| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Anya Synn
   |
Posted - 2010.01.12 12:24:00 -
[121]
Supported, better system is needed. |
Juwi Kotch
Fiat Iustitia
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 23:27:00 -
[122]
Edited by: Juwi Kotch on 12/01/2010 23:27:37
Supported. Insurance should be generally and totally removed, but at least no insurance payout anymore for ships being destroyed by Concord.
If insurance would be removed, we would need a new ISK sink replacing its effects, though.
Support the Bounty Hunter Profession! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 23:32:00 -
[123]
 Originally by: Juwi Kotch
Edited by: Juwi Kotch on 12/01/2010 23:27:37
Supported. Insurance should be generally and totally removed, but at least no insurance payout anymore for ships being destroyed by Concord.
If insurance would be removed, we would need a new ISK sink replacing its effects, though.
Uh... Insurance is a huge ISK fountain, not a sink.
This thread is not advocating the total removal of insurance, since that would have huge and horrible effects - not least the obsoletion of sub-BS T1 ships.
When T1 ships cost more to build than you can insure them for, then suicide ganking will become balanced again.
|
Juwi Kotch
Fiat Iustitia
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 00:09:00 -
[124]
Ah ... yes, I hardly ever got insurance payouts, I mainly remember to pay for it the odd time actually insured a ship. But I stay corrected.
However (and I did not read this thread, so this was probably mentioned already at some place here) it would be interesting to have some data about insurance premiums paid and insurance payouts handed out. Maybe it is not that big a fountain? But I don't know ...
Nevertheless, insurance need to be reworked or even better removed.
Support the Bounty Hunter Profession! |
Herr Wilkus
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 00:11:00 -
[125]
Minor point, but Insurance DOES have the capability of acting as a sink.
In theory, if someone buys a ship, purchases insurance, and then doesn't lose the ship....ISK is removed from the system. As the % of insurance 'policies expired' approaches 100, Insurance is an ISK sink.
But yeah, in reality, it generally acts as a faucet, as lots of ships tend to explode.
And right now, its a firehose of ISK. People are actually purchasing insurance for the express reason of self-destructing for profit, meaning the % of 'policies expired' is approaching 0%, and the number of policies taken out is skyrocketing, too boot.
Its a big problem, and sadly, it seems beyond most Eve forum denizens' comprehension.
|
Taedrin
The Green Cross
DEFI4NT
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 00:28:00 -
[126]
Edited by: Taedrin on 13/01/2010 00:30:48
The insurance system has been showing it's age for awhile now. It is overly simplistic, and is not robust enough in an ever-changing market. Simply put, we need something that doesn't seem to have an infinite supply of money and resources.
EDIT: Forgot to support.
----------
There is always a choice. The choice might not be easy, nor simple, nor the options be what you desire - but, nevertheless, the choice is there to be made. |
Daphne Mezereum
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 18:58:00 -
[127]
Fully endorsed.
|
sir gankalot
|
Posted - 2010.01.13 19:01:00 -
[128]
Yes.
|
Leocadminone
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 05:03:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Lusulpher
This Insurance fraud can only be maintained if the macros were to return. I'm sure CCP will not let them. So enjoy it while it lasts.
In my experience, the macroers never left. I've got petitions from last SUMMER against obvious bot miners, and guess what - every time I see one of those characters (and I've seen pretty much ALL of them in the last 2 months), months later they're STILL bot mining away.
Unholy Rage was about RMT traders - any macro users it got rid of appear to have been removed only in that they were connected with RMT types.
As far as the mineral pricing trends for the last year, other than Pyro, mineral prices NOW are pretty close to what they were a YEAR ago - the RUNUP was most likely due to a major demand increase after the MAJOR War Goodswarm and others were involved in last spring, that saw thousands of ships dying. The pyro runup from what I see as the head of a miner corp is apparently due to a scarcity of Scordite in the belts more-or-less with Dominion - my roomies that specifically work Scordite are constantly running out of rocks before anyone else is, despite our deliberate decidion to have an equal number and close to equally skilled set of miners working each rock type (except Pyro, value on that has dropped to much to make it worthwhile unless we run out of everything else).
|
Ere Colliseru
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 14:36:00 -
[130]
Damn too many topics for the same thing.
I wrote here my view:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1222490&page=1#29
Quote:
It is widely talked about that Eve is like real life and therefore not safe.
In real life if someone is caught by police he not only get a punishment (in our case its the loss of the ship), but also he is not insured anymore (would need to be introduced) AND if he has got the money he as to pay the damage he caused (i.e. not only the truck but also the freight i.e. other cars).
This would mirror life more realistic. Thats no whining, just pure facts.
So if someone ganks a Iteron 5 with 6 Catalyst in a Myrm he should loose insurance for the myrm, pay the Iteron (probably with or without rigs) and the cargo. At least in 0.5-1.
In low sec there should be only the loss of insurance as its more like wild west (but still you loose insurance cause of "improper use".
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 18:26:00 -
[131]
Edited by: Malcanis on 14/01/2010 18:30:13
Originally by: Ere Colliseru
Damn too many topics for the same thing.
I wrote here my view:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1222490&page=1#29
Quote:
It is widely talked about that Eve is like real life and therefore not safe.
In real life if someone is caught by police he not only get a punishment (in our case its the loss of the ship), but also he is not insured anymore (would need to be introduced) AND if he has got the money he as to pay the damage he caused (i.e. not only the truck but also the freight i.e. other cars).
This would mirror life more realistic. Thats no whining, just pure facts.
So if someone ganks a Iteron 5 with 6 Catalyst in a Myrm he should loose insurance for the myrm, pay the Iteron (probably with or without rigs) and the cargo. At least in 0.5-1.
In low sec there should be only the loss of insurance as its more like wild west (but still you loose insurance cause of "improper use".
That's outside of the scope of this thread, and in any case I strongly oppose it. Losing a ship should be sufficient "punishment"; it's not up to CCP to add extra penalties to stop people who play in ways you don't like. Your proposal would make suicide ganking completely pointless. Please remember that EVE is founded on the principle of non-consensual PvP. If you want to effectively remove suicide ganking, you need to match that proposal with some other method and make your own proposal. This one is about how insurance is calculated, not under what conditions it is paid, nor is it about nerfing suicide ganking.
In any case, no "realistic" insurance company would ever insure a pod pilot's ship. There can never be anything remotely "realistic" about ship insurance in EVE, as real insurance companies take more in premiums than they pay out in compensations. This is why it is also foolish to expect any kind of player-run insurance to be widely applicable.
"Realism" is a poor reason to do something compared to "game balance". At the moment, the insurance system is both unrealistic and unbalanced. My proposal is that it should be unrealistic and balanced
|
Durnin Stormbrow
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 20:34:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Malcanis
When T1 ships cost more to build than you can insure them for, then suicide ganking will become balanced again.
QFT
Insurance is not the problem. The problem is supply & demand in the mineral market driving prices down to the insurance floor.
The mineral supply has been buffed again & again over the years. Exhumers, T2 strips, Drone regions, WH's, better & better gear to steam roll Lv4s, buffed hi-sec belts & now buffed 0.0 belts. Nothing has been done to increase demand.
Fix the mineral supply/demand ratio and insurance will be no more problem than it was years ago. |
Bhattran
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 00:05:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Leocadminone
Originally by: Lusulpher
This Insurance fraud can only be maintained if the macros were to return. I'm sure CCP will not let them. So enjoy it while it lasts.
In my experience, the macroers never left. I've got petitions from last SUMMER against obvious bot miners, and guess what - every time I see one of those characters (and I've seen pretty much ALL of them in the last 2 months), months later they're STILL bot mining away.
Unholy Rage was about RMT traders - any macro users it got rid of appear to have been removed only in that they were connected with RMT types.
As far as the mineral pricing trends for the last year, other than Pyro, mineral prices NOW are pretty close to what they were a YEAR ago - the RUNUP was most likely due to a major demand increase after the MAJOR War Goodswarm and others were involved in last spring, that saw thousands of ships dying. The pyro runup from what I see as the head of a miner corp is apparently due to a scarcity of Scordite in the belts more-or-less with Dominion - my roomies that specifically work Scordite are constantly running out of rocks before anyone else is, despite our deliberate decidion to have an equal number and close to equally skilled set of miners working each rock type (except Pyro, value on that has dropped to much to make it worthwhile unless we run out of everything else).
This, I stopped reporting the macroers because I only saw one get banned or maybe he forgot to buy plex for a month, then was back at it again, reported him again he's still in the same system mining what appears to be 23/7.
CCP only seems to care about RMT(isk sell/buy) if you aren't doing RMT they can't be bothered with you, at least that is what I feel.
|
Maeve Trinity
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 17:00:00 -
[134]
Supported.
I took part in Hulkaggedon, and quickly learned that insurance payout was MORE in the end than the cost of the destroyer and its modest fittings combined. While at the same time, the main target of the event (the Hulk), insurance payout doesn't even cover a fraction of the cost of a Hulk on the market, without fittings.
I agree platinum insurance payout should be equal to market cost.
But I also believe that there should be ZERO insurance payout if said ship is lost to CONCORD.
.................
|
Meisje
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 17:07:00 -
[135]
How many hundreds of threads have been created about this? CCP, we need insurance reform!
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats
|
Posted - 2010.01.17 00:48:00 -
[136]
Not supported but clearly failed to be understood by anyone last time so will make another post 
I'd like to ask a question that's been hinted at but not covered in this thread: Why is there an oversupply of minerals?
This could alternatively be asked as: Is there a group of people who would stop paying for subscriptions if minerals dropped below a certain price?
It's my belief that the OP's proposal would hurt CCP's income, it would drop the mineral price floor, raise the price of plexes and hurt newer players rather than older ones.
An alternative suggestion is that rat loot gets dropped as BPCs, apologies that I can't find the post where this was mentioned but it really is a much better idea, the implications are however hard to understand without first understanding the plex market.
Imagine eve players to be on a scale from grinders at one end to pvpers on the other end, a pure grinder would probably have three or more accounts and do nothing but mining and industry whereas a pure pvper would live entirely off player loot and plexes.
CCP have a very strong financial incentive to keep both extremes happy, a miner who can keep 3 pvpers paying for plexes is doing more to cover the costs of our servers and fancy graphics than those of us who buy long term subs.
The result of this is there's an optimal plex price which provides the highest number of subscriptions and dropping the mineral price floor will alter the grinder/pvper balance.
Now that we've introduced the concept of plex balance lets take it one step further and consider Average Joe, to do this we have to revert to the original question and ask why is there an oversupply of minerals?
There's a fundamental difference between game world economics and RL economics in that a RL person working for minimum wage will find it hard to buy a new mercedes whereas a veldspar miner needs to be able to buy the occasional geddon or cerb and loose it in pvp.
Essentially there needs to be a very high minimum wage in eve otherwise casual players become the equivalent of burger flippers at mcdonalds and simply cancel their subs.
Currently this minimum wage is provided by two things, mission/rat payouts and insurance payouts. The current problems with ship insurance being more than the production cost of a ship are caused by the minerals from mission/rat payouts undercutting hard working miners and thus forcing them to live on the dole (insurance payouts).
To put it another way Average Joe who doesn't have the backing of an alliance has to choose from rats, roids, industry or piracy as a way of making a living so if there's a game mechanic (rat loot) that undercuts one of his options (roids) then he needs concord payouts to survive as a miner or has to ditch this profession altogether.
TL;DR (and the reason i'm not supporting the OP):
Dropping the insurance payout forces people to ditch a profession through a bad game mechanic and fails to tackle the root of the problem. Changing rat loot from modules to BPCs would see the removal of a mineral fountain, the introduction of a mineral sink and ultimately raise ship prices above insurance prices.
_________________________________________________
Lifeboat ----> + Human |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.01.17 01:31:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Malcanis
Edited by: Malcanis on 25/11/2009 13:02:38
Dynamically linking insurance to mineral prices to make sure that the insurance value is always around 5-10% less than the market value (barring extremely sudden, extremely large shifts, which are very unlikely IMO) is the way forward, I think.
Of course this will almost certainly lead to an initial sharp fall in mineral prices. This inevitably means that miners will see a reduction in income. However, the current situation is that there is an oversupply of minerals. In short: we have too many miners. Let the market decide how many we need and how much they should earn.
However, there is certainly a very strong case for eliminating non-mining sources of minerals. Specifically: rat loot. Some reform of drone alloys might also be considered. Replacing a percentage of the minerals from drone alloys with moon minerals, or even first-stage reactions might be a possibility.
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats
|
Posted - 2010.01.17 01:45:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Malcanis
In short: we have too many miners. Let the market decide how many we need and how much they should earn.
So you think CCP should abandon miners to the free market even if that means loosing subscriptions? Haha good luck with that.
Bear in mind that a free market can not exist inside a virtual universe where the developers decide how big asteroids are, how much ships cost to build, etc. How many miners we need is 100% decided by CCP and there's nothing the game market can do about that.
Originally by: Malcanis
However, there is certainly a very strong case for eliminating non-mining sources of minerals. Specifically: rat loot.
If you understand the root of the problem then why are you advocating a drop in the mineral price floor that would potentially drive people away from the game rather than fixing the mechanic that is driving down mineral prices?
_________________________________________________
Lifeboat ----> + Human |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.01.17 10:31:00 -
[139]
Originally by: yani dumyat
Originally by: Malcanis
In short: we have too many miners. Let the market decide how many we need and how much they should earn.
So you think CCP should abandon miners to the free market even if that means loosing subscriptions? Haha good luck with that.
Every other profession gets "abandoned to the free market". Why do miners deserve special protection and subsidy? Are you saying that people who mine are all incapable of adapting and respecialising?
Originally by: yani dumyat
If you understand the root of the problem then why are you advocating a drop in the mineral price floor that would potentially drive people away from the game rather than fixing the mechanic that is driving down mineral prices?
Because miners deserve the advantages of the free market, as well as its rigors. That's called "balance".
|
RootEmerger
|
Posted - 2010.01.17 14:46:00 -
[140]
supported
|
Ramon Wilco
Caldari
Psycho Corp
|
Posted - 2010.01.17 16:59:00 -
[141]
A way to use a base price on average market, without the possibility to "exploit" this by placing buy/sell order is to base ite on an average price on items solds. You can place buy or sell order the price you want, but people wont buy a drake for 300 M ...
Anyway, the other option for insurance is to have a real insurance system, this mean, if you loose ships, the insurance cost will be every time higher... Some weeks, or months without big losses... the insurance price get lowered...
It has to be calculated, but i think this way, you will take care of your ships, in pvp, the ships could be insure by the corporation, or not insure at all. It will also introduce a new system of valor... : i take care of my ship. I dont want my ship destroyed, even if its not the Factional Battleship.
By the way, it could depend on "isk loss" of ships, so if you lost 15 frigates, its not a big deal for insurances, but if you loss 5 battleships...
Fear your incomprehension, but love the differences. Ramon Wilco |
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2010.01.19 09:12:00 -
[142]
Although the proposed insurance payout rate is still too high for my liking, at least it's better then the current situation. Supported.
Originally by: yani dumyat
The result of this is there's an optimal plex price which provides the highest number of subscriptions and dropping the mineral price floor will alter the grinder/pvper balance.
Uh huh. And is that optimal at current levels, which are roughly TWICE what they were not so long ago? Or was the optimal when they were at an all time high, before the last fanfest?
Quote:
TL;DR (and the reason i'm not supporting the OP):
Dropping the insurance payout forces people to ditch a profession through a bad game mechanic and fails to tackle the root of the problem. Changing rat loot from modules to BPCs would see the removal of a mineral fountain, the introduction of a mineral sink and ultimately raise ship prices above insurance prices.
You do not make an argument for the current fixed insurance prices at all. Any number of options are available to substitute insurance in order to maintain this mineral price floor. That should be a complete non-issue.
Say mineral basket price more then doubles, so now insurance only covers half of the hull cost, what happens to your burger flipper then? Malcanis proposal would see him reasonably covered in both situations, regardless of mineral prices.
|
Hemp Invader
g guild
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2010.01.19 09:38:00 -
[143]
Edited by: Hemp Invader on 19/01/2010 09:42:01
Edited by: Hemp Invader on 19/01/2010 09:39:32
Insurance definatly needs a nerf.
I haven't read everything but i have an idea about an insurance nerf:
only 3 levels of insurance:
HiSec insurance : 50% payed only if lost in hisec
Lowsec : 75% payed only if lost in lowsec
00 : 100% payed only if lost in 0.0
or
these levels for each type of current insurance
This way, concord gets nerfed and you get a new way to do risc-based insurance
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2010.01.19 09:48:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Furb Killer
Insurance pay out based on market value is too easy to manipulate.
If you average over the market of all regions it becomes more difficult to manipulate. Also, payout values don't have to be updated in realtime, it would be enough to adjust them once a week or even a month.
I'm not sure what percentage of market value should be payed out, you'd need to do some heavier math or simulations to determine what is sane.
If insurance gets an overhaul (say, making insurance payout 50% of market value)), T2 and faction ships should also be included, so they start to see at least some reasonable insurance payouts. Yes, the number of moons does not scale, so this might cause some problems with goo price because of increased demand, but that's because CCP missed an opportunity to implement a system that actually scales...
Finally, adjust payout by another factor Y if the loss was caused by concord.
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats
|
Posted - 2010.01.20 16:26:00 -
[145]
Edited by: yani dumyat on 20/01/2010 16:26:30
_________________________________________________
Lifeboat ----> + Human |
yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats
|
Posted - 2010.01.20 17:20:00 -
[146]
Edited by: yani dumyat on 20/01/2010 17:25:23
Originally by: Qui Shon
Uh huh. And is that optimal at current levels, which are roughly TWICE what they were not so long ago? Or was the optimal when they were at an all time high, before the last fanfest?
The optimal price is one where grinders can afford to run multiple accounts but it's still worth it for pvpers to buy plexes rather than move to a game where they don't have to grind so much.
I can't tell you what that optimal price is but I'd bet a wad of isk that someone at CCP has worked it out :)
Originally by: Qui Shon
You do not make an argument for the current fixed insurance prices at all. Any number of options are available to substitute insurance in order to maintain this mineral price floor. That should be a complete non-issue.
As stated earlier in the thread I'm not a fan of the current insurance mechanism and as such am not trying to "make an argument for the current fixed insurance prices."
I'm making an argument that there's a game design imbalance where miners are undercut by ratters and that without fixing this the removal or reduction of the mineral price floor is a huge and unnecessary nerf to the mining industry.
Care to elaborate on these "options available to substitute insurance in order to maintain this mineral price floor"? It would be nice to hear some fresh ideas on this subject.
Originally by: Qui Shon
Say mineral basket price more then doubles, so now insurance only covers half of the hull cost, what happens to your burger flipper then? Malcanis proposal would see him reasonably covered in both situations, regardless of mineral prices.
If the basket price doubles then with my suggestion the burger flipper is sitting pretty because he's the only one who can provide the minerals and as such is well paid.
With Malcanis's proposal the burger flipper is still being undercut by rat loot so the basket price will never double
_________________________________________________
Lifeboat ----> + Human |
Jonas Trelonian
|
Posted - 2010.01.20 20:58:00 -
[147]
+1
I've always thought that the insurance mechanic was poorly implemented, and it hasn't got better since I started playing. It needs some serious attention because as it stands now, it's a joke... hell I don't even bother insuring my T2 ships anymore. Calculating reimbursement based on mineral costs of ship = EPIC FAIL.
Perhaps CCP could consider allowing players to run their own insurance agencies and adding "debit orders" to make monthly insurance premium payouts, instead of having to pay a lump sum up front.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.01.20 21:32:00 -
[148]
Edited by: Malcanis on 20/01/2010 21:36:44
Originally by: yani dumyat
With Malcanis's proposal the burger flipper is still being undercut by rat loot so the basket price will never double
You do know I have consistently supported proposals to reduce or eliminate the mineral content of rat loot over the last 2 years? I even mention it in this thread specifically for that reason.
But yes, anyway thanks for making it obvious that miners are quite aware that Insurance is effectively an NPC mineral buy order at levels far above what players are currently prepared to pay. Go make yet another proposal to reform the mineral content of rat loot and I will support you... even though I make my ISK ratting and missioning.
I like the idea of replacing rat loot with meta BPCs that can either be used to build meta items or used directly by inventors to increase their invention chances (such that even meta-1 pieces have value)
I think it would also be a great idea to increase by 10-20% the amount of Zydrine and Megacyte required to build ships.
Just to make this explicit - I do NOT want to see miners nerfed. I have long thought that the profession needed some DevLoveÖ. But as part of that love, I want to see mining changed from an NPC-supported profession to a player supported profession. Which is also consistent with the other arguments I have made over the years.
"
Care to elaborate on these "options available to substitute insurance in order to maintain this mineral price floor"? It would be nice to hear some fresh ideas on this subject."
EG: Change POS and/or POS modules in to player-created items. That will soak up a fantastic amount of minerals.
|
Jondo Marikesh
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.01.20 22:17:00 -
[149]
supported
|
Amy Garzan
The Warp Rats
|
Posted - 2010.01.21 03:23:00 -
[150]
signed
--------------------------------------------------
101010 The Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |