| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arcane Azmadi
First Flying Wing Inc
Primary.
   |
Posted - 2009.09.08 04:21:00 -
[31]
This... is really detailed and well thought-out. I've taken advantage of insurance scamming myself so it definitely needs to be fixed (how often do you hear someone say THAT?) Some of the details probably need tuning, but you have my support.
|
Roland Thorne
Dark Sun Collective
Kahora Catori
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 22:01:00 -
[32]
Interesting that this is trying to solve a problem and not just screw over pvp, and that is encouraging.
I agree with this, but points need to be made:
Many pvpers in 0.0 lose as many as 10 or more ships a day and kill many times over that. A short-term tracking system could give them a needlessly bad record.
Also, a tracking system is going to task the server, which ccp is constantly fighting to cut lag. We should avoid adding to the problems.
Payment per cycle (30 days might be more stable) should be automatic. Don't know about you, but if I choose to insure something I don't want surprises unless I want to stop coverage voluntarily.
|
Yaay
Game-Over
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 23:28:00 -
[33]
 Originally by: Roland Thorne
Interesting that this is trying to solve a problem and not just screw over pvp, and that is encouraging.
I agree with this, but points need to be made:
Many pvpers in 0.0 lose as many as 10 or more ships a day and kill many times over that. A short-term tracking system could give them a needlessly bad record.
Also, a tracking system is going to task the server, which ccp is constantly fighting to cut lag. We should avoid adding to the problems.
Payment per cycle (30 days might be more stable) should be automatic. Don't know about you, but if I choose to insure something I don't want surprises unless I want to stop coverage voluntarily.
If you setup a small delay in insurance where it happened on 20 minute cycles much like npc bounty payouts do, I think it would help cut down drastically on lag.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Arathon Theimies
Neo Spartans
Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 23:35:00 -
[34]
Not supported. I like my suicide brutixs tyvm
Truth and Honour, Larkonis Trassler for CSM!!! |
Allen Ramses
Caldari
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 01:28:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Dretzle Omega
Insurance is more or less built to encourage PVP. PVP is the basis for a lot in this game, especially driving the Market. No insurance = less PVP (not no PVP, just less).
Any "fix" in insurance needs to address that issue or it won't happen.
While lower insurance (and fewer RR BSes, for that matter) means less PvP, it also means much higher quality of PvP. Reduction of insurance will mean more diversity, and it will reduce the desire for pilots to stay away from purchasing T2 ships. It will also remove the incentive to make the all-too-common disposable battleships we all love to see.
Supported.
(oddly enough, my proposal had WAY fewer supports, even though the changes were fewer. I wonder why  )
____________________
CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
Roland Thorne
Dark Sun Collective
Kahora Catori
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 20:40:00 -
[36]
One reason I support this is because it increases costs for griefers in highsec. Now, griefing is pvp, but there are many of them who are purposefully in a noob corp so they cannot be war-decced, which as you know is also part of pvp. There should be repercussions for every action in eve, and the additions Yaay has added will increase costs for griefing regardless of corp. These are my reasons for supporting Yaay's additions, but it could very well be that insurance is the wrong way to do it, in which case those additions should be removed.
|
Dramaticus
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 20:55:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Allen Ramses
Originally by: Dretzle Omega
Insurance is more or less built to encourage PVP. PVP is the basis for a lot in this game, especially driving the Market. No insurance = less PVP (not no PVP, just less).
Any "fix" in insurance needs to address that issue or it won't happen.
While lower insurance (and fewer RR BSes, for that matter) means less PvP, it also means much higher quality of PvP. Reduction of insurance will mean more diversity, and it will reduce the desire for pilots to stay away from purchasing T2 ships. It will also remove the incentive to make the all-too-common disposable battleships we all love to see.
Supported.
(oddly enough, my proposal had WAY fewer supports, even though the changes were fewer. I wonder why )
ah that vaunted high-quality pvp shooting wartargets on the jita undock yase we need more of that
Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan |
Allen Ramses
Caldari
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 01:49:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Dramaticus
ah that vaunted high-quality pvp shooting wartargets on the jita undock yase we need more of that
*Sigh*
If only people were intelligent enough to judge an opinion based upon the merit of the issue, and not by the alliance he is a member of.
(BTW, I don't do Jita. I did once, and I will never do it again. My kills are mostly at gates.)
____________________
CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
Xornicon Altair
Woopatang
Primary.
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 10:36:00 -
[39]
The only thing that I would add to this is a way to alter the insurance payouts based on a character's standing with Concord. If someone is -10.0, then the insurance would be reduced greatly. If someone has 0 standing or higher, then the payout is unaltered. This rewards good behavior, and again adds a level of risk to crime.
-----
New Eden Post - Independant EVE News Service
Vancouver EVE Players Gathering! |
Dekjab Deshkin
Amarr
General Trading Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.09.10 11:07:00 -
[40]
On my opinion, the problem is pretty easy to solve, actualy.
Insurance contract length, places where you do fly, etc etc aren't that meaningful.
Though, just consider this:
- Wreck X ships in a given amount of time, and you'll see your insurance fees increase. Wreck none or few, and expect fees cut.
You tend to play too much with the insurances stuff ? You give your insurer a call every two days ?
No clue he will end telling you he will insure you no more...for a while.
So the maths here are easy to compute:
- Much ships broken= more insurance fees
- Few ships broken= less insurance fees
- Way too much ships broken: No more insurance.
What do you think about that ?
|
Roland Thorne
Dark Sun Collective
Kahora Catori
|
Posted - 2009.09.11 00:24:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Dekjab Deshkin
On my opinion, the problem is pretty easy to solve, actualy.
Insurance contract length, places where you do fly, etc etc aren't that meaningful.
Though, just consider this:
- Wreck X ships in a given amount of time, and you'll see your insurance fees increase. Wreck none or few, and expect fees cut.
You tend to play too much with the insurances stuff ? You give your insurer a call every two days ?
No clue he will end telling you he will insure you no more...for a while.
So the maths here are easy to compute:
- Much ships broken= more insurance fees
- Few ships broken= less insurance fees
- Way too much ships broken: No more insurance.
What do you think about that ?
Add the percentage of kills too against the losses as profit :)
That would help account for bad luck.
|
Yaay
Game-Over
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 14:45:00 -
[42]
bumped for a breath of fresh air and a windbags perogative
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Belmarduk
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 15:28:00 -
[43]
Remove insurance alltogether imo
Mainchar:
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 16:18:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 06/10/2009 16:21:07
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 06/10/2009 16:20:37
Originally by: Ariane VoxDei
NOT supported.
The: Mine -> Build -> Insure -> Pop -> isk, thing is a 'problem', but you are creating a lot of other negative effects in trying to deal with it in the way that you are.
Also the minerals -> isk conversion, via insurance, is not all that bad. It helps set a price floor for minerals.
I agree, insurance has a number of flaws, but they are not critical, your system just is not going to work.
Pvp is already very expensive, especially for the new players. What i would like to see is insurance varying depending on what modules you have installed, and maybe some kind of insurance for t2 gear and ships.
Fix Destroyers |
Reverend Book
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 17:00:00 -
[45]
I think that this is, on face, a great attempt at fixing insurance scamming. I'm in full support of not giving payouts, even the 40% base payout, to gate gun/Concord/self destructs. Also like the idea of shortening the premium times.
But if insurance is designed to encourage PVP, then the penalty for losing ships will start to play AGAINST that. I like the mechanic itself, eventually you will be prevented from doing something you're bad at financially or a lot of isk will leave the game. So how about this compromise:
The lower the sec rating of the system where you lose your ship, the more forgiving your insurance history becomes. Instead of the model being "you went to a dangerous place and that was stupid," it shifts to "Thank you for losing your ship in a dangerous area, rather than doing so in our highly civilized highsec systems."
This lets PVP go and be PVP. It also means that if you want to shoot your ship up because it's about to be uninsured, you can take it to a lower sec system if it might affect your insurance history. And if it's gonna end up dead anyway, why not have some fun there and "drive it like you stole it" rather than just having a friend or local pirate shoot it?
Lower rate of profit oriented insurance scamming, more traffic to lower security systems, isn't this what CCP has been trying to effect?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |