| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Qui Shon
   |
Posted - 2009.12.21 09:51:00 -
[121]
Hurrah for removing insurance!
Of course, it's certainly not the people commonly known as "bears" that will cry, but the self-proclaimed "pvp:ers", who are in effect, the biggest bears in the business  . If we take it to mean risk averse, that is. Since so called pvp:ers "risk-averse points" are quadrupled because of their masquerading as non-bears.
Three month grace period, that's fine. BS and especially Capital insurance needs to go, completely. Then we'll see who the real wusses are. 
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente
Noctis Fleet Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 09:52:00 -
[122]
 Originally by: Par'Gellen
In my opinion there should be no payouts on self-destruct, sentry gun, or CONCORD kills.
This. It seems obvious to me that insurance shouldn't pay for things like this.
|
Agent 42
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 10:00:00 -
[123]
Cut insurance Payout in half if ship is lost in high sec.
|
Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 10:18:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Kyra Felann
Originally by: Par'Gellen
In my opinion there should be no payouts on self-destruct, sentry gun, or CONCORD kills.
This. It seems obvious to me that insurance shouldn't pay for things like this.
And what of the noob shooting at some yellow guy on his overview in his shiny new destroyer because he thought it was an evil pirate? Or any number of thoroughly embarrassing ship destruction scenarios that probably occur daily?
I don't really have a problem with insurance payouts for CONCORD vengeance or self-destructs, just not for ten or twenty different ships per hour
_____________________
|
Misaki Yuuko
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 10:24:00 -
[125]
Edited by: Misaki Yuuko on 21/12/2009 10:25:07
Good luck, with your irrelevancy I doubt you can 'force' any change, see a lot of nullsec claiming new sov was poor didn't change anything so...
Also, no-insurance is no solution, less pvp is not what we need, and that's what zero insurance would archieve (not everyone is an spoiled kid or hardcore player and CCP as a company want to earn money).
Also I like how people without both theorical knowledge & concrete data claims how bad is inflation/deflation or the economy this and the economy that.
TL;DR: failed OP from Bellum Whines, as usually.
P.S: remove insurance payouts from sueprcaps, caps, T3 & T2 completlly though.
|
Haramir Haleths
Caldari
Nutella Bande
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 10:28:00 -
[126]
If you dont like insurance just dont use them. Or use T2 Ships.
|
Elena Laskova
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 10:44:00 -
[127]
Edited by: Elena Laskova on 21/12/2009 10:47:47
@ Misaki Yuuko
I think if the goal was "make PvP more attractive for rookies", something like insurance would be part of the solution. It wouldn't be the same as the insurance in today's EvE though.
As it is, I think insurance is only moderately successful at encouraging rookies, and it's definitely a significant contributor to pointless griefing. Better to remove it, then reconsider the goal(s).
@ Malcanis
You should react to what I write, rather of my lack of an icon. If you can't understand it, I don't care if you read it or not. If you can understand it, you've lost points for exceptional shallowness.
Edit: Odd - I seem to have an icon now. Perhaps there's some magic in EvE after all, and you'll be able to understand my posts now.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 10:48:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Qui Shon
Hurrah for removing insurance!
Of course, it's certainly not the people commonly known as "bears" that will cry, but the self-proclaimed "pvp:ers", who are in effect, the biggest bears in the business . If we take it to mean risk averse, that is. Since so called pvp:ers "risk-averse points" are quadrupled because of their masquerading as non-bears.
Three month grace period, that's fine. BS and especially Capital insurance needs to go, completely. Then we'll see who the real wusses are.
Of course the miners and ship producers will suffer rather badly, but technically those professions are a form of PvP, I agree.
|
Nyxster
Gatecrashers
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 12:02:00 -
[129]
posting in yet another Bellum Eternus threadnaught
yet another example of why too much Eve is bad for your mental welfare.
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 12:18:00 -
[130]
removing insurance would increase cost of pvp and reduce profit of pve. prices on ships wouldn't go down much, since most miners wouldn't accept to mine same minerals for less value. less miners mining means less minerals available. less minerals means higher prices. higher prices means more grind. overall, removing insurance would most likely reduce player base. whether this is good or bad depends on perspective.
current problem with insurance abuse is too much minerals available at low price, which leads to hyper-production. reduce respawn rate of minerals, which would increase their price and remove problem of insurance abuse.
|
Grez
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 12:31:00 -
[131]
Edited by: Grez on 21/12/2009 12:31:53
No insurance = less PVP. People less likely to risk a ship because they know they'll get nothing back, whereas now, they have some form of clutch. You also don't factor in module losses.
This is only a problem for suicide ganking and those self-destructing ships over and over again. Fix those problems, not a side-effect of the original problem.
You're trying to fix the hammer, by changing the nails.
You really are a twit.
---
|
Samira Melina
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 12:39:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Yep. Myself and a few of my mates are going to become terrorists in game in the hope of forcing CCP to change their game design.
You think that you and your few mates will succeed where the whole Goonswarm Jihad failed?
|
Dipluz
Caldari
PodPal
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 12:54:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Wet Ferret
Edited by: Wet Ferret on 20/12/2009 08:29:16
I've lost hundreds of millions of ISK over the years in expired insurance contracts (I'm very risk adverse), though I think it was about a year ago that I just stopping insuring anything. Oddly enough, this whole "insurance inflation" thing OP mentions is primarily caused by PvP. And removing it certainly wouldn't have any significant effect on anyone except for regular PvPers.
So dude.. would it really be a good thing for you?
any normal pvper dont care about insurance beacuse he flys t2 ships and everyone insurance on t2 ships is ****e
|
Wet Ferret
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 13:23:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Dipluz
Originally by: Wet Ferret
Edited by: Wet Ferret on 20/12/2009 08:29:16
I've lost hundreds of millions of ISK over the years in expired insurance contracts (I'm very risk adverse), though I think it was about a year ago that I just stopping insuring anything. Oddly enough, this whole "insurance inflation" thing OP mentions is primarily caused by PvP. And removing it certainly wouldn't have any significant effect on anyone except for regular PvPers.
So dude.. would it really be a good thing for you?
any normal pvper dont care about insurance beacuse he flys t2 ships and everyone insurance on t2 ships is ****e
So carebears lose money on insurance, PvPers don't care about it because they apparently don't use it, and so insurance doesn't affect anything and this whole thread is pointless. Well let's just leave it at that, then.
But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started.
|
Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 13:34:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Cpt Jagermeister
Payout is way too high but completely removing it makes for more broke pvpers
I don't think so mineral prices would crash upon insurance removal.
--
081014 : emoragequit, char transfered to a friend, 090317 : back to original owner
blog |
Storm Templar
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 13:51:00 -
[136]
I tend to remain unbiased from your "suggestions" and "ideas". I run some missions (okay, grind them for iskies and LP) but I would also set out to the low secs with corpies and shoot ****s for fun and giggles, but why must you go overboard with every ****ing thing?
Why can't you just say "remove insurance from being CONCORDOKKEN" or "self-destruction"?. It'll leave the pvp crowd happy and the carebear crowd happy knowing that dying from player fire will give some of their iskies back and their suicide-er from having the iskies to replace their ship, respectively.
Stop taking ****s overboard! Seriously!
________________________________________________
For the Immortal God-Emperor.....ooops, wrong universe. |
Elena Laskova
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 14:12:00 -
[137]
Edited by: Elena Laskova on 21/12/2009 14:12:33
Any positive suggestion which is presented in a sensible fashion with a reasoned argument is instantly and rudely rejected by the rabid psychos of the EvE forums. Unless of course you're a 50-million SP fake-PvPer whining about losing a ship, in which case you'll get a group hug.
The best way to get a debate going in such circumstances is to "get your retaliation in first".
|
Kendon Riddick
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 14:19:00 -
[138]
insurance should give you a coupon worth X% of your ship value depending on the insurance purchased.
when you buy a ship off the market you combine your voucher with any isk you may need to cover the rest, so you can get a new ship with the money as intended wihtout actually having the isk in your wallet.
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 14:22:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Lubomir Penev
...
i would recommend reading my previous post again. i said nothing about insuring pve ships. by your own words, mineral prices would go down, which would push miners elsewhere, which would push minerals back up. after new balance would be reached, ships would cost only marginally less (which would effectively be more expensive without insurance net), since fewer people would be losing, but fewer people would be producing and mining as well.
you haven't quoted what would be most relevant to your comments, which is:
Originally by: Jagga Spikes
...
overall, removing insurance would most likely reduce player base. whether this is good or bad depends on perspective.
...
now, if OP wanted to make EVE more "hardcore", which I believe is his agenda (and not insurance), by all means, remove insurance. however, you will find it more difficult to persuade ccp that reduced revenue is worth increase of your personal enjoyment. imo, they would be cutting the very branch they are sitting on.
it's in ccp best interest to provide enjoyment for as many different play styles as possible, and not cater to one specific group.
as for immersion breaking, it's just a game. there's no way pleasing everyone. use your imagination to gloss over ugly parts.
|
Deb Dukar
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 14:23:00 -
[140]
insurance should just be paid if u get killed by a player (not corpmate :P)
removing or halfing it is kinda stupid cause PVP/fleets would be impossible.
-------------------------
horray for typos |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 14:34:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Deb Dukar
insurance should just be paid if u get killed by a player (not corpmate :P)
Griefers! Join up to a fail corp and gank people in it - they wont even get insurance!
Jesus what the hell is wrong with you people? Do you not even think for 1 second about what the consequences of what you propose?
Make insurance dynamic so that it always only pays 5-20% (subject to debate) less than the mineral value of the ship, and hey presto, the problem is solved. Suicide ganking starts to become a lot more expensive but remains vialbe (as it needs to be), mass-production insurance fraud is no longer viable, PvP is still accessible to the poor and new players, while still retaining some sting for ship loss.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 14:40:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Kendon Rid****
insurance should give you a coupon worth X% of your ship value depending on the insurance purchased.
when you buy a ship off the market you combine your voucher with any isk you may need to cover the rest, so you can get a new ship with the money as intended wihtout actually having the isk in your wallet.
It took me approx 0.01 seconds to think of a way to use this to double my ISK every 3 minutes. How long will it take you?
|
LittleTerror
Infinitus Odium
Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 15:11:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Deb Dukar
insurance should just be paid if u get killed by a player (not corpmate :P)
Griefers! Join up to a fail corp and gank people in it - they wont even get insurance!
Jesus what the hell is wrong with you people? Do you not even think for 1 second about what the consequences of what you propose?
Make insurance dynamic so that it always only pays 5-20% (subject to debate) less than the mineral value of the ship, and hey presto, the problem is solved. Suicide ganking starts to become a lot more expensive but remains vialbe (as it needs to be), mass-production insurance fraud is no longer viable, PvP is still accessible to the poor and new players, while still retaining some sting for ship loss.
Yeah well you need to think too, because all that will do it cause the mineral prices to drift down, down, down until we are back to square one. Point is everything is at a balance with insurance and it works so it does not need fixing, suicide ganking however should not get an insurance payout because that is just stupid. |
Junko Togawa
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 15:15:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Elena Laskova
Remove insurance. The only people it actually helps are those who least deserve it.
Strong words from someone who hasnt even been playing for long enough to get their forum avatar.
Nice troll. That or facetious BS.
|
Celestal
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 15:27:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Just check my killboard. I'm already -10 and downed three Hulks earlier today. I would have killed more, but there weren't more than three in easy reach. Plus I ran out of Tempests to experiment with.
and one day he hopes his pair grows big enough that he can take on a ship that can fit weapons ( the end boss to him is probably a t1 cruiser )
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 15:31:00 -
[146]
Originally by: LittleTerror
Yeah well you need to think too, because all that will do it cause the mineral prices to drift down, down, down until we are back to square one. Point is everything is at a balance with insurance and it works so it does not need fixing, suicide ganking however should not get an insurance payout because that is just stupid.
You dont know what dynamic insurance is, do you?
Allow me to explain: it means that the insurance vlaue of a ship type is continually recalculated against the mineral cost. So if, when you insure your ship, the mineral cost is 100 mill, you can insure it for 90 mill. If, 3 months later, the minerals would cost 92 mill, you can only reinsure your ship for 82.8M
By definition, when you insure your ship, it will always be worth more as minerals than the insurance value, thus it will never be profitable to self-destruct or suicide.
This has been a "NO U" post brought to you by Basic MathsÖ.
|
Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 15:32:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Deb Dukar
insurance should just be paid if u get killed by a player (not corpmate :P)
removing or halfing it is kinda stupid cause PVP/fleets would be impossible.
You are ok with that kind of insurance abuse then?
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1231742
--
081014 : emoragequit, char transfered to a friend, 090317 : back to original owner
blog |
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 15:41:00 -
[148]
Originally by: LittleTerror
...
Point is everything is at a balance with insurance and it works so it does not need fixing, suicide ganking however should not get an insurance payout because that is just stupid.
it's pretty much impossible to prove intentional suicide. people can get downright genius when pushed.
dynamic insurance would be interesting.
|
Tippia
Reikoku
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 15:43:00 -
[149]
So… what is the problem people are trying to solve here?
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Wacktopia
Dark Side Of The Womb
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 15:47:00 -
[150]
Edited by: Wacktopia on 21/12/2009 15:48:11
Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer
I can partly agree with the OP.
I think insurance should be removed from ganking and for any ships lost during commission of a crime.
For the rest, let insurance be based on the pilots history. Lose more ships, pay higher insurance. This will punish poor playing (equipping fail fits as I am guilty of). You want to insure that expensive ship? You should be a good pilot.
And perhaps eventually, some people who really don't get it, should at some point become un-insurable.
The concept of not having insurance for criminal acts is a fair point, not sure how it will impact the game so I cannot say if I agree or not.
I do not agree with higher insurance for more ships lost. This would probably be unfair on players who get ganked - meaning they would suffer both the loss of a ship plus the increased cost of insurance. Ultimately this would drive players away from the game as it became more expensive. You may argue that this is just 'hard luck' but introducing mechanics that put less skilled players at a disadvantage by game design is unlikely.
----------------------
They're angry there was damage done to their ship. It's not difficult! |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |