| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Allen Ramses
Caldari
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
Privateer Alliance
   |
Posted - 2009.08.04 19:15:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Allen Ramses on 04/08/2009 19:15:37
The current insurance scheme is significantly flawed. It provides an artificial mineral price cap, as well as a massive influx of ISK. It is a very blatant form of WoW style hand-holding, and it provides yet another reason for the "bigger is better" attitude. This is what it looks like now.
Uninsured - 40% compensation. (WTF is this??)
5% premium - 50% compensation
10% premium - 60% compensation
15% premium - 70% compensation
20% premium - 80% compensation
25% premium - 90% compensation
30% premium - 100% compensation
This yields a 40-70% insurance for a ship that WILL be destroyed.
So basically you have an insurance policy that pays out 2:1 ISK you provide, in addition to an unconditional 40% compensation. The compensation doesn't reflect market value, but rather mineral base prices. Market value of ships are far more often than not significantly lower than mineral base prices. This can cause the net loss of a hull to be as little as 5-10%. The loss of the hull is less than the loss of the modules most of the time (not including rigs).
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd like to see ship losses actually mean something. By reducing the base compensation amount to 10%, and reducing the insurance payout rate to 3:2, it will hurt significantly more when you lose a hull.
Uninsured - 10% compensation
5% premium - 17.5% compensation
...
30% premium - 55% compensation
This yields a 10-25% insurance for lost hulls, far more than what is warranted for a vessel that you know will be destroyed within the next 3 months. People might be more hesitant to form BS blobs when there is risk of substantial monetary loss, and smaller vessels might actually help to defend their bigger brothers.
____________________
CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 19:17:00 -
[2]
not supported. it would just mean more carebearing for people or selling GTC for the matter.
most people want to enjoy pvp. if you reduce insurance payout, privateers would just get more smacktalking and station camping as you got atm already.
waiting for your next idea. :)
|
Allen Ramses
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 19:42:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: darius mclever
not supported. it would just mean more carebearing for people or selling GTC for the matter.
Oh noes, people will have to WORK for their ISK? Oh, and it will also mean more small vessels. As for selling GTC, that will always be a factor... But there is a threshold when a person decides it isn't worth it.
Originally by: darius mclever
most people want to enjoy pvp.
Most people want to enjoy PvP, but many don't, myself included. PvP has become nothing more than "bring your biggest boat", and the majority of camps I've seen are BS blobs that have little or no tactical flexibility. Napfests, blobs, focus fire, RR, POS warfare, etc make PvP boring.
Originally by: darius mclever
if you reduce insurance payout, privateers would just get more smacktalking and station camping as you got atm already.
For the umpteenth time, please stop comparing me to people who camp 4-4. MBALM has a high presence in Minmatar space, far from the 4-4 camps. If you're in minnie space, combat is probably your goal. So please, could you base your response on the merit of the issue, and not the alliance tag that someone has?
Besides, when people who lose their industrial to a camp, it's not usually the ship hull they're ****ed off about.
Stealth edit: Supporting my own idea.
____________________
CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 20:32:00 -
[4]
Not supported.
Proof of your foolish notion - Try insuring a Freighter or an Orca.
Regardless of whether the ship is more likely to get into a combat situation.. sooner or later all ships get blown up.
Insurance has some problems... but what your talking about is wholly so far in left field its laughable.
In case you forgot.... Insurance covers the basic average (I think) cost of the ship
Not the fittings...ammo... or rigs.
Particularly when it comes to tech 2 mods...
And even then insurance can be completely blown out of the water just by sheer market pricing alone (hence the freighter/orca situation)
Good intentions... wrong idea.
Not supported.
=========================
CEO of Shadow Cadre
http://www.shadowcadre.com
========================= |
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 20:53:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
Not supported.
Proof of your foolish notion - Try insuring a Freighter or an Orca.
Actually if minerals were closer to their base prices insurance on capitals would work exactly the same as it does on sub capitals.
Its just that the cost of capital ships is broken up so that 30% is in trit and 30% is in mex, which because of depressed prices (which is another topic in and of itself) of other minerals keeps these two floated lofty despite the massive amount of mex coming in from loot. So the cost is inflated over and above what the base price is. |
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 20:59:00 -
[6]
Originally by: darius mclever
not supported. it would just mean more carebearing for people or selling GTC for the matter.
most people want to enjoy pvp. if you reduce insurance payout, privateers would just get more smacktalking and station camping as you got atm already.
waiting for your next idea. :)
Not quite that simple.
Insurance is a big cause of Inflation.
Without insurance prices of ships would come down,
atm prices for T1 ships are held in place by insurance.
Meaning bad players get to grind less than they would have too otherwise and good players have to grind more than they would have too otherwise.
Personaly I would like to see insurance be free at 80% for the first 6 months of a characters life.
After that no insurance at all.
The major reason why Eve PvP is a rush compared to single player games is you stand to lose the product of your hard work if you lose.
Insurance kind of waters that down and provides mechanics to make lame meta gaming tactics like suicide ganging possible.
Eve would be more intense without insurance.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 21:08:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Dav Varan
Originally by: darius mclever
not supported. it would just mean more carebearing for people or selling GTC for the matter.
most people want to enjoy pvp. if you reduce insurance payout, privateers would just get more smacktalking and station camping as you got atm already.
waiting for your next idea. :)
Not quite that simple.
Insurance is a big cause of Inflation.
Without insurance prices of ships would come down,
atm prices for T1 ships are held in place by insurance.
Meaning bad players get to grind less than they would have too otherwise and good players have to grind more than they would have too otherwise.
Personaly I would like to see insurance be free at 80% for the first 6 months of a characters life.
After that no insurance at all.
The major reason why Eve PvP is a rush compared to single player games is you stand to lose the product of your hard work if you lose.
Insurance kind of waters that down and provides mechanics to make lame meta gaming tactics like suicide ganging possible.
Eve would be more intense without insurance.
With all due respect... (and I do sincerely mean that : O ) )
Insurance being the cause of inflation is a little hard to stomach.
Keep in mind Insurance is mostly a black hole... an ISK sinkhole...
Every time I <coughstupidlycough> lose my battlecruiser or battleship insurance doesn't help me do jack because of all the fittings and rigs... oh sure it takes a good chunk out of it... but insurance is not the cause.
Manufacturing costs VS Market prices VS Player greed is.
Then your dealing with the argument that I got thrown at me about renewing insurance platinum levels when its due is a waste of time when you honestly can't afford to lose the but cant afford to not use it for the sake of income.
Not everyone in EVE is rich... or well off... which really urks me when you get these damned idiots posting saying that removing loot and taking away mission running nuiances is the main source of income.
got news for you morons... some of us are not THAT good.
I still make more money mining... but it gets boring and I go mission run.. and in all honesty... there's not much to be made in mission running.. even with salvage... unless I'm doing something wrong... I barely make 10 to 20 mil an hour when I get done with a level 3 or 4 at that rate.
I think Inflation is caused by many factors... I scarcely believe Insurance is one of them.
I do like the free 6 months of insurance but that could be abused big time by many PVP'ers.
Again... maybe I'm rambling here... but somethings amiss here when you blame inflation on insurance.
=========================
CEO of Shadow Cadre
http://www.shadowcadre.com
========================= |
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 21:10:00 -
[8]
Quote:
Insurance is a big cause of Inflation.
Proof there is inflation in eve?
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 00:07:00 -
[9]
The only problem with insurance is the use of base prices. Make it market price based, so that you lose 30% when your ship goes boom, and you get rid of a lot of this nonsense.
Originally by: Furb Killer
Quote:
Insurance is a big cause of Inflation.
Proof there is inflation in eve?
He read it on the forums, it must be true!
|
Slave 2739FKZ
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 00:08:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
I scarcely believe Insurance is one of them.
There is no proof that inflation in eve economy at all (indeed it seems eve economy has been largelly deflationary until recentlly), but insurance IS a cause of inflation because it adds money to the system while the destruction of a ship removes goods from the system.
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 14:13:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
With all due respect... (and I do sincerely mean that : O ) )
Insurance being the cause of inflation is a little hard to stomach.
Keep in mind Insurance is mostly a black hole... an ISK sinkhole...
Every time I <coughstupidlycough> lose my battlecruiser or battleship insurance doesn't help me do jack because of all the fittings and rigs... oh sure it takes a good chunk out of it... but insurance is not the cause.
Manufacturing costs VS Market prices VS Player greed is.
Then your dealing with the argument that I got thrown at me about renewing insurance platinum levels when its due is a waste of time when you honestly can't afford to lose the but cant afford to not use it for the sake of income.
Not everyone in EVE is rich... or well off... which really urks me when you get these damned idiots posting saying that removing loot and taking away mission running nuiances is the main source of income.
got news for you morons... some of us are not THAT good.
I still make more money mining... but it gets boring and I go mission run.. and in all honesty... there's not much to be made in mission running.. even with salvage... unless I'm doing something wrong... I barely make 10 to 20 mil an hour when I get done with a level 3 or 4 at that rate.
I think Inflation is caused by many factors... I scarcely believe Insurance is one of them.
I do like the free 6 months of insurance but that could be abused big time by many PVP'ers.
Again... maybe I'm rambling here... but somethings amiss here when you blame inflation on insurance.
Insurance is a isk faucet not an isk sink.
You get isk for free without doing any work for it.
You have produced nothing , yet there is more money in your wallet hence more money in the economy.
Maybe I worded it badly , To be more exact Insurance is an Inflationary Pressure on the economy.
It also places a floor on the value of ships at ( Insurance Payout - Insurance Premium ).
1.buy ship
2.insure ship
3.undock
4.self destruct
5.profit
If people had to mine or mission run + loot + salvage to earn there iskies.
The result would be more minerals/salvage/loot available per unit currency.
With the floor also removed prices of T1 ships would be free to drop and find a new level.
You might not complain so hard if your New Mega cost you 20M isk 
With less money in the economy ( wallets ) and cheaper T1 ships and cheaper minerals more people would choose T1 ships and gear over T2 and hence with less demand T2 prices would start dropping also.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 15:07:00 -
[12]
lots of t2 stuff is already sold with no or nearly no profit due to the "stuff i can get myself is free and doesnt cost anything" folks.
so you want to push the prices below material costs?
|
Spud Mackenzie
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 16:00:00 -
[13]
Insurance is flawed... but not to the point of being unmanageable.
Ship prices will never go below the payout, as has been stated. If you can buy a ship, insure it, and blow it up for a net profit... that's called Insurance Fraud.
The solution is to remove instant insurance payments. There doesn't need to be an actual insurance adjuster involved... just a set of rules that have to be satisfied before payment it rendered.
1) Was the destruction self-inflicted (self-destruct / Bomb AOE)?
2) Was the destruction Concord inflicted?
3) Was the destruction Corp/Alliance inflicted?
I'm sure there are some more conditions that could be stated, but here's a few.
Did you do it to yourself? If so, you don't get paid. Did you sucker punch someone so Concord would do it for you? If so, you don't get paid. Did you have a corpmate do it so you could cash in extra ISK for the corp? If so, you don't get paid.
Sure, it's still pretty wide open to abuse. But these are the primary means available, which should no longer be.
The same could be applied to Bounties, which would go far to correct that system as well. |
Kaylan Jahlar
Minmatar Industrial Limited
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 16:32:00 -
[14]
The only way they could make insurance work is by copying how car insurance works in real life.
- You would have to pay a monthly premium to insure a ship.
- The higher the premium the more coverage you get (currently as it is).
- If you don't insure your ship, you get NOTHING if it's destroyed.
- Different ship types would have different premiums ratios (i.e. an Assault Frigate is more likely to see action more often than an Industrial so the premium should be higher in proportion to its market value).
- The amount of ISK received as coverage should be the average market value of the ship in the region you purchased the ship from, and not the base cost of the ship (which is a static value).
I would also like to see corporation owned insurance. For example, if a corporation builds ships for its members, the ISK received from the insurance should go to the corporation wallet, and not the member's.
----
Advanced combat probing guide: A clever use of the directional scanner |
Sertan Deras
Gallente
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 16:51:00 -
[15]
We already have non-insurable ships in the game, and the people not up playing stupid empire games (aka not Privateer Alliance) fly them. They're called T2 ships, look in to them.
The rest of your argument is completely flawed and based on some assessment that people fly battleships because they are insurable. This is a fallacy. People fly battleships because they bring firepower and survivability to the battle field. People throw around non-insurable T2 ships without a care in the world, what makes you think messing with the insurance payout on battleships would make them do anything different with those? A sniper BS costs about what a well fit HAC costs, give or take 30m here or there.
Insurance exists to keep people in the game, and keep them in ships. If you think CCP is going to tweak this much, and risk losing subs, you're crazy. When people have enough money that they don't care about losing ships anymore, they start flying the non-insurable variety. There is a natural, self-paced progression to losing expensive ships with no safety net, and it works perfectly fine.
|
Awesome Possum
Insert Obscure Latin Name
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 18:56:00 -
[16]
Insurance in game should be more like RL. You pay every 1/3/6/12 months, you have a long ass list of things you can't have done to get paid for your accident, rates fluctuate based upon your driving record (ship losses), and their customer service sucks.
As long as they don't include 'illegal modifications' or 'driving while under the influence' (boosters) then yeah, why not.. Actually, no.. screw it... Boosters void your insurance, rigs void your insurance, T3 voids your insurance... What else?
You don't get your isk for another 6-8 weeks (make that days in game) after the accident.
Upon ship loss you have to report it to your insurance agent and wait around 3hrs for the ****er to show up and take pics of the scene.
Your record also determines the cost of insurance for all your ships.
Oh and the fun part, insurance is absolutely mandatory for all t1 ships in high sec, passing through a high sec system without insurance will get you pulled over (web/scrammed at gate/station) and cited.
♥
Wreck Disposal Services |
Avoida
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 19:04:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Avoida on 05/08/2009 19:04:36
Originally by: Allen Ramses
Most people want to enjoy PvP, but many don't, myself included. PvP has become nothing more than "bring your biggest boat", and the majority of camps I've seen are BS blobs that have little or no tactical flexibility.
I can't support this concept because the above statement doesn't match with the alliance name. You hate PvP yet are in the main corp in Privateer Alliance? There's an oxymoron if ever there was one.
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 19:11:00 -
[18]
EVE insurance has very little in common with real insurance, otherwise it would have been much tougher on the player. And after a couple insured ship losses insurance company would simply refuse to give you any
So if it's clear that insurance was not meant to make EVE more realistic, why is it here? I suppose it is here to minimize the pain of losing ships. But things have changed over the years. It's true that 4 years ago, losing a battleship was a pain - at least as much as a HAC now. But in this day and age, isk has become easy. People suiciding their battleships right and left, 1 month old noobs flying Ravens everywhere even 0.0..
The crutch is no longer needed. It dilutes the game's seriousness. At the very least, battleship insurance has to go.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 19:30:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
Insurance being the cause of inflation is a little hard to stomach.
Keep in mind Insurance is mostly a black hole... an ISK sinkhole...
Every time I <coughstupidlycough> lose my battlecruiser or battleship insurance doesn't help me do jack because of all the fittings and rigs... oh sure it takes a good chunk out of it... but insurance is not the cause.
Manufacturing costs VS Market prices VS Player greed is.
Then your dealing with the argument that I got thrown at me about renewing insurance platinum levels when its due is a waste of time when you honestly can't afford to lose the but cant afford to not use it for the sake of income.
Not everyone in EVE is rich... or well off... which really urks me when you get these damned idiots posting saying that removing loot and taking away mission running nuiances is the main source of income.
got news for you morons... some of us are not THAT good.
I still make more money mining... but it gets boring and I go mission run.. and in all honesty... there's not much to be made in mission running.. even with salvage... unless I'm doing something wrong... I barely make 10 to 20 mil an hour when I get done with a level 3 or 4 at that rate.
I think Inflation is caused by many factors... I scarcely believe Insurance is one of them.
I do like the free 6 months of insurance but that could be abused big time by many PVP'ers.
Again... maybe I'm rambling here... but somethings amiss here when you blame inflation on insurance.
Insurance is almost certainly the second largest source of isk from outside the game (note, not source of wealth, but of liquid isk) so it it increase inflation.
At the same time it keep the prices of minerals up, as to many players think that what they mine or get from reprocessed loot is free and are willing to sell at every price.
Without the mineral price floor created by insurance ships would be even cheaper and minerals worth very little.
So probably insurance will never be removed as it is one of the checks against making mining a dead profession.
About your return from missions, the problem is that the isk you invest in your mission ship have a great impact on your returns. And the ship you use too.
"Cheap" ship with named modules could easily mean a 25% cut in mission gains, non missile spewing Caldari could mean another 25% or more cut.
|
Allen Ramses
Caldari
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 02:21:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Allen Ramses on 06/08/2009 02:26:39
While some arguments in this thread are valid, my alliance name is not one of them. But the point is, insurance is still too much of an ISK faucet on the individual level. However, I do acknowledge that insurance is something this game needs (not what reality would call for). After re-examining the issue, perhaps a 10-25% recovery was too harsh.
Uninsured - 10% compensation.
5% premium - 20% compensation.
...
30% premium - 70% compensation.
This still reduces the 40% unconditional loss return to 10%, but it still operates with the same 2:1 premium return as currently present. The net compensation (based on mineral prices) will be 10-40%. I believe a 40% insurance return is more than fair. The current 70% value is far too high.
EDIT: Perhaps insurance of mining/industrial vessels could have a 3:1 investment ratio. They are, after all, not combat ships that are designed for frontline engagements.
Uninsured - 10%
5% premium - 25%
...
30% premium - 100%
This would give non-combat ships a 10-70% return.
____________________
CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
Daemon Vlad
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 05:42:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Allen Ramses
Uninsured - 10% compensation.
5% premium - 20% compensation.
...
30% premium - 70% compensation.
This still reduces the 40% unconditional loss return to 10%, but it still operates with the same 2:1 premium return as currently present. The net compensation (based on mineral prices) will be 10-40%. I believe a 40% insurance return is more than fair. The current 70% value is far too high.
EDIT: Perhaps insurance of mining/industrial vessels could have a 3:1 investment ratio. They are, after all, not combat ships that are designed for frontline engagements.
Uninsured - 10%
5% premium - 25%
...
30% premium - 100%
This would give non-combat ships a 10-70% return.
Your original proposal was as broken as the current in-game insurance. This, though, this is much more reasonable. A 40% payback is high enough for insurance to work, but not so high to cause tech 1 ships to be risked with little concern.
Supported.
|
Allen Ramses
Caldari
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 01:47:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Daemon Vlad
Your original proposal was as broken as the current in-game insurance.
To be honest, I personally would like to see insurance removed from the game, but I know perfectly well that would be detrimental to the game.
____________________
CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 04:30:00 -
[23]
Setting the uninsured payout to 10% would not protect the newbie who doesn't know about insurance, the one demographic we _want_ to protect.
I would instead suggest some gradual phasing out of insurance; where the ability of players to take out insurance at platinum is removed first, then gold insurance, etc.
And once we see the effects of that, we can start looking at removing base insurance gradually. Of course there would be alternatives looked at for allowing newbies to recover after losing that BS they put all their ISK into.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 12:20:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Slave 2739FKZ
Originally by: Drake Draconis
I scarcely believe Insurance is one of them.
There is no proof that inflation in eve economy at all (indeed it seems eve economy has been largelly deflationary until recentlly), but insurance IS a cause of inflation because it adds money to the system while the destruction of a ship removes goods from the system.
I swear some of the threads in the market discussion forums should be mandatory reading before the word 'inflation' or 'deflation' is ever mentioned.
EVE has experienced inflation over the last 2-3 years, but for the last 3-4 months we've actually experienced a deflationary period. I won't hash the details here, but prices outside T1 have been on a slow decline since Apoc.
Insurance is not a sink, it is a faucet... always was.. always will be. Even the devs have gone on record as saying as such. |
Bellum Eternus
Death of Virtue
MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 13:06:00 -
[25]
Supported. Frankly, remove the ability to insure anything from all characters over 6 months in age.
Bellum Eternus
Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
Alexander Knott
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 14:34:00 -
[26]
The flip side of the 'insurance makes ship loss affordable so we have to carebear less' argument is that insurance is also a massive ISK faucet that is probably driving a good portion of price inflation in the game.
|
Dramaticus
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 17:44:00 -
[27]
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan |
Laechyd Eldgorn
Endemic Aggression
Exalted.
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 19:16:00 -
[28]
insurance should be removed or changed.
not because of inflation or suicide ganking but because it doesn't work in reasonably way at all as it is now.
|
Anna Kommenos
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 21:06:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Anna Kommenos on 07/08/2009 21:08:16
Originally by: Dav Varan
You get isk for free without doing any work for it.
You have produced nothing , yet there is more money in your wallet hence more money in the economy.
Maybe I worded it badly , To be more exact Insurance is an Inflationary Pressure on the economy.
It also places a floor on the value of ships at ( Insurance Payout - Insurance Premium ).
1.buy ship
2.insure ship
3.undock
4.self destruct
5.profit
[/quote
if you really think this you are unbelievably stupid.
what you should do now, is buy a battleship. any battleship. insure it to premium. blow it up. rinse and repeat. see how long your wallet can maintain that.
eg. current prices for the tempest battleship are in the 80 million bracket, and have never dropped below 78 million in my experience. premium insurance costs 30 million approx. total payout is 105 million approx. do the math. at the lowest market prices i have seen you would lose at least 3 million on your "profit" generator.
gbtwow
|
Piginawig
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 22:03:00 -
[30]
All this would do is hurt the little guy. The people that can't afford to loose all the ships.
Instead of making people use smaller ship, as you hoped, it will just make less people PvP. The people that blob BS's will keep on doing that becaseu they probably have so much ISK that it dosn't matter.
Stupid idea.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |