of current value.
|
Intense Thinker
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 11:41:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Seishi Maru No need to remove insurance. Just :
1- remove insurance form concord kills 2- limit insurance to 70% of current value.
3- go die in a magnesium fire
Originally by: a51 duke1406 The girls just dont understand that sunday is pvp night, not cuddle on the couch watching tv night.
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 11:57:00 -
[33]
Just keep the base (30%) insurance and be done with it.
People flying T2/T3 don't cry over lack of 100% insurance coverage.
|
Alt0101
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 12:02:00 -
[34]
Insurance make a hard floor for minerals price, so if completely removed, mineral prices would fall with no limits.
Nevertheless I'm agree with insurance not being paid to suicide gankers.
|
Yarton Killmore
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 12:03:00 -
[35]
people dont cry over t2/t3 losses because they can afford it, and besides if you removed insurance who in their right mind is gonna grind missions for a week to get a ship and then loose it just to have to grind again.
people who have been in eve a long time seem to have forgotten how much hassle it is to make money to buy these ships...
oh and how would removing insurance make the mineral price drop? unless we are talking of the opposite effect that this would have in removing suicide ganking because of no insurance causing ship demand to lower?
I can understand in RL if insurance was removed from cars for instance the price of cars would drop, but this isnt real life... this is eve...
|
Kazang
Wrecking Shots
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 12:05:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Malcanis As a rather more dull-but-practical alternative, please support my insurance reform proposal.
In short, base insurance on 90-95% of the normalised aggregate mineral sale price over the preceeding day (or week, if it's computationally expesive to calculate this, although I don't see why it should be). Buy/sell orders dont count, only actual mineral sales. So if the total mineral cost of a Raven is 100 million ISK, then the insurance value will be 95 million (with the premium also being modified on a pro-rata basis).
In theory, someone could manipulate this system, but they'd have to spend fantastic amounts of ISK to do so, and their manipulations would be public and susceptible to interference.
This a far better solution than your drama queen "terrorism" act. Not to mention the fact that removing insurance would do far more damage to the economy than insurance fraud ever has.
The problem needs to be solved not simply pushed aside by removing insurance. Suicide ganking is so common now your plan and efforts to break the system will simply be a drop in the ocean, unless you start killing fully loaded jump freighters en masse you won't even be noticed. Of course this is why you made this thread, as you wouldn't be noticed unless you did. Kazang
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 12:31:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Intense Thinker
Originally by: Seishi Maru No need to remove insurance. Just :
1- remove insurance form concord kills 2- limit insurance to 70% of current value.
3- go die in a magnesium fire
byt that i can take as granted that you are a professional suicide ganker that wants near zero loss for the capability of ruining the month or months of other players without chance them to do anything and WITHOUT RISK TO YOU!
No the chance they drop nothing good is NOT risk for you. For the point of view of the suicided its ALWAYS them loosing. And any activity like that should have GREAT cost. want to have 100% sure that you will kill that guy.. ok.. but will cost you A LOT!
AQnd no. i have never been suicide ganked.. so no crying here, just someone with sense of GAME BALANCE.
|
Evil Incarn8
Amarr Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 12:43:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Seishi Maru No need to remove insurance. Just :
1- remove insurance form concord kills 2- limit insurance to 70% of current value.
This is my favoured solution to Insurance, CONCORD kill = no money for you.
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 12:53:00 -
[39]
I've wondered about this myself, actually. It would affect PvPers more than carebears, as has been mentioned, and I believe over time, it would change the makeup of common nullsec gangs and fleets.
But, unfortunately, if CCP implemented this, there would be epic amounts of whining (see: "zomg CCP is trying to force carebears out of NPC corps with a measly 11% tax!")
|
Keida
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 12:56:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Swiftgaze Edited by: Swiftgaze on 20/12/2009 09:32:39
Originally by: Bellum Eternus It's a huge ISK faucet, and when exploited on an industrial scale it's capable of dumping literally hundreds of billions of raw ISK into the game every month. This is a bad thing.
Someone enlighten me.
How much money can you actually make with this whole insurance thing? How many players does it take to make hundreds of billions of ISK per month?
I somehow bet its not worth the time, could that be?
EDIT: Oh, but, Bellum, if youre looking for more suicide gankers, Id prolly be up for it in the future. If youre still looking for a crew, that is. :)
It takes one character and some dedication and you can see 100b / mo.
And as for additions to the bunch, we'll be suiciding ships around the clock from here on out. Just stop on by and join the fun.
You're exaggerating just a small bit? I calculated how much can be made from building and self destructing T3 battleships and to make 100 bill a month you would need a lot more than 1 character, the amount of work involved in making that much money could only be accomplished by a team of players. A single player could not do it.
|
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 13:03:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Keida Edited by: Keida on 20/12/2009 12:56:58
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Swiftgaze Edited by: Swiftgaze on 20/12/2009 09:32:39
Originally by: Bellum Eternus It's a huge ISK faucet, and when exploited on an industrial scale it's capable of dumping literally hundreds of billions of raw ISK into the game every month. This is a bad thing.
Someone enlighten me.
How much money can you actually make with this whole insurance thing? How many players does it take to make hundreds of billions of ISK per month?
I somehow bet its not worth the time, could that be?
EDIT: Oh, but, Bellum, if youre looking for more suicide gankers, Id prolly be up for it in the future. If youre still looking for a crew, that is. :)
It takes one character and some dedication and you can see 100b / mo.
And as for additions to the bunch, we'll be suiciding ships around the clock from here on out. Just stop on by and join the fun.
You're exaggerating just a small bit? I calculated how much can be made from building and self destructing T3 battleships and to make 100 bill a month you would need a lot more than 1 character, the amount of work involved in making that much money could only be accomplished by a team of players. A single player could not do it. You'd need at least 50 abaddon bpos in constant production, good luck with that.
No, not exaggerating at all. It's been done before, by quite a few people. It's not difficult. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 13:08:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Evil Incarn8
Originally by: Seishi Maru No need to remove insurance. Just :
1- remove insurance form concord kills 2- limit insurance to 70% of current value.
This is my favoured solution to Insurance, CONCORD kill = no money for you.
Insurance payouts for suicide ganking isn't the problem. It's the existence of insurance at all that is the issue. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Captain Organs
Space Lobster Expeditionary
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 13:19:00 -
[43]
I think if CONCORD destroys the ship or you self destruct the ship there should be no insurance payout. Insurance for pvp ships is an important part of the game. Keeps us from going dead broke and going carebear. Everyone. Carebears. Think about that.
|
Avon
Caldari Black Nova Corp IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 13:24:00 -
[44]
There should be no insurance. Mineral prices would be far more dynamic if a base price wasn't set by insurance, and PvP would be more meaningful.
Scrap it.
アニメ漫画です
|
Yakumo Smith
Gallente No End To Infinity Fleetingly Finite
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 13:26:00 -
[45]
The 100B mentioned was made by players considered to be MD elite with plenty of isk to flash around to make things possible.
Now the procedure is in the wild, the chances of making those sums again are less likely. Not impossible though.
I suppose this must be my sig. I'll do something cool with it eventually. |
gallchecker
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 13:54:00 -
[46]
*puts credit card back in wallet* *steps away from the game*
Sounds like a cool game bro, shame it seems to be full of ******s.
|
Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiau
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 14:05:00 -
[47]
Originally by: gallchecker *puts credit card back in wallet* *steps away from the game*
Sounds like a cool game bro, shame it seems to be full of ******s.
Well the game will be better without you. So bye. Eve is the last hardcore MMO left, i hope the devs don't change it to World of Eve, just because some whiny WoW players don't like to be blown up.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 14:10:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Avon There should be no insurance. Mineral prices would be far more dynamic if a base price wasn't set by insurance, and PvP would be more meaningful.
Scrap it.
problem is, that woudl make even harder that new players try pvp. In other words exactly oposite of what ccp want. Lots, in fact vast majority of players need to work (in game) for a full week to get a battleship, they are not in alliances. And no its not possible for everyone to make isk on the market on huge ammounts, by definition market work cannot make all parts involved richer.
Realistically. Insurance wil not go aways because ccp wants more people to pvp. What can be done is tune it so it achieves just the desired results without causign too much colateral damage.
|
gallchecker
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 14:18:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Seishi Maru
Realistically. Insurance wil not go aways because ccp wants more people to pvp. What can be done is tune it so it achieves just the desired results without causign too much colateral damage.
No insurance for concord kills.
Just like in reality, where if your car is run off the road by the cops the insurance is null and void as you arent insured whilst committing a criminal act :)
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 14:28:00 -
[50]
Yes, i'm in for removing of insurance ONLY if Concord is involved.
Removing insurance totally are a good way to destroy PVP for newer players. And for making EVE into a big ass grind fest when you have to carebear your ass of to get money back again.
Yes not all can do the insane 100 bill isk a month. Specially not newer players. If it had been that easy, then fine, it would be a good idea.
Director of Infinitus Odium. |
|
JrsWoman
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 14:35:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Have 160 Geddons sitting and ready to go, should keep me busy for a bit.
320 ships died in Eve did anyone notice ? |
Junko Togawa
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 14:44:00 -
[52]
I agree, stop insurance payouts for CONCORD kills. This means the real PVP'ers can continue to PvP with little loss, while the suicide gankers out to make a profit only have to be a wee bit more picky. The ones out trying to raep miners will just have to spend more ISK for their lulz. And isn't a bigger money sink a good thing?
|
Princess Jodi
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 14:51:00 -
[53]
Wait... so your terrorist threat is that you're gonna blow up all your own ships?
Cool.
|
The Wicked1
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 14:52:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus ..... Completely legit gameplay.....
Yep it is! And you want to ban it? Please crawl back into your little WoW hole and leave EVE to the rest of us.
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 14:52:00 -
[55]
Edited by: ropnes on 20/12/2009 14:56:14 The fact that you can make money self destructing ships is not something that can be used to argue against insurance. If enough people do it the mineral prices will rise and it'll stop being profitable
Also, the 100B figure comes from when the mineral basket price was MUCH lower and to do something like that requires at least a hundred billion to begin with
|
Avon
Caldari Black Nova Corp IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 15:00:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Seishi Maru
Originally by: Avon There should be no insurance. Mineral prices would be far more dynamic if a base price wasn't set by insurance, and PvP would be more meaningful.
Scrap it.
problem is, that woudl make even harder that new players try pvp. In other words exactly oposite of what ccp want. Lots, in fact vast majority of players need to work (in game) for a full week to get a battleship, they are not in alliances. And no its not possible for everyone to make isk on the market on huge ammounts, by definition market work cannot make all parts involved richer.
I don't agree that it would make it harder for new players to get in to pvp.
The very difficulty of replacing expensive ships means that people will tend to fly more affordable ships, which are also the ones which newer player tend to fly anyway due the skill requirements.
If anything it would make PvP easier to get in to because the bar would have been lowered.
アニメ漫画です
|
Feilamya
Pelennor Swarm THE KLINGONS
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 15:07:00 -
[57]
Oh, what an original idea...
|
cu2hell
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 15:10:00 -
[58]
I have a very good suggestion for you, why don't you take all those "isk" you are going to make and buy the game from CCP and then you can change the game design....
It would probably be easier and less time consuming.
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 15:23:00 -
[59]
Originally by: cu2hell I have a very good suggestion for you, why don't you take all those "isk" you are going to make and buy the game from CCP and then you can change the game design....
It would probably be easier and less time consuming.
_____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Originally by: CCP Fallout :facepalm:
|
Washell Olivaw
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 15:50:00 -
[60]
The problem is selfcorrecting. Mineral supply plus stockpile vs regular demand plus selfdestruct demand is average price. Selfdestruct competes with regular. Selfdestruct can only stay the same or increase while removing minerals and finished products from the economy. The only possible outcome is that at some point it will have used up the stockpile minerals on the supply side at which point prices will rise above insurance value.
Should the sitution threaten to become critical, they will just (silently) change the respawn of minerals to force a reduction on the supply side. They have done so before.
Originally by: Signature Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |