Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cassi Watson
Farscape Creations
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 17:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
Now that the price of tritanium has hit 6.0 and the price of all T3 BS's are well north of 200m I feel like I have to ask the question about insurance. The price's have not changed but the overall coverage has. I remember when Platinum would at least cover the cost of the hull. thus reducing the cost of the ships hull to that of the insurance cost and all you where crying about was mods and the 30mill for the coverage.
I know there are some rather fat wallets floating around eve right now and any effort to get cash out of them is good from the perspective of the average player but It feels like the cost of high tritanum goods is becoming a pain in the but for everyone especially if your looking to start flying some of the larger ships out there.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6114
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
SoGǪ what's your question?
Insurance is based on mineral market values these days. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3796
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
Insurance is based on two factors.
Cost of materials this is recacluated every so often based on mineral averages thus overall the insurance payouts will seriously lag behind for a while.
Then the next factor is how likely that ship is going to be lost. Least likely ships have worse payouts than most likley to be lost ships (which makes no sense in the real world but its eve)
Bottom line, go mine more.
|
Cassi Watson
Farscape Creations
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tippia wrote:SoGǪ what's your question?
Insurance is based on mineral market values these days.
When was this changed? and why dose it feel like the coverage sucks? |
Cassi Watson
Farscape Creations
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Insurance is based on two factors.
Cost of materials this is recacluated every so often based on mineral averages thus overall the insurance payouts will seriously lag behind for a while.
Then the next factor is how likely that ship is going to be lost. Least likely ships have worse payouts than most likley to be lost ships (which makes no sense in the real world but its eve)
Bottom line, go mine more.
so a rifter has a higher payout ratio then a drake? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6115
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:10:00 -
[6] - Quote
Cassi Watson wrote:When was this changed? and why dose it feel like the coverage sucks? Two years ago, as part of the Tyrannis expansion.
GǪand because the mineral prices are still climbing. It's not fully know how/when (and where) prices are polled and calculated, but they'll always lag behind a bit. I can't see them ever having mentioned that ship loss statistics is a factor, so you'd have to ask Nova Fox for a proper source on that claim. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cassi Watson wrote:When was this changed? and why dose it feel like the coverage sucks? Two years ago, as part of the Tyrannis expansion. GǪand because the mineral prices are still climbing. It's not fully know how/when (and where) prices are polled and calculated, but they'll always lag behind a bit. I can't see them ever having mentioned that ship loss statistics is a factor, so you'd have to ask Nova Fox for a proper source on that claim. the idea is/was that certain desirable high risk ships could have better payouts than other ships. to what degree that has been implemented (if at all) is sth I don't know.
Quote:Our new insurance system recalculates the value of all ship classes which includes Tech 2 and Tech 3 classes establishing the base material cost of the ship. To this we have added the ability for us to define more precisely how much of the total material value of each ship class should be paid out. Our intention is that we can make certain ship classes pay out much less, some closer to the full value.
Here we can then say that a tackler class which is a highly dangerous role and prone to see you dying a lot might pay out more than say a specialist covert ops class of ship has a higher survival rate. So players who fly the ships with short life expectancies will be more sustainable to fly on lower incomes, and the same can be applied to more casual ship classes such as cruisers or battlecruisers used more by newer players to allow them to get to grips with the game whilst not losing everything constantly.
On the high end game play side of this is the role of strategic ship classes as valuable targets. Here we refer to them as supercapitals, the largest classes of ships in the game which cannot dock in stations. Currently they get a default payout of 40% of the old static value of the ship which is around 5 billion ISK for supercarriers and 20 billion for titans.
The idea is that these are cut to a fraction of their current payout values so they might only get 1-10% for example of the base build value of their ships. This is done with the intention of making strategic ship classes be more valuable targets and their death have much stronger meaning and value.
We have our own ideas for how much of the full insurance value we want to payout for each ship class which generally is 100% for Tech 1 ship groups, 20-60% for Tech 2 and 100% for Tech 3 ships (those this is only a portion of the value of the entire ship since subsystems are not included currently). However we are interested in your feedback on what you think they should be for each ship class and why. http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=746 |
Cassi Watson
Farscape Creations
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:Tippia wrote:Cassi Watson wrote:When was this changed? and why dose it feel like the coverage sucks? Two years ago, as part of the Tyrannis expansion. GǪand because the mineral prices are still climbing. It's not fully know how/when (and where) prices are polled and calculated, but they'll always lag behind a bit. I can't see them ever having mentioned that ship loss statistics is a factor, so you'd have to ask Nova Fox for a proper source on that claim. the idea is/was that certain desirable high risk ships could have better payouts than other ships. to what degree that has been implemented (if at all) is sth I don't know. Quote:Our new insurance system recalculates the value of all ship classes which includes Tech 2 and Tech 3 classes establishing the base material cost of the ship. To this we have added the ability for us to define more precisely how much of the total material value of each ship class should be paid out. Our intention is that we can make certain ship classes pay out much less, some closer to the full value.
Here we can then say that a tackler class which is a highly dangerous role and prone to see you dying a lot might pay out more than say a specialist covert ops class of ship has a higher survival rate. So players who fly the ships with short life expectancies will be more sustainable to fly on lower incomes, and the same can be applied to more casual ship classes such as cruisers or battlecruisers used more by newer players to allow them to get to grips with the game whilst not losing everything constantly.
On the high end game play side of this is the role of strategic ship classes as valuable targets. Here we refer to them as supercapitals, the largest classes of ships in the game which cannot dock in stations. Currently they get a default payout of 40% of the old static value of the ship which is around 5 billion ISK for supercarriers and 20 billion for titans.
The idea is that these are cut to a fraction of their current payout values so they might only get 1-10% for example of the base build value of their ships. This is done with the intention of making strategic ship classes be more valuable targets and their death have much stronger meaning and value.
We have our own ideas for how much of the full insurance value we want to payout for each ship class which generally is 100% for Tech 1 ship groups, 20-60% for Tech 2 and 100% for Tech 3 ships (those this is only a portion of the value of the entire ship since subsystems are not included currently). However we are interested in your feedback on what you think they should be for each ship class and why. http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=746
Ahh this was that big push to get insurance to cover T2 better before I stopped playing.. nice to see they added it...
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6115
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:23:00 -
[9] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:the idea is/was that certain desirable high risk ships could have better payouts than other ships. to what degree that has been implemented (if at all) is sth I don't know. Ah yes. That part is basically just a multiplier for T2/T3 ships to bump their insurances higher than what the maths say they should be. It doesn't change any ratios GÇö just the base value of the ship, and it applies to entire classes, not specific hulls.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1114
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:53:00 -
[10] - Quote
Cassi Watson wrote:Now that the price of tritanium has hit 6.0 and the price of all T3 BS's are well north of 200m I feel like I have to ask the question about insurance.
You can buy ships with Aurum (plex), why mine? |
|
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
559
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 20:40:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP needs to remove insurance payout, instead it should be changed to "obligatory loss tax" - lose a ship, pay back the exact amount in minerals to the insurance corp from your wallet as well as no modules or salvage from player ships dropping. Win / win, PVP comes a true isk sink as everything is lost and nothing is gained.
Note: So as to keep things balanced, T1 frigs / cruiser / battlecruiser will have a 3x mineral basket charge, to keep things fair and to prevent you from flying cheap vs battleships or larger (as in, they are already risking way more then you so you should raise the stakes to your self) |
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
499
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 20:45:00 -
[12] - Quote
Aqriue wrote:CCP needs to remove insurance payout, instead it should be changed to "obligatory loss tax" - lose a ship, pay back the exact amount in minerals to the insurance corp from your wallet as well as no modules or salvage from player ships dropping. Win / win, PVP comes a true isk sink as everything is lost and nothing is gained.
Note: So as to keep things balanced, T1 frigs / cruiser / battlecruiser will have a 3x mineral basket charge, to keep things fair and to prevent you from flying cheap vs battleships or larger (as in, they are already risking way more then you so you should raise the stakes to your self)
not sure if troll or just really bad troll.
point of insurance is to make sure someone who dies can at the very least start somewhat at where they are today. if i lose a cruiser i should at least be able to buy a frig. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
551
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 20:54:00 -
[13] - Quote
Herping yourDerp wrote:Aqriue wrote:CCP needs to remove insurance payout, instead it should be changed to "obligatory loss tax" - lose a ship, pay back the exact amount in minerals to the insurance corp from your wallet as well as no modules or salvage from player ships dropping. Win / win, PVP comes a true isk sink as everything is lost and nothing is gained.
Note: So as to keep things balanced, T1 frigs / cruiser / battlecruiser will have a 3x mineral basket charge, to keep things fair and to prevent you from flying cheap vs battleships or larger (as in, they are already risking way more then you so you should raise the stakes to your self) not sure if troll or just really bad troll. point of insurance is to make sure someone who dies can at the very least start somewhat at where they are today. if i lose a cruiser i should at least be able to buy a frig. He's a well known troll. Most would like to ignore him but sometimes he posts stuff that is so diabolically subtle that he has to be responded to... lest some nubbins get the wrong ideas. Change isn't bad... but it isn't always good. Somtimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6124
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 21:07:00 -
[14] - Quote
Aqriue wrote:CCP needs to remove insurance payout, instead it should be changed to "obligatory loss tax" - lose a ship, pay back the exact amount in minerals to the insurance corp from your wallet as well as no modules or salvage from player ships dropping. Win / win, PVP comes a true isk sink as everything is lost and nothing is gained. UhmGǪ that would be to completely reverse the point of having insurance to begin with: it's there to encourage ship loss, not to penalise it.
PvP isn't meant to be an ISK sink GÇö making it one would break the game in new and interesting ways. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Serene Repose
Perkone Caldari State
597
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 05:51:00 -
[15] - Quote
The question IS (therefore) if the payouts reflect the cost of materials to make the ship, WHEN will the payouts be recalibrated to reflect this value? This begs a second question: Why did you institute this policy when you knew damned well you wouldn't be revising payouts frequently enough to actually follow the policy???
Thank you.
Oh yes. PvP IS an ISK sink. Anyone telling you contrarywise probably sells ships for a living.
Smokestack lightnin' shinin' just like gold |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
205
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 09:18:00 -
[16] - Quote
From Evelopedia:
Quote:All ships have 40% insurance coverage by default. You don't have to pay for the 40% coverage, but if you don't feel that it sufficiently covers your insurance needs, you can buy an insurance contract with a larger payout.
Quote:What this means is that after every set insurance period, an index will be created calculating the trimmed average values for all building materials that are used in the building of ships (minerals, T2 and T3 components) and when a ship is destroyed, this index will be used to calculate the full replacement value of that ship based on the materials required to build it. The player will then receive an amount of ISK that is defined by the:
Kestrels are currently around 325k ISK to build with Jita prices, that is about 100k above their indexed price so the best insurance leaves you with a hole of 50% of the current market-value.
Looking at the market history of Kestrels and the price-hikes of minerals I'd say the insurance index hasn't been updated for 1 to 3 months. I don't see why CCP can't just make it update more often like on a weekly basis. http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |