EVE Search - [Proposal] Remove Insurance. (!)

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] Remove Insurance. (!)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
jemos Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.24 18:23:00 - [1] Introduction. I've been spending quite some time on these forums, reading Assembly hall and F&I forums quite alot. In these forums a quite common topic appears (less now though) and it's about insurance payout when concord is involved. What strikes me when I read these texts of people thinking that the insurance company are complete morons when paying insurance to ships that have been concorded; is that almost evry time someone says "a real insurance company wouldn't pay out insurance if you used the car in a armed robbery". And I can agree a RL insurance company wouldn't do that. Neither would they insure a combat vessel, built for one thing: Combat. Also, accidents happen. Like the por guy in a mammoth that accidental smart bombed my drone and rather quick got reduced to ashes. What about him? Will there be an ingame trial for that pilot, or will I, as a victim decide his insurance fate? So people want some reality? /Introduction Proposal. Remove any insurance on vessels that are designed for combat. Keep insurance for industrial type ships that can't fit any weapon system such as turrets and missile launchers. Void the insurance if the pilot fits any offensive mods, such like the smartbomb. I did not include drones, since I consider them protection from NPC drones. /proposal I'd like to see a discussion about the Good and bad stuff for this insurance measure. I am aware that this can hurt the pvp part; I did however write this proposal as an option to make eve that bit more real. I personally think the insurance is fine, it need not alter. But as this seems to be a problem, this is my 0.02 isk on how I best think the issue should be resolved. Originally by: FireT If you have capitals..... well for the love of Raptor Pope, use them before they rust away.
jemos	Posted - 2009.08.24 18:23:00 - [2] Originally by: FireT If you have capitals..... well for the love of Raptor Pope, use them before they rust away.
Dalrithian Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.08.24 18:27:00 - [3] Rubbish idea tbh. Insurance opens up PvP to a lot of people, people abusing the system isn't a call for removing but perhaps just a revisal of payouts to concorded ships. Removing all insurance is a baaad idea imho. Out of morbid curiosity, How much do you PvP? ------- Less time nerfing sigs and more time fixing lag plz CCP?....
jemos Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.24 18:33:00 - [4] Originally by: Dalrithian Rubbish idea tbh. Insurance opens up PvP to a lot of people, people abusing the system isn't a call for removing but perhaps just a revisal of payouts to concorded ships. Removing all insurance is a baaad idea imho. Out of morbid curiosity, How much do you PvP? Not much now days. I did however have this stupid idea to only pvp in t2 ships. So insurance never really have affected me. I am however packing my bags, putting fuel in my Megathron and heading south to take up the hatchet of war. Calling upon rule #1 of PVP: Never fly anything you can't afford to lose... Seriusly Originally by: FireT If you have capitals..... well for the love of Raptor Pope, use them before they rust away.
Dariah Stardweller	Posted - 2009.08.24 19:02:00 - [5] Support
Stil Harkonnen	Posted - 2009.08.24 19:13:00 - [6] Only insurance change I will EVER support is removing insurance from concorded ships. If you remove insurance from the game, just flying battlecruisers almost because like flying t2 cruisers. For those players (like me) who make just enough isk to keep up the pvp habit, removing insurance would destroy the game. I would be reduced to flying POSSIBLY t2 fitted t1 cruisers. Battlecruisers would be too expensive to continually buy and lose. You already lose isk through pvp in ammo, mods, and a little bit of isk lost through insurance. If you want to pvp in a nice toy that others can't afford and doesn't pay back insurance, buy a t2 ship and fly it. not supported
Hoo Is	Posted - 2009.08.24 19:15:00 - [7] Whatever happened to "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose" or "EVE is a cold dark place" or "Adapt or Die" Death to Insurance!!! You get a free rookie ship if you don't have anything else left! ---- 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
Uronksur Suth Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate	Posted - 2009.08.24 19:33:00 - [8] No.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.08.24 19:47:00 - [9] Insurance exists because Eve is a game. You don't want a player to be left destitute, so insurance is the way to make sure that even someone who does stupid things has the ability to buy a ship without losing their shirt entirely. It's a necessary role, and I can't support its removal.
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2009.08.24 20:01:00 - [10] How realistic a game is should never be a primary concern in game design. We are playing a submarine simulator and pretending we are flying spaceships, so we can safely ignore what real life has to say about gameplay. At best it is a secondary issue. By removal of insurance you are removing choice from the game. Now people can choose how much they are willing to lose without seriously gimping their ability to play. They can also spend most of their time playing the game instead of grinding isk at the cost of flying inferior ships of the same class and using cheaper modules. People who fly "un-insurable" ships are already rewarded by better performance and thus have an advantage over people flying insurable ships. With the removal of insurance you just force some people to fly smaller ships and use cheaper fittings while gaining nothing worthwhile from doing so. You force the people who don't like to grind for money to grind it some more, nerf suiciding yet again and punish newbies for their mistakes. Suiciding is balanced well enough as it is, so nerfing it even more isn't justified, especially at the cost of the other two groups. Even if you just remove insurance from CONCORD kills, you would still hurt the newbies. I'm pretty sure this was the main reason suiciding was nerfed by buffing CONCORD response times, instead of denying insurance from CONCORD kills. PS. Why are you posting about an issue even you don't consider a problem? I'm sure you have your own pet peeves to complain about, so use your time to get them fixed instead of fighting other peoples battles. Let the people who think this is a problem defend their own positions. If they aren't willing to put in the effort needed to do it, you shouldn't waste time on it either.
Verys Burning Technologies Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2009.08.24 20:06:00 - [11] Originally by: Hoo Is Whatever happened to "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose" or "EVE is a cold dark place" or "Adapt or Die" Death to Insurance!!! You get a free rookie ship if you don't have anything else left! Eve is still a cold dark place and you should open your eyes and take a look at the game as a whole if you don't see that. I'm not going to sum up what makes this game that way for the millionth time. Insurance is only a partial coverage of the actual loss, that is the loss of the ship. Modules, rigs, cargo; all of these are not covered by insurance and can cost more than the ship itself. Insurance is a helpful hand for the starters and those with small wallets as not everybody can afford to fly T2 ships, it does not refund completely however it makers it just a little bit easier. T2 ships however are still worth flying over T1 due to their specialization and bonuses. However concord killed ships should not receive insurance, that's just plain silly.
AtheistOfDoom Amarr The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.08.24 20:24:00 - [12] Originally by: Verys Originally by: Hoo Is Whatever happened to "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose" or "EVE is a cold dark place" or "Adapt or Die" Death to Insurance!!! You get a free rookie ship if you don't have anything else left! Eve is still a cold dark place and you should open your eyes and take a look at the game as a whole if you don't see that. I'm not going to sum up what makes this game that way for the millionth time. Insurance is only a partial coverage of the actual loss, that is the loss of the ship. Modules, rigs, cargo; all of these are not covered by insurance and can cost more than the ship itself. Insurance is a helpful hand for the starters and those with small wallets as not everybody can afford to fly T2 ships, it does not refund completely however it makers it just a little bit easier. T2 ships however are still worth flying over T1 due to their specialization and bonuses. Agreeing with all but what I removed. Pew Pew Lazorz!!!
darius mclever	Posted - 2009.08.24 21:17:00 - [13] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Insurance exists because Eve is a game. You don't want a player to be left destitute, so insurance is the way to make sure that even someone who does stupid things has the ability to buy a ship without losing their shirt entirely. It's a necessary role, and I can't support its removal. this. you want more pvp not less. if ensurance helps to keep people fighting, hell yes.
Yaay The Aggressors	Posted - 2009.08.24 21:31:00 - [14] Edited by: Yaay on 24/08/2009 21:33:59 Insurance needs to be a player invested system. If you lose more ships over x course of time, your cost increases by y. Security status of systems also needs to play a role in insurance. The reason major alliances don't die like they used to is because it's become to easy to sustain heavy heavy losses in 0.0. I agree with the sentiment that insurance helps to entice PvP. But it shouldn't reward carelessness. Bigger ships should have more penalties for insurance too. I think this would create more diversity in the game where every fleet's focus wasn't all dreads or all Battleships. It would instead refocus the mindset on bring what you can and we'll adapt. And one thing that still blows my mind is, If I don't buy insurance, why do I get a base payout still. I mean ffs, I don't insure, I lose a ship stupidly and I still get 30 mil for that battleship or 20 bil for that titan loss, I mean WTF? *yes I realize and encourage the fact that titan's can't be insured. DD changes Docking PVP games
Uronksur Suth Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate	Posted - 2009.08.24 22:12:00 - [15] Originally by: Yaay Edited by: Yaay on 24/08/2009 21:33:59 Insurance needs to be a player invested system. If you lose more ships over x course of time, your cost increases by y. Security status of systems also needs to play a role in insurance. The reason major alliances don't die like they used to is because it's become to easy to sustain heavy heavy losses in 0.0. I agree with the sentiment that insurance helps to entice PvP. But it shouldn't reward carelessness. Bigger ships should have more penalties for insurance too. I think this would create more diversity in the game where every fleet's focus wasn't all dreads or all Battleships. It would instead refocus the mindset on bring what you can and we'll adapt. And one thing that still blows my mind is, If I don't buy insurance, why do I get a base payout still. I mean ffs, I don't insure, I lose a ship stupidly and I still get 30 mil for that battleship or 20 bil for that titan loss, I mean WTF? *yes I realize and encourage the fact that titan's can't be insured. If someone created a proposal centered around these ideas, I'd be much more likely to support
Baaldor Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.08.24 23:38:00 - [16] Originally by: jemos Introduction. I've been spending quite some time on these forums, reading Assembly hall and F&I forums quite alot. Problem spotted.
Aniel Zaar Gallente Light of Orion	Posted - 2009.08.25 02:03:00 - [17] Not supported. I like getting money for being blown up. -^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^ By the way, I am an Ishtar and T2 sentries fan. Fight to make the sentry damage rig work for all drones.
AstroPhobic Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.08.25 02:04:00 - [18] No. PVP is expensive enough as it is without grinding level 4 missions for hours to get popped by your local blob.
Cyberman Mastermind	Posted - 2009.08.25 11:01:00 - [19] Originally by: jemos Remove any insurance on vessels that are designed for combat. Keep insurance for industrial type ships that can't fit any weapon system such as turrets and missile launchers. So, what does that leave? Shuttles and Freighters. Mining Barge and Exhumers. Anything else? -------------------------------------------------- I'm a rich person. How I know? I can afford to be a miner.
Bellum Eternus Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.08.25 11:35:00 - [20] Supported. Anyone who doesn't want it is a carebear or just sucks at PVP and loses tons of ships. Fail more.
Heroldyn	Posted - 2009.08.25 12:08:00 - [21] Edited by: Heroldyn on 25/08/2009 12:08:25 its about time for the horrible, old and outdated insurance system to go.
Stil Harkonnen	Posted - 2009.08.25 19:03:00 - [22] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Supported. Anyone who doesn't want it is a carebear or just sucks at PVP and loses tons of ships. Fail more. carebears don't lose ships that often, so your proposition that people who don't want this change are carebears is wrong. More pvpers would be against this. Pretty much anybody who pvp's alot, and doesn't ***** pvp behind their blob SHOULD be losing alot of ships so I don't understand your argument.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.25 19:46:00 - [23] Originally by: Stil Harkonnen Originally by: Bellum Eternus Supported. Anyone who doesn't want it is a carebear or just sucks at PVP and loses tons of ships. Fail more. carebears don't lose ships that often, so your proposition that people who don't want this change are carebears is wrong. More pvpers would be against this. Pretty much anybody who pvp's alot, and doesn't ***** pvp behind their blob SHOULD be losing alot of ships so I don't understand your argument. More people would be willing to pay ransom for a ship (if pirates aren't too stupid never honoring ransom) and so it would help low sec PvP. I thin that is the position of Bellum.
Sargeant Bash The-Secret-Service	Posted - 2009.08.26 12:14:00 - [24] definately NOT supported are you mad!..The risk vs reward in pvp is already crazy and making isk as a actual pvper is difficult.. or tell that to the noob whos spent 3 months ratting and slogging to get his shiny new raven only to get ganked on a mission or something and then have nothing left, only to go through the slog again, infact remove account as soo many people already do becuase of the crazy loss factor in eve.
Gaven Darklighter	Posted - 2009.08.26 19:21:00 - [25] Quote: "a real insurance company wouldn't pay out insurance if you used the car in a armed robbery". A real police force will not respond in 30 seconds, it will not have indestructible vehicles, it will not have the most powerful weapons, it will not have the cash to respwan sentries every 5 minute... Must we go on? This issue is not about realism, it's about fun. Please take this circlejerk somewhere else
AtheistOfDoom Amarr The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.08.26 20:18:00 - [26] Originally by: Gaven Darklighter Quote: "a real insurance company wouldn't pay out insurance if you used the car in a armed robbery". A real police force will not respond in 30 seconds, it will not have indestructible vehicles, it will not have the most powerful weapons, it will not have the cash to respwan sentries every 5 minute... Must we go on? This issue is not about realism, it's about fun. Please take this circlejerk somewhere else + such a nerf is completely unnecessary. Pew Pew Lazorz!!!
Cyberman Mastermind	Posted - 2009.08.27 09:06:00 - [27] Originally by: Venkul Mul More people would be willing to pay ransom for a ship (if pirates aren't too stupid never honoring ransom) and so it would help low sec PvP. The ship would have to be VERY valuable to risk paying a ransom. Since there is no reason for a pirate to honor it, there's no reason for anyone to pay it.
Nidhiesk	Posted - 2009.08.27 13:48:00 - [28] besides realism, whats your point or goal behind this ? reduce pvp = your in a good direction since you want to remove insurance increase pvp = nope, bad idea personally, I dont like it because of the realism but there is something wrong by given an insurrance to a person that blew someone up in high sec cause he felt like it... suicide, looting, or whatever the cause is...besides that..no its fine. so in all, I cant support your idea
Heroldyn	Posted - 2009.08.27 13:55:00 - [29] removing the npc insurances would allow player corporations to offer insurance services / contracts. eve is about player control, therefore its allways good to remove npc controlled systems from the game and enable the players to replace them.
Dav Varan	Posted - 2009.08.27 14:16:00 - [30] Free Insurance @ 80% for first 6 months. After that welcome to the harsh world of eve. Isk Faucet of Insurance props up mineral prices and makes all ships/mods more expensive. I would prefer cheaper ships and mods to the artificially high prices we pay today because of insurance. Insurance rewards the careless. Time for it to go.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.