Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2009.12.04 08:04:00 -
[61]
An overhaul is direly needed..
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.05 10:45:00 -
[62]
It would be awesome if you could bring this up with the CSM.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.08 17:42:00 -
[63]
Update: in the last few weeks, trillions of ISK have been injected in to the economy by these players who are building ships for no other reason than to destruct them for insurance. This is over and above any losses from normal game play.
This situation is URGENT now.
|
Illwill Bill
Svea Rike Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 10:55:00 -
[64]
Agreed, a reform is needed.
|
Reynolds
Third Return Inc. Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 12:26:00 -
[65]
Supported. I'd like to see the free 40% removed from all ships of Battleship size and bigger as well
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 12:34:00 -
[66]
It's about time to fix this.
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 15:15:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Malcanis Update: in the last few weeks, trillions of ISK have been injected in to the economy by these players who are building ships for no other reason than to destruct them for insurance. This is over and above any losses from normal game play.
This situation is URGENT now.
Mineral basket price has been climbing
The market will adjust itself
|
Kalnov
Gallente Problematique Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 18:51:00 -
[68]
Interesting how people don't realize what the main issue is here: cheap minerals allowing "insurance fraud" to happen.
|
Seth Ruin
Ominous Corp Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 20:14:00 -
[69]
I'll agree insurance needs to be looked at again. The specifics, however, are still unclear.
Regardless, posting to support the idea of an overhaul of the insurance system.
|
Tvaishk Suzuki
Long Night Industries Black Thorne Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.20 23:47:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Tvaishk Suzuki on 20/12/2009 23:58:02 Edited by: Tvaishk Suzuki on 20/12/2009 23:49:18 This really really needs looking into, total removal I don't think is the key but, no insurance or half insurance for concord related death and for self destructing, this might just have the added affect of making those annoying people who try and deny you a km by blowing themselves up from doing so.
In short.
*Reduce insurance in total down to 95% of average traded mineral value.
*Reduce payout by at least 40% for destruction by concord
* Reduce payout by at least 50% for Self-destructed ships.
Taking into account my own ideas on this, I fully support reform of the insurance system, we should not be able to make isk off it. ---
With thanks to Arkea Jindoi for the sig. Appliance Man |
|
Aloriana Jacques
Royal Amarr Institute
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 03:00:00 -
[71]
Supported
I would merely suggest tying the payout to be 80% at max payout of the 20 day moving average at the time of payout. This would prevent people from spiking the price for just a day to attempt to manipulate the market. They would need to do it for days on end to shift it up. - - - Aloriana Jacques - Skill Sheet
|
NedFromAssembly
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 03:53:00 -
[72]
No
|
Trazis
Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 04:21:00 -
[73]
Unsupported. 4 reasons.
People in null are already skittish about fights, you really only get a fight if your out numbered cause people are afraid of loosing their ships. Take away their fall back and you wont ever get fights.
People who want to take away insurance money are people who get suicide ganked in their freighters and ya that needs to be fixed.
People who want insurance taken away are people that have so much isk they could wipe their a$$ with it and still have some to use for ****in.
No insurance means less isk for people who fight and pvp and loose ships which means more grind and less pvp, which means less fun which means worse eve. No pvp'r wants grind no pvp'rs will turn to other methods like scamming and suicide ganking your filthy freighter full of faction gear.
Solution to your filthy proposal based on filthy proof, remove insurance from self destructing you filthy noob don't freakin remove it from the freakin game. Thats like saying o the abbadon has too much armor, lets reduce it to 0 and have it rely on shields.
My personal guess is that you produce ships namely rokhs and abbadons and are mad cause you have to loose 2m profit now cause people are blowing up ur ships.
You sir are filthy, rash, and extreme. Use common sense, not carebear emo wrath.
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar Pixie Cats
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 11:00:00 -
[74]
Edited by: yani dumyat on 21/12/2009 11:05:14 An irony about this issue is that RL capitalism dictates that CCP needs to keep some level of socialist regulation in the game to ensure players can still play a game they enjoy and hence keep paying their subscription fees.
You could look at it as a balance between pvpers who will only put up with so much grind to pay for their ships and industrialists who will often have multiple accounts. An indicator of this balance is shown in the plex market.
There's a lot of capitalist chest beating in this thread but sticking dogmatically to any ideology will run you into problems eventually, a truly free market economy is likely to go through periods of boom and bust and you should be asking what affect that would have on subscription rates.
No support from me, though there was a very sensible suggestion about replacing rat loot drops with bpcs, thus removing a mineral fountain from the game.
Edit: The insurance system isn't great and i'd support an overhaul but don't think that the implications of removing the last mineral price floor has been thought through in this thread. _________________________________________________ Lifeboat ----> + Human |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 11:02:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Trazis Edited by: Trazis on 21/12/2009 06:20:09 Unsupported. 4 reasons.
People in null are already skittish about fights, you really only get a fight if your out numbered cause people are afraid of loosing their ships. Take away their fall back and you wont ever get fights.
People who want to take away insurance money are people who get suicide ganked in their freighters and ya suicide ganking insurance needs to be fixed.
People who want insurance taken away are people that have so much isk they could wipe their a$$ with it and still have some to use blow their load on.
No insurance means less isk for people who fight and pvp and loose ships which means more grind and less pvp, which means less fun which means worse eve. Nobody wants grind.... unless you came here from WoW... in which case go back and stop tainting eve.
Solution to your filthy proposal based on filthy proof, remove insurance from self destructing you filthy noob don't freakin remove it from the freakin game. Thats like saying o the abbadon has too much armor, lets take away 1/3 of its armor and low slots.
My personal guess is that you produce ships namely rokhs and abbadons and are mad cause you have to loose 2m profit now cause people are blowing up ur ships.
You sir are filthy, rash, and extreme. Use common sense, not carebear emo wrath.
Wow... just wow.
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar Pixie Cats
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 11:09:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Trazis
You sir are filthy, rash, and extreme. Use common sense, not carebear emo wrath.
Yet more irony ^^ _________________________________________________ Lifeboat ----> + Human |
Hugo Lordmagnus
Vexillari
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 16:56:00 -
[77]
Lending support. Insurance values are currently arbitrary and need at least some kind of update.
|
Admiral Perimeter
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 20:11:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Admiral Perimeter on 21/12/2009 20:12:28 Remove insurance in its current, npc incarnation.
Implement a new form of contract that enables (monthly?) premiums to be paid, and payouts to be granted on ship destruction, opening up the insurance market to players and player corporations.
We need more sandbox.
Edit: This would allow PVP alliances and corporations to handle the logistics of their ship reimbursement programs much easier as well.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 20:19:00 -
[79]
Originally by: yani dumyat
Originally by: Trazis
You sir are filthy, rash, and extreme. Use common sense, not carebear emo wrath.
Yet more irony ^^
I wouldn't mind, but being called a "carebear" by a guy with his KB stats... well anyway, he didn't read the thread and now he looks pretty silly. Hopefully others will avoid doing the same.
|
EdwardNardella
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 03:41:00 -
[80]
I think the insurance system as is should be removed and replaced with a player driven system. CCRES is recruiting pilots who want to live in WSpace/Wormholes. Fill out an application here! |
|
Pasus Nauran
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 16:36:00 -
[81]
I agree that the insurance systems needs an overhaul. When insurance fraud is committed on a wide scale, there is something wrong with the system.
I support removing insurance payouts from being CONCORDed, as well as from self destructing outside of WH space (continuing to allow payouts from self-destructing in WH space seems fine).
|
Dr Cron
Northern Lights Number 5 Hydroponic Zone
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 17:25:00 -
[82]
not supported
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 22:05:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Dr Cron not supported
Thanks. Any reason why?
|
Dr Cron
Northern Lights Number 5 Hydroponic Zone
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 23:36:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Dr Cron on 23/12/2009 23:38:57
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Dr Cron not supported
Thanks. Any reason why?
I may be wrong but I still dont understand how the market cant sort this out or what the advantages would be in drastically reducing insurance payouts. Apparently the only way to game the system for huge profits requires a MASSIVE production capability.
Eliminating some insurance payouts under certain criteria I could possibly support, but an overall reduction in payout hits me in the wallet due to my chars' PVP losses and thus personally I dont like the idea. And my guess is that the average little guy feels the same.
My question would be, how would a reduction in insurance payouts actually benefit ME?
|
Dwarfageddon
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 23:56:00 -
[85]
Ship build cost is irrelevant to the buyer of the ship since its almost NEVER sold for anything close to what the ship costs. So basing insurance on ship build price is an injustice to the buyer who unfortunate enough to not a get a fair deal on the ship in question (overpricing happens constantly). I agree in that a better system is needed, for one thing me buying a ship and only getting payed for the hull cost and not the items I put into the ship seems a little crooked to me if I decided to spend money on good items and it goes up in flames. At the very least as a temporary measure id propose the payout be equal to whatever it was bought for, if it was purchased for 2 isk then you get 2 isk. The alternative is that if it does go up in smoke instead of money you pay the insurance and they have the exact same ship hull waiting for you back at the station you insured it at (perhaps sans the fittings but really id pay a little extra to get the exact same ship back if it were an option). This would remove the monetary incentive to exploit the insurance and still give a fair alternative to be underpaid by the insurance for replacement (this happens all the time in real life).
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 08:36:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Dr Cron Edited by: Dr Cron on 23/12/2009 23:54:12
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Dr Cron not supported
Thanks. Any reason why?
I may be wrong but I still dont understand how the market cant sort this out or what the advantages would be in drastically reducing insurance payouts. Apparently the only way to game the system for huge profits requires a MASSIVE production capability. You're talking a 2mil deficit on a tier 3 BS right? Wouldn't the solution require a 2 mil adjustment rather than 30% as you propose?
Eliminating some insurance payouts under certain criteria I could possibly support, but an overall reduction in payout hits me in the wallet due to my chars' PVP losses and thus personally I dont like the idea. And my guess is that the average little guy feels the same.
My question would be, how would a reduction in insurance payouts actually benefit ME?
You could read through the thread to find out. If you buy anything made from minerals, then the current insurance system is costing you ISK, because insurance artificially inflates the cost of minerals. It is basically an NPC buy order. That's why the market cant "sort this out" - players can't compete with NPCs with infinite funds who dont care about value.
As for the MASSIVE production capability, plenty of people have that capability. Read the thread linked to in the OP. The biggest time sink was actually destructing the ships.
The problem that this causes is that it's a vast ISK fountain, with no comparable ISK sink, it's scalable, and that it keeps ship and module prices artificially high. It also means that suicide ganking is OP, because you can buy and T1-fit a ship for free. Whilst I do believe that suicide ganking is absolutely necessary at the moment, it should cost something to lose even a T1 ship. Pegging insurance at around 85-95% of ship mineral value means that it will always cost at least a few mil to lose even an unfitted ship.
However the bonus side of that is that T1 ships will almost certainly become quite a bit cheaper.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 08:57:00 -
[87]
Insurance doesn't need to be 'reviewed', just removed. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Herr Wilkus
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 11:06:00 -
[88]
I follow this topic with interest, and have my own theories on how to best solve the problem.
Just as barnacles are exposed by a receding tide, and real estate fraud schemes are exposed by falling housing prices - the flaws in the current insurance system are laid bare by falling mineral prices.
On common carebear cries to "Remove insurance for Concord kills and self destruction!". Watching people post this is by far my biggest pet peeve, as it shows that most people have very little understanding of how economic systems work.
It sounds good on the surface (at least to the bears) - in much in the same way as calls for 'raising the minimum wage' sounds appealing, but it inevitably leads to more unemployment for the lowest paid workers.
Actual results? Removing insurance for self destruction will accomplish precisely nothing, as there are tons of other ways to artificially kill battleships rapidly and collect the insurance.
Removing insurance from CONCORD kills 'ie suicide gank nerf', actually aggravates the problem by making carebears 'mineral producers' even safer and more numerous, it reduces combat and legitimate ship destruction further, and leaves insurance in place - so those ships would invariably end up being artificially destroyed outside a manufacturing center, merely for the insurance payout.
Insurance is simplistic and flawed, yes. If fixing the insurance system is too difficult, however, those flaws become safely hidden if we improve the game by driving up the value of minerals through encouraging a marginal increase in ganking and less mindless resource gathering.
Oh, and I'm glad there are people (like Malcanis) out there whose posts show that they have a strong understanding of the principles we are dealing with, and how to fix them. Its really a relief while reading these threads. So much simplistic and flawed thinking out there.
|
Azran Zala
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 12:11:00 -
[89]
Nerfing the affordibility of PVP gets NO SUPPORT from me.
I usually fly tech2 ships anyways, but still.
|
Dr Cron
Northern Lights Number 5 Hydroponic Zone
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 19:30:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Dr Cron on 24/12/2009 19:30:46
Originally by: Malcanis
You could read through the thread to find out. If you buy anything made from minerals, then the current insurance system is costing you ISK, because insurance artificially inflates the cost of minerals. It is basically an NPC buy order. That's why the market cant "sort this out" - players can't compete with NPCs with infinite funds who dont care about value.
As for the MASSIVE production capability, plenty of people have that capability. Read the thread linked to in the OP. The biggest time sink was actually destructing the ships.
The problem that this causes is that it's a vast ISK fountain, with no comparable ISK sink, it's scalable, and that it keeps ship and module prices artificially high. It also means that suicide ganking is OP, because you can buy and T1-fit a ship for free. Whilst I do believe that suicide ganking is absolutely necessary at the moment, it should cost something to lose even a T1 ship. Pegging insurance at around 85-95% of ship mineral value means that it will always cost at least a few mil to lose even an unfitted ship.
However the bonus side of that is that T1 ships will almost certainly become quite a bit cheaper.
I did read most of the crap and I'm still NOT CONVINCED from an economic standpoint that the price of ships (incl insurance payout or lack thereof) would be cheaper if your proposal succeeds.
So... not supported.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |