| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
brexor
   |
Posted - 2009.11.21 20:48:00 -
[1]
I am making this suggestion about doing away with Insurance policy, If you get Concorded for being the aggressor In Empire. Why reward the one that got Concorded makes no sense. Keep the insurance as normal for eveything else.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 20:51:00 -
[2]
yes.
Further, I think the insurance fees should rise with the payots.
Currently, insurance is providing corps and alliances their gears for endless wrecking, I would like alliances and corps paying their stuff alone.
|
brexor
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 20:57:00 -
[3]
This should hopefully be away to stop those that pray on people in Empire. No sense on them to keep getting a reward for being Concorded. The whole Concorded idea to me is a Punishment and should be treated as that. No more Insurance to those that get Concorded.
|
PaulTheConvoluted
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 15:00:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Robert Caldera
yes.
Further, I think the insurance fees should rise with the payots.
Currently, insurance is providing corps and alliances their gears for endless wrecking, I would like alliances and corps paying their stuff alone.
This is already the case... Insuring a BS costs more than insuring a frigate, and platinum insurance costs more than basic insurance.
Besides that, insurance only covers part of the hull (payout is always less than hull + price insurance, and hull prices alone are more often than not more than the payout), not the fitting.
So no, insurance is not providing gear for endless wrecking, it just makes it a bit cheaper to do so.
However, I'm all for the idea in the OP: Real life insurance companies twist and turn to keep their wallets as closed as possible, and in Eve they just say 'Awww, you selfdestructed? Here, have some cash, and a free ship to boot... Is there anything else we can do?'
As a customer it's a very nice attitude, but it isn't very realistic :)
|
Morpheus Mishima
The GankSquad
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 15:31:00 -
[5]
Someone please give me the number to an insurance company that would actually insure a warship or some other object which was under constant threat of annihilation.
Imho. the insurance system in eve is broken in so many ways its not worth fixing. I say just remove the whole thing and be done with it.
As it is now, insurance only makes sense for battleships and capital ships. Both of which usually represent major investments in ISK and should not be insta-replaceable by the ISK-faucet that is eve insurance. Insuring T2, T3 or other fancy ships is just a waste of ISK because the reimbursement doesn't even cover the paint-job on most of those ships anyway.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 21:12:00 -
[6]
Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
This is already the case... Insuring a BS costs more than insuring a frigate, and platinum insurance costs more than basic insurance.
Besides that, insurance only covers part of the hull (payout is always less than hull + price insurance, and hull prices alone are more often than not more than the payout), not the fitting.
no I mean raising fees for loosing insured ships.
Originally by: PaulTheConvoluted
So no, insurance is not providing gear for endless wrecking, it just makes it a bit cheaper to do so.
it should not in my opinion. Alliances have enough money to pay it all and maybe some more careful handling of fleets would begin if they arent paid by the insurance.
I've heard "ahh dont care, they were all insured" many many times already in my eve carreer if it comes to a loss of T1 ships.
|
Markus Reese
Caldari
Lorentzian Expeditionaries
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 21:28:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Morpheus Mishima
Someone please give me the number to an insurance company that would actually insure a warship or some other object which was under constant threat of annihilation.
Imho. the insurance system in eve is broken in so many ways its not worth fixing. I say just remove the whole thing and be done with it.
As it is now, insurance only makes sense for battleships and capital ships. Both of which usually represent major investments in ISK and should not be insta-replaceable by the ISK-faucet that is eve insurance. Insuring T2, T3 or other fancy ships is just a waste of ISK because the reimbursement doesn't even cover the paint-job on most of those ships anyway.
Concurred.
|
miromaxmar
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 23:26:00 -
[8]
exactly.
No more insurance payout if you are "concorded".
The only exception maybe - rookie ships.
|
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 23:39:00 -
[9]
I'm all for it. Though I think insurance as a whole needs a makover, not just concord.
|
Kassa Daito
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 01:09:00 -
[10]
Originally by: brexor
This should hopefully be away to stop those that pray on people in Empire. No sense on them to keep getting a reward for being Concorded. The whole Concorded idea to me is a Punishment and should be treated as that. No more Insurance to those that get Concorded.
Hey, I might be Achura by birth but I'm a die-hard convert to Amarr. I prey on people in Empire all the time...
Hail Tachyon, Beam Laser,
Our Frequency Crystal with thee.
Blessed are thou among weapons,
and blessed is the bounty of thy labor,
Gankage.
Holy Tachyon, Tech One or Two,
pray for our killmails,
now, and at the hour of the Blob.
Oh... you meant PREY. I get them confused all the time too  .
On a more serious note, I've been for this for quite some time. Although I think it would hurt a few of the newbs that think smartbombs are a good idea to take care of frigs in missions but overall I think it'd be a pretty good move for EVE.
Originally by: Robert Caldera
yes.
Further, I think the insurance fees should rise with the payots.
Currently, insurance is providing corps and alliances their gears for endless wrecking, I would like alliances and corps paying their stuff alone.
I'm not sure how I feel about this though. It makes perfect logical sense with the concept of insurance but if you lose full ship value on T1 ships then there would be a lot less PVP in EVE and anything reducing the amount of PVP happening in EVE is a bad thing. Maybe reduce the insurance amounts based on the amount of the payouts rather than the number of payouts would encourage the use of smaller ships as well?
**
Disclaimer: Author sometimes spell checks but is not responsible for sins of commission, omission, emission, transmission, or submission. Flowers, bricks, or any other form of feedback appreciated |
|
|
brexor
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 15:09:00 -
[11]
Well this is supposed to stop griefer corps praying on Newbies by attacking them for no reason. There should no way be a reward for being concorded! concord is enforcer in empire and if you get you Battleship concorded in empire you should not recieve any insurance.
Treat it like real life, All-state wont give a pay out to home owner who set his own house on fire...Eve shouldnt give insurance to those that get Concorded.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 16:19:00 -
[12]
Originally by: brexor
Well this is supposed to stop griefer corps praying on Newbies by attacking them for no reason. There should no way be a reward for being concorded! concord is enforcer in empire and if you get you Battleship concorded in empire you should not recieve any insurance.
Treat it like real life, All-state wont give a pay out to home owner who set his own house on fire...Eve shouldnt give insurance to those that get Concorded.
yes, I fully support this.
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 16:32:00 -
[13]
I totally agree with the removal of insurance for Concord kills, although this would require a smart way to deal with accidental shots, like a 'first ask, then shoot' practice instead of the current opposite.
But I think it would be worth it.
Furthermore the purpose of insurance should be clearly defined.
From my point of view insurance is supposed to help new players and poor PvP'ers, so they can keep going after a loss.
What it shouldn't do, imho, is make losses further into the game insignificant, because that conflicts with the harsh, unforgiving environment the devs wanted to create and we players want to preserve.
A loss should hurt, but at the same time you should always be able to get back into a ship as soon as possible so that the game stays fun.
Therefore I think it would be a nice change to make smaller ships like frigates and cruisers easier to insure than larger ships, probably even a bit cheaper than now, and reduce the payout on bigger ships like BCs and BSs.
This gives an incentive to use smaller ships, probably encourages new players to try PvP and accommodates FW starters.
It makes BC/BS losses hurt a bit more and at the same time makes every kill more enjoyable.
As a positive side effect it reduces the influx of ISK into the economy.
___________________________________
Balance is power, guard hide it well
"Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam" |
Traidor Disloyal
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:15:00 -
[14]
Nope, not for this at all.
This is, after all, a game where everyone is suppose to have fun, even the griefer. Now, before you sputter out "You griefing bastard!", has my defense, across three characters, I have over 20 ships in my hangers. And out of all those ships I have insurance on about 4 of them. The rest are T2 ships that are not worth buying insurance for.
*************************************************
I have three characters. One has Cov Ops V along with all the bells and whistles that goes with it. |
Nika Dekaia
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:18:00 -
[15]
From the CSM meeting minutes (under #7): Quote:
Insurance on suicide ganking is tied to a revisit of insurance in light of T2/T3/Capital ships etc. which will happen, with no ETA.
Linkage
|
Vadimik
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:29:00 -
[16]
I fully support not giving the insurance payout to someone who has self-destructed a ship or lost one while criminally flagged.
Because it makes perfect sense and actually makes things like self-destruction and empire piracy a bit more risky.
And, no, it would not somehow prevent people from suicide ganking, it would just force them to pay for the ships they lose. (Hint: t1 cruisers are pretty cheap.)
|
Dominicus Jam
Caldari
SOTI Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:35:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Dominicus Jam on 24/11/2009 17:36:03
I fully support that idea. In fact I'd even go so far as to have your insurance rate tied to your security rating with Concord. The higher your security rating the more of a discount you'd receive. No one would be penalized for having a 0.0 rating, but as a player improves his sec rating so should his insurance rate also improve. But I totally agree that insurance payouts to anyone getting Concorded in high sec should be eliminated.
|
Jesnens LoveSlave
Koichi Scientific
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:08:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Traidor Disloyal
Nope, not for this at all.
This is, after all, a game where everyone is suppose to have fun, even the griefer. Now, before you sputter out "You griefing bastard!", has my defense, across three characters, I have over 20 ships in my hangers. And out of all those ships I have insurance on about 4 of them. The rest are T2 ships that are not worth buying insurance for.
T2 ships are still worth insuring, you just don't get anywhere near what the ship is worth but you still get more back than you would otherwise. That being said, removing insurance for concord losses is a terrible idea, I'm sure most of the people who die in empire do it accidentally. Griefers and suiciders are probably account for a very small percentage of actual ship kills in empire. It's just that they are highly controversial kills and thus very visible.
Im pretty sure ccp doesnt want to deal with all of the extra petitions from people who accidentally targetted the wrong person in empire, or who's overview screwed up, etc. Trying to implement what you want would cause more problems than it would solve.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |