| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nur AlHuda
Callide Vulpis
   |
Posted - 2009.08.07 22:31:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Nur AlHuda on 07/08/2009 22:30:54
Edited by: Nur AlHuda on 07/08/2009 22:30:48
support
|
Hashin Kyojin
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 22:34:00 -
[32]
no
|
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 03:26:00 -
[33]
oh so if you remove insurance people will bring less and smaller ships to fights?
WRONG! people will just bring even more ships and will not engage unless their side has at least a clearly large margin of vistory. And as you can see, that means no engagement cause one side is always going to be outnumbered.
First of all, I have NEVER made isk off of insurance, which fully proves it ISN'T an isk faucet. However I understand that you must fly your ships without any fittings or cargo to make such isk off your insurance. If you fit any modules, especially t2, you lose enough isk EASILY. My t2 fitted t1 hull cruisers cost me at least 10 million after getting blown up cause of the guns and plates and drones and such. In no way am I gaining isk.
If you're looking for a world where ship losses mean significant losses, you forgot to look at t2 ships. the insurance covers maybe a third of the price. Actually I have no idea since i own few t2 ships and haven't insured any of them.
NOT SUPPORTED.
If you think getting rid of isk will make pvp more fun, think again. People will either fly crap ships which don't do anything, or they will bring TONS of ships and blob up. Not something that needs to be done
|
Gaven Darklighter
|
Posted - 2009.08.11 23:21:00 -
[34]
I honestly would love an answer to these questions:
Why are so many people so adamant about forcing people to loose money all the time?
This is after all a game is it not? Why do you want to make it all the more difficult to have isk? Are you that pathetic in RL that you use this game as a substitute for validation of your abilities? Let's keep the game fun as opposed to making it a job. I have one of those to make money in rl, don't need another one thanks.
|
Gaven Darklighter
|
Posted - 2009.08.11 23:23:00 -
[35]
 Originally by: Stil Harkonnen
oh so if you remove insurance people will bring less and smaller ships to fights?
WRONG! people will just bring even more ships and will not engage unless their side has at least a clearly large margin of vistory. And as you can see, that means no engagement cause one side is always going to be outnumbered.
First of all, I have NEVER made isk off of insurance, which fully proves it ISN'T an isk faucet. However I understand that you must fly your ships without any fittings or cargo to make such isk off your insurance. If you fit any modules, especially t2, you lose enough isk EASILY. My t2 fitted t1 hull cruisers cost me at least 10 million after getting blown up cause of the guns and plates and drones and such. In no way am I gaining isk.
If you're looking for a world where ship losses mean significant losses, you forgot to look at t2 ships. the insurance covers maybe a third of the price. Actually I have no idea since i own few t2 ships and haven't insured any of them.
NOT SUPPORTED.
If you think getting rid of isk will make pvp more fun, think again. People will either fly crap ships which don't do anything, or they will bring TONS of ships and blob up. Not something that needs to be done
This
|
JuriBe
The Nova Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 00:05:00 -
[36]
Fully supported
|
Whitmoore
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 05:26:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Sertan Deras
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.
Quoted for Truth.
|
Marquis Dean
Caldari
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 12:56:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Marquis Dean on 12/08/2009 12:58:43
Originally by: Whitmoore
Originally by: Sertan Deras
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.
Quoted for Truth.
QFT too.
Privateers.
Got.
It.
Wrong.
Edit: This too
Originally by: Gaven Darklighter
I honestly would love an answer to these questions:
Why are so many people so adamant about forcing people to loose money all the time?
This is after all a game is it not? Why do you want to make it all the more difficult to have isk? Are you that pathetic in RL that you use this game as a substitute for validation of your abilities? Let's keep the game fun as opposed to making it a job. I have one of those to make money in rl, don't need another one thanks.
---
Originally by: James Russell Lowell
Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 13:40:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Gaven Darklighter
I honestly would love an answer to these questions:
Why are so many people so adamant about forcing people to loose money all the time?
This is after all a game is it not? Why do you want to make it all the more difficult to have isk? Are you that pathetic in RL that you use this game as a substitute for validation of your abilities? Let's keep the game fun as opposed to making it a job. I have one of those to make money in rl, don't need another one thanks.
Insurance actually props up prices in game, removing it would in all likely hood crash prices through the floor on many items.
But the linkages and economics of the mineral market/insurance faucet can be pretty hard to wrap your head around though. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 14:17:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 12/08/2009 14:26:28
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Originally by: Gaven Darklighter
I honestly would love an answer to these questions:
Why are so many people so adamant about forcing people to loose money all the time?
This is after all a game is it not? Why do you want to make it all the more difficult to have isk? Are you that pathetic in RL that you use this game as a substitute for validation of your abilities? Let's keep the game fun as opposed to making it a job. I have one of those to make money in rl, don't need another one thanks.
Insurance actually props up prices in game, removing it would in all likely hood crash prices through the floor on many items.
But the linkages and economics of the mineral market/insurance faucet can be pretty hard to wrap your head around though.
Yes, but how much lower can they go? If the prices of minerals fall, people aren't going to waste their time gathering them, so the supply will also diminish bringing the price up to acceptable levels where production is worth doing again. Mining income is not that good at the moment, so how much lower do you think the price can come before people start to abandon mining for good?
Regardless I'm bit iffy about major changes to insurance. Now you can keep up a PvP lifestyle with minimal outside activities and I'm keen to keep it that way. People flying cheap insurable ships are at a disadvantage against people who invest more in their non-insurable ships anyway. This variation allows for better risk management and you can keep playing the game in a way you like even with a thin wallet(includes new players). Now people have the option to avoid playing the game in ways they don't like at the cost of some performance loss. This to me seems like a good option to have in the game.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 15:29:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Insurance actually props up prices in game, removing it would in all likely hood crash prices through the floor on many items.
But the linkages and economics of the mineral market/insurance faucet can be pretty hard to wrap your head around though.
Yes, but how much lower can they go? If the prices of minerals fall, people aren't going to waste their time gathering them, so the supply will also diminish bringing the price up to acceptable levels where production is worth doing again. Mining income is not that good at the moment, so how much lower do you think the price can come before people start to abandon mining for good?
Regardless I'm bit iffy about major changes to insurance. Now you can keep up a PvP lifestyle with minimal outside activities and I'm keen to keep it that way. People flying cheap insurable ships are at a disadvantage against people who invest more in their non-insurable ships anyway. This variation allows for better risk management and you can keep playing the game in a way you like even with a thin wallet(includes new players). Now people have the option to avoid playing the game in ways they don't like at the cost of some performance loss. This to me seems like a good option to have in the game.
Its disingenuous to think that
If you follow this through to its end. We remove insurance or lower its effectiveness. Either way reduces the conversion of minerals to isk and back again. Its a great cycle really.
People would still blow things up, but now with less reward on the end of it they would have incentive to pay less for it, and obviously because of a smaller faucet they would have less as well.
The cycle would stay the same, but you'd see a natural float downward of all prices except for those that have the most risk and or those items which have odd disposition of mineral make ups.. capitals namely.
As much as I would love to see insurance dissapear, I don't think it will ever happen. Its a great tool for predicting mineral prices and honestly because of this I'm quite positive that someone at CCP has the job of planning game balances/loot drops/loot disposition make ups, etc... with the intent of controlling the amount of minerals/isk coming into the game to maintain some semblance of order as you migrate from 1.0 to 0.0
...at least I still have hope that this is the case |
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 16:42:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Dav Varan on 12/08/2009 16:43:30
Originally by: Anna Kommenos
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
Thanks for doing the maths.
payout - premium = 75M ( according to your numbers )
Floor on price of Tempest = 75M
If they were to become cheeper than 75M then it would be profitable to blow them up.
You think its just chance that retail price of 78M is just above this number ???
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 19:27:00 -
[43]
Edited by: RedSplat on 12/08/2009 19:27:48
Losses should mean something.
EDIT: I dont like you Carebears.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
it does get progressively longer.
|
De'Veldrin
Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 19:42:00 -
[44]
Originally by: RedSplat
Edited by: RedSplat on 12/08/2009 19:27:48
Losses should mean something.
EDIT: I dont like you Carebears.
We don't like you either.
But occasionally we're in agreement about things.
--Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
ChinaWillGrowLarger
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 20:27:00 -
[45]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
We don't like you either.
But occasionally we're in agreement about things.
Did i marry you in a past life? 
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.08.12 22:07:00 -
[46]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Originally by: RedSplat
Edited by: RedSplat on 12/08/2009 19:27:48
Losses should mean something.
EDIT: I dont like you Carebears.
We don't like you either.
But occasionally we're in agreement about things.
De? Carebear? Then what the hell is that? (points at razor sharp claws and teeth)
=========================
CEO of Shadow Cadre
http://www.shadowcadre.com
========================= |
Another Forum'Alt
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2009.08.13 01:29:00 -
[47]
Or just remove insurance altogether.
BECAUSE OF FALCON.
Guide to forum posting |
Sun Clausewitz
|
Posted - 2009.08.13 13:56:00 -
[48]
Remove insurance completely...
You still get a rookie ship for free if you have nothing left in the hangar...
What ever happened to the crowd that says:
"Dont fly what you cant afford to lose"
"EVE is a harsh place"
And you are here defending insurance?!?!?!
Pick Three:
Caldari/PVP/Solo/Success |
De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.08.13 14:40:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Drake Draconis
De? Carebear? Then what the hell is that? (points at razor sharp claws and teeth)
Shhh. I'm in disguise.
--Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
shuckstar
Gallente
Hauling hogs
|
Posted - 2009.08.13 16:30:00 -
[50]
Not supported.
|
159Pinky
Trans-Solar Works
Rooks and Kings
|
Posted - 2009.08.14 10:23:00 -
[51]
Although I agree that insurance needs a revamp ( self destruction, concord kills, payout fee for non insured ships ... ) I don't like the proposal you make here. It'll just make it a lot harder for a lot of ppl to commit to a fight. So they will either: carebear or blob.
Not supported
|
Ekeim
|
Posted - 2009.08.14 11:42:00 -
[52]
I almost always insure my ships and the payouts never came close to making me feel like loosing one didn't cost me anything. It just cushioned the blow a bit. There are many degrees between 'cruel and unforgiving game' and 'hello kitty online'. 'WoW style hand-holding' is a mater of opinion and could be slapped on any mechanic to suit an argument. ex. There should be permadeath with unavoidable and total skill loss - no more of this WoW style hand holding!
Providing a challenge or motivator for players through use of harsh mechanics is one thing, but being harsh for the sake of being harsh is pretty lame.
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
Eych Four Eks Zero Ahr
|
Posted - 2009.08.14 13:23:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Piginawig
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.
i agree, no support, terrible idea
Fix Destroyers |
Hoo Is
|
Posted - 2009.08.17 21:03:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Sun Clausewitz
Remove insurance completely...
You still get a rookie ship for free if you have nothing left in the hangar...
What ever happened to the crowd that says:
"Dont fly what you cant afford to lose"
"EVE is a harsh place"
And you are here defending insurance?!?!?!
This guy has it right
----
a reply which adds nothing to a thread or results in a thread being bumped with no new discussion worthy content is considered spam and as such warrants a forum ban |
TimMc
Gallente
Brutal Deliverance
Novus Auctorita
|
Posted - 2009.08.17 21:41:00 -
[55]
Not supported.
If anything reduce duration of insurance to a month, and no payout for concord kills.
|
Trebor DeCaldar
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 20:25:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Sun Clausewitz
Remove insurance completely...
You still get a rookie ship for free if you have nothing left in the hangar...
What ever happened to the crowd that says:
"Dont fly what you cant afford to lose"
"EVE is a harsh place"
And you are here defending insurance?!?!?!
As a ship manufacturer I support the no insurance
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 20:31:00 -
[57]
Edited by: darius mclever on 18/08/2009 20:36:01
Originally by: Trebor DeCaldar
Originally by: Sun Clausewitz
Remove insurance completely...
You still get a rookie ship for free if you have nothing left in the hangar...
What ever happened to the crowd that says:
"Dont fly what you cant afford to lose"
"EVE is a harsh place"
And you are here defending insurance?!?!?!
As a ship manufacturer I support the no insurance
lol as it certainly helps your customers to buy more ships if they have less money for it?:) dont you think you cut your own meat here? i suspect the only thing it would change is more people buying PLEX as they certainly dont want to carebear more. or even feed RMT (although their rates are higher than PLEX atm.)
all the people who cant afford more PLEX will just sit in station until they can afford it again. (or scam the crap out of everyone.)
imho the current insurance payout is fine. it balances the game out between people with indirect income (moons, industrial alts to some degree) and people mainly playing for pvp.
|
Trebor DeCaldar
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 20:53:00 -
[58]
Originally by: darius mclever
lol as it certainly helps your customers to buy more ships if they have less money for it?:) dont you think you cut your own meat here? i suspect the only thing it would change is more people buying PLEX as they certainly dont want to carebear more. or even feed RMT (although their rates are higher than PLEX atm.)
Insurance sets an artificial base line for ship prices. It's removal would actually boost ship prices in the long run.
|
GuntiNDDS
|
Posted - 2009.09.01 13:08:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Hoo Is
Originally by: Sun Clausewitz
Remove insurance completely...
You still get a rookie ship for free if you have nothing left in the hangar...
What ever happened to the crowd that says:
"Dont fly what you cant afford to lose"
"EVE is a harsh place"
And you are here defending insurance?!?!?!
This guy has it right
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.09.01 13:44:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Trebor DeCaldar
Originally by: darius mclever
lol as it certainly helps your customers to buy more ships if they have less money for it?:) dont you think you cut your own meat here? i suspect the only thing it would change is more people buying PLEX as they certainly dont want to carebear more. or even feed RMT (although their rates are higher than PLEX atm.)
Insurance sets an artificial base line for ship prices. It's removal would actually boost ship prices in the long run.
and that helps how? less money, higher prices. more people in ships? huh
think again.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |