| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vysnaite
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
   |
Posted - 2009.12.22 11:31:00 -
[211]
 Originally by: Tippia
It still seems to me like the main issue here is that miners have no business sense.
Yup. Everyone goes "I mined my own minerals so its free" - WTF, slave labor!??!
|
Grim Vandal
Burn Proof
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 11:32:00 -
[212]
As stated this game is ONLY interesting because of loss.
And CCP feeds us with this little bit of LOSS so that we can barely survive.
Of course I want to be fed with more LOSS.
Besides that EVE is rather good and its MIND BOGGLING how easy it would be to make it awesome.
eg. removing the insurance system is a rather easy code change
removing warp to zero is a rather easy code change as well
docking only possible in or infront of a cone near the docks of a station is a little tiny bit harder ...
The delayed local chat until we get servers which can handle a radar systems is easy as well ...
So like with A FEW FINGER SNIPS this game would go up from average to pure awesome and I believe this is what makes so many of us truly mad.
The mechanics are as they are because CCP wants them to be so and therefor I despise them, although I'm hungry and they are still the only one who at least feed me a little bit.
Next we can walk in stations and the mechanics described above stay the same.  
Greetings Grim |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 11:34:00 -
[213]
Originally by: Tippia
It still seems to me like the main issue here is that miners have no business sense.
Yes, but what does that say about what ship prices would do if insurance were removed completely? T1 ship prices would drop even further, therefore allowing them to be more affordable than ever. The only reason T1 ships are priced where they are now is *due to insurance*. Otherwise they'd be much much lower.
Everyone that is arguing for insurance to provide 'more and cheaper PVP' seems to be ignoring this. Why is that?
--
Bellum Eternus
Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Lady Spank
Amarr
Sekret Kool Klubb
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 11:38:00 -
[214]
Edited by: Lady Spank on 22/12/2009 11:42:07
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Even ratting one hour per day, five days a week nets a player 400m/mo to spend on ships. That's 1 bs loss per week. Surely most players aren't *that* bad? If I lost a BS per week, I'd seriously reconsider what I was doing as a PVPer and why I was being killed so often.
Perhaps you dont like to take the same risks other people do. Or I guess soloing in hostile space is classed as stupid to you. Scouts are well and good but frankly, if you argue the use a scout in support of removal of insurance then you have lost all reason whatsoever.
Theres plenty more play styles in this game than yours and mine. Especially in 0.0 so expecting every person in 0.0 to rat their isk up is unrealistic and out of touch with the greater economy you are expunging. Erm... point here being the loss of more solo play. and people taking on greater odds.
There are plenty of risk averse players at the moment and I'm not just talking about 'carebears'. Just because you like mincing around in legions with heavy backup there if you need your precious ship rescuing doesn't mean people rolling tech I ships should lose their insurance.
Maybe you are just bothered that your acts aren't having as big an impact as you would like?
I like you Bellum, but terrible ideas can come from anywhere 
~
|
Noriko Rei
Venture Racing
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 11:48:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Grim Vandal
As stated this game is ONLY interesting because of loss.
And CCP feeds us with this little bit of LOSS so that we can barely survive.
Of course I want to be fed with more LOSS.
Besides that EVE is rather good and its MIND BOGGLING how easy it would be to make it awesome.
eg. removing the insurance system is a rather easy code change
removing warp to zero is a rather easy code change as well
docking only possible in or infront of a cone near the docks of a station is a little tiny bit harder ...
The delayed local chat until we get servers which can handle a radar systems is easy as well ...
So like with A FEW FINGER SNIPS this game would go up from average to pure awesome and I believe this is what makes so many of us truly mad.
The mechanics are as they are because CCP wants them to be so and therefor I despise them, although I'm hungry and they are still the only one who at least feed me a little bit.
Next we can walk in stations and the mechanics described above stay the same.
This guy apparently wants to lose a lot of ships. I hope someone will oblige. Perhaps he simply wants everyone else to lose a lot of ships, though, which more accurately exemplifies the typical PvP mentality that loss is wonderful when it's someone else's play time going down the drain.
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 11:49:00 -
[216]
stop saying removing insurance would make ships cheaper. it would not.
if ship platinum is 100mil and ships sells for 100mil, effective ship cost is 30mil (platinum premium).
if ship can't be insured and costs 50mil on market, effective cost is 50mil.
for ships to costs less without insurance, it would require miners to become even more senseless then they are now, to the point of giving away their minerals for free. even then, there would be handling and manufacture costs.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 11:58:00 -
[217]
Originally by: Lady Spank
Perhaps you dont like to take the same risks other people do. Or I guess soloing in hostile space is classed as stupid to you. Scouts are well and good but frankly, if you argue the use a scout in support of removal of insurance then you have lost all reason whatsoever.
Theres plenty more play styles in this game than yours and mine. Especially in 0.0 so expecting every person in 0.0 to rat their isk up is unrealistic and out of touch with the greater economy you are expunging. Erm... point here being the loss of more solo play. and people taking on greater odds.
There are plenty of risk averse players at the moment and I'm not just talking about 'carebears'. Just because you like mincing around in legions with heavy backup there if you need your precious ship rescuing doesn't mean people rolling tech I ships should lose their insurance.
Maybe you are just bothered that your acts aren't having as big an impact as you would like?
I like you Bellum, but terrible ideas can come from anywhere
With insurance gone T1 ships won't have an artificial price floor and their prices will drop to whatever the market deems appropriate. You could potentially see 20-30% off the top depending on where mineral prices go.
People continually bring up the idea of me personally not taking enough risk or bringing up my play style as an argument against removing insurance. What about all the guys who hotdrop caps and supercaps on anything larger than a shuttle? Or any of the other myriad ways to build an 'unfair' engagement. None of that has to do with whether or not insurance is good for the game. It isn't.
Potentially once insurance is gone the 'people rolling around in T1 ships' might just be paying similar costs due to reduced ship prices with the only difference being that there isn't any insurance in the game. The guys who go soloing and take on really huge odds probably aren't too concerned with insurance anyway. And I think that they're in a very small minority of players to boot.
List of reasons to remove insurance:
No more ISK faucet
No more 'insurance fraud'
No more artificial price floors on ships and minerals (i.e. cheaper ships!)
A kill potentially removes more ISK than with insurance
List of reasons to keep insurance:
Noobs need it for the first few months of their account lifetime (Only maybe? What if ships are cheaper due to lack of price floors?)
I haven't seen any other even remotely valid reasons other than the above. And even that one is questionable.
Also, my legion doesn't need 'rescuing' if I'm the heavy tackle and am waiting for the rest of the fleet to show up. 
--
Bellum Eternus
Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Lady Spank
Amarr
Sekret Kool Klubb
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 12:04:00 -
[218]
I'd like to see an endless stream or terrorism towards all lame hotdroppers more tbh 
~
|
Tippia
Reikoku
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 12:12:00 -
[219]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
No more artificial price floors on ships and minerals (i.e. cheaper ships!)
A kill potentially removes more ISK than with insurance
As Jagga points out: these two are mutually exclusive. If the ships really do get cheaper, then you won't remove more ISK with a kill, and vice versa.
You seem to argue that the second of these should happen. That means you need to figure out how removing insurance, ideally, will raise the price floor for minerals. However, as mentioned, everything seems to indicate that what you wish for will not happen. The problem that's causing all this is that minerals are vastly undervalued – the artificial price floor is already being circumvented. Remove that floor and killing someone won't hurt their wallet in the slightest and with the price crash on minerals, all other module prices will follow to some extent… So not only will the ships not cost anything to lose; the module loss will sting less as well.
Remember that you're talking about one of the key economic control functions in the game – the one that gives stuff any value whatsoever – it's not one that is mucked around with lightly. Is the ISK faucet an issue? Yes, but that issue can once again be traced back to the fact that miners don't demand a reasonable price for their goods.
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 |
fab24
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 12:20:00 -
[220]
Whine time : Bellum I think you should stop whining about everything in eve (bit liek me), so just STFU rly.
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 12:25:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Tippia
...the fact that miners don't demand a reasonable price for their goods.
this, that and again. it would be high time to revise mining system.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 12:31:00 -
[222]
Originally by: Jagga Spikes
Originally by: Tippia
...the fact that miners don't demand a reasonable price for their goods.
this, that and again. it would be high time to revise mining system.
And more to the point, curtail alternative sources of minerals. Miners may value their minerals, but mission runners will generally sell them for whatever they can get. If that's 10% under market, well then whatever. It's not worth faffing about in a hauler to make an extra few mill on mineral sales.
|
Mrs Thaiberian
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 13:41:00 -
[223]
Originally by: Tippia
...the fact that miners don't demand a reasonable price for their goods.
I'm a miner and agree to sell my minerals at 50% above Jita average.
Email me to arrange contracts.
Together we can save EVE!! 
Originally by: Malcanis
And more to the point, curtail alternative sources of minerals. Miners may value their minerals, but mission runners will generally sell them for whatever they can get. If that's 10% under market, well then whatever. It's not worth faffing about in a hauler to make an extra few mill on mineral sales.
THIS!!! omg THIS!!
leave the minerals alone where they belong which is at the roids for Chribba's sake!!
|
Cypherous
Minmatar
Liberty Rogues
Rally Against Evil
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 13:59:00 -
[224]
Hate to say it but they wont care its your sec stat so go for it :P
Rally Against Evil Site |
Droog 1
Black Rise Inbreds
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 14:53:00 -
[225]
I have a better idea. Why don't you all cancel your accounts in protest? You could even make the ultimate sacrifice and biomass your characters in true 'suicide bomber' style. |
Onimar Synn
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 15:18:00 -
[226]
*Poasting in dead-horse thread.
Previous Assembly Hall thread which hasn't helped:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1111822&page=1
Quickie link to August, 2008 Dev Blog about all this (read 3rd paragraph from bottom):
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577
vOv
|
gttwo
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 15:56:00 -
[227]
Edited by: gttwo on 22/12/2009 15:56:20
Originally by: RaTTuS
Operation Insurance fraud
You will note, in the end, this operation FAILED to impact the EVE economy and the player who conducted operation insurance fraud admits as much.
OPs permise is fail. Also, OP states he's going to 'target JFs'. What's insurance on T2 ships?
I'm confused by the OP. I think he is as well.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 16:18:00 -
[228]
Originally by: gttwo
Edited by: gttwo on 22/12/2009 15:56:20
Originally by: RaTTuS
Operation Insurance fraud
You will note, in the end, this operation FAILED to impact the EVE economy and the player who conducted operation insurance fraud admits as much.
OPs permise is fail. Also, OP states he's going to 'target JFs'. What's insurance on T2 ships?
I'm confused by the OP. I think he is as well.
You missed the point of that thread. The player failed to impact the prices of the various minerals etc. in the Jita market. That's all. Whether or not he affected the overall economy with the extra ISK created by insuring/destroying the ships is still up for debate, and since he didn't personally destroy the ships it's questionable whether or not all the ships that he sold off were in fact destroyed or were recycled or still in use.
With respect to JFs: why would I target T1 ships that are fully insurable? I'm confused by your failure of a post. I think you are too.
--
Bellum Eternus
Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Transmit Failure
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 17:15:00 -
[229]
Originally by: Jagga Spikes
Edited by: Jagga Spikes on 22/12/2009 13:45:03
stop saying removing insurance would make ships cheaper. it would not.
if ship platinum is 100mil and ships sells for 100mil, effective ship cost is 30mil (platinum premium).
if ship can't be insured and sells 50mil on market, effective cost is 50mil.
for ships to cost less without insurance, it would require miners to become even more senseless then they are now, to the point of giving away their minerals for free. even then, there would be handling and manufacture costs.
The effective cost is 30 million in your example. The subsidy (it isn't a price floor, really, it's a subsidy) is thus 70 million. Removing this subsidy of 70 million drops the market price of the ship down to 30 million from the 100 million it originally was, keeping the effective price at 30 million, which is what the market is deciding at the moment. I have no idea how you reached the conclusion that the effective price is going to be different when the subsidy is removed; the demand for the ships hasn't changed.
As for your snipe about miners not valuing their minerals, they don't control that. If they had it their way they would sell them for a jillion times more than they are currently selling. The mineral market is about as perfect as a market can get -- no barriers to entry, many buyers and sellers, homogenous product, and basically everyone is a price taker. In perfect competition firms have no control over the price of their product, only the output. At its current price, miners are moving toward the intersection of the supply (which is marginal cost) and the horizontal demand curve, and toward zero economic profit.
How is this their fault? It's how markets operate. If you think that the prices are too low, its because you are valuing your EVE time more than they are. That's why you aren't a miner. If prices rose to the point where it becomes valuable in terms of your time, you'd probably become a miner. The market wins again.
|
Emperor Ryan
Amarr
Imperial Syndicate Forces
Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 17:25:00 -
[230]
This is So 2006
Its been done many times before your not setting a trend just joining the party, also, keep in mind, you'll need to take long breaks getting your sec status back up =]
- Emperor
|
Selrid Miamarr
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 17:37:00 -
[231]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
With insurance gone T1 ships won't have an artificial price floor and their prices will drop to whatever the market deems appropriate. You could potentially see 20-30% off the top depending on where mineral prices go.
People continually bring up the idea of me personally not taking enough risk or bringing up my play style as an argument against removing insurance. What about all the guys who hotdrop caps and supercaps on anything larger than a shuttle? Or any of the other myriad ways to build an 'unfair' engagement. None of that has to do with whether or not insurance is good for the game. It isn't.
Potentially once insurance is gone the 'people rolling around in T1 ships' might just be paying similar costs due to reduced ship prices with the only difference being that there isn't any insurance in the game. The guys who go soloing and take on really huge odds probably aren't too concerned with insurance anyway. And I think that they're in a very small minority of players to boot.
List of reasons to remove insurance:
No more ISK faucet
No more 'insurance fraud'
No more artificial price floors on ships and minerals (i.e. cheaper ships!)
A kill potentially removes more ISK than with insurance
List of reasons to keep insurance:
Noobs need it for the first few months of their account lifetime (Only maybe? What if ships are cheaper due to lack of price floors?)
I haven't seen any other even remotely valid reasons other than the above. And even that one is questionable.
Also, my legion doesn't need 'rescuing' if I'm the heavy tackle and am waiting for the rest of the fleet to show up.
I don't understand why you think removing insurance will make ships cheaper. A 20-30% reduction in list price with no insurance only makes them cheaper if they never get destroyed. If they do get blasted, they cost 70-80% more not factoring in the total loss in rigs and modules.
I also don't understand how that would make the mineral market crash. You'd have to see a drastic reduction in the number of ships "consumed" in battle to see oversupply even more than exists now, and a corresponding price crash of the base materials. Especially since EVE, unlike other games, uses the same base mats for categories across the board.
The argument about your own level of risk is that players vary in terms of playstyle, and it does matter in terms of insurance. A small corporation will feel the bite much more keenly than a large established 0.0 alliance, and you have to factor this in. It's a very bad idea in this game especially to only design for the 0.0 crowd, or empire crowd, as they have much different levels of risk.
I'm also very unsure about your reasons supporting it. No ISK faucets will have to correspond to less use and consumption of ships, since people will have less money to purchase them. If insurance fraud is a problem, fix the fraud. You shouldn't remove something based on abuse if lots of people use it as intended. The cheaper ships argument makes zero sense, as you will have more expensive ships overall because you eat the full loss when they get destroyed.
A kill removing ISK would be a very strong ISK sink, and would seriously deflate the economy. I've seen the effects of such sinks in other games-they can hurt players very much because the value of assets collapse and they lose tremendous value in items in a short period of time, with no guarantee of a market correction soon.
A reason to keep insurance is that it gives a base payout to cover the real cost and ISK sink, loss of rigs, modules, and even implants if podded. You are looking at people suiciding unmodded ships with no pod loss. When the system works as intended, there is tremendous ISK loss relative to the value of the ship, and insurance prevents that from being total.
|
Tippia
Reikoku
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 17:41:00 -
[232]
Originally by: Transmit Failure
I have no idea how you reached the conclusion that the effective price is going to be different when the subsidy is removed; the demand for the ships hasn't changed.
It's the other side of the argument. On the one hand, people claim that removing insurance will make losses more expensive – you demonstrate why it won't. On the other hand, people claim that removing insurance will make ships more cheap – he demonstrates why it won't do that either. Which way it goes first (do ship become cheaper or more expensive before equilibrium is met) is up for debate.
Quote:
As for your snipe about miners not valuing their minerals, they don't control that.
Actually, they do to some extent, and insurance is the mechanism that allows them to do this. Right now, it is their fault if they sell too low because they could have gotten more out of their minerals by blowing them up in the way illustrated earlier – if they sell for less than that, they're just being silly (or, rather, they have no interest in making money, which raises the question why they put the minerals on the market to begin with)…
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 |
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 17:45:00 -
[233]
Edited by: Jagga Spikes on 22/12/2009 17:45:32
Originally by: Transmit Failure
...
I have no idea how you reached the conclusion that the effective price is going to be different when the subsidy is removed; the demand for the ships hasn't changed.
...
note "if...". it was an example which shows that, even if ship sell price halves, replacing ship would cost more without insurance. currently, insurance breaks even, or even makes isk. to match this low level of cost, miners would have to pay others to take their minerals. it's just not going to happen.
as for miners not controlling price, it's their own fault. they don't have to saturate market with low-value product. there is plenty of choice how to make isk. it's not like they are stuck to mining.
|
Transmit Failure
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 18:05:00 -
[234]
Originally by: Jagga Spikes
Edited by: Jagga Spikes on 22/12/2009 17:45:32
Originally by: Transmit Failure
...
I have no idea how you reached the conclusion that the effective price is going to be different when the subsidy is removed; the demand for the ships hasn't changed.
...
note "if...". it was an example which shows that, even if ship sell price halves, replacing ship would cost more without insurance. currently, insurance breaks even, or even makes isk. to match this low level of cost, miners would have to pay others to take their minerals. it's just not going to happen.
as for miners not controlling price, it's their own fault. they don't have to saturate market with low-value product. there is plenty of choice how to make isk. it's not like they are stuck to mining.
Currently the effective price of a T1 ship is zero for those that are in the know. There are plenty of people that haven't considered the possibility of insurance fraud, don't know how insurance works, or think the game "wouldn't be very fun" performing insurance fraud. This last part is key. The cost of losing the fun of the game is high for them, decreasing the value of insurance as a whole. If they price their fun at, say, 10 million an hour, they would have to lose 10 million an hour in ISK before committing insurance fraud becomes break even. Thus there are costs to the opportunity of fraud above and beyond the pure ISK.
It's time to remove the assumption from this discussion that people's utility maximization is wallet maximization by any means. If you do this you see that miners actually make sense. They get a benefit out of mining that they don't from mission running or trading or whatever. Yeah, I know. Mining is ****ing boring. But whom am I to tell someone that how they are getting their fun out of the game is stupid? If they value their fun at 10 million an hour, again they will need to be losing 10 million an hour in opportunity costs for them to be indifferent to mining.
Mineral prices WILL fall if insurance is removed, but so will the price of T1 ships and the price of everything that depends on T1 ships to be built. Deflation will occur, making the real price of the minerals about the same anyway, unless people start capturing some of the producer surplus of miners, namely, the value of their fun, and more and more miners will exit the market.
|
Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 18:09:00 -
[235]
Ships are cheaper than free, modules cost millions, rigs tens of millions.
Anyone except Icelanders can see when stuff gets absurd and makes no economic sense.
CCP has to decide:
1) They like that modules blow up: Reduce insurance payout, or pay part of it in minerals or both.
2) They like social care: Let us insure modules. Even T1 meta 1 large guns cost far more than hull.
BTW, I cannot belive it took highsec griefers this long to notice.
|
Transmit Failure
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 18:12:00 -
[236]
Originally by: Tippia
It's the other side of the argument. On the one hand, people claim that removing insurance will make losses more expensive û you demonstrate why it won't. On the other hand, people claim that removing insurance will make ships more cheap û he demonstrates why it won't do that either. Which way it goes first (do ship become cheaper or more expensive before equilibrium is met) is up for debate.
No, I demonstrated that it will really have no net effect. Losses will not become more expensive and ships will not become cheaper in real terms as the effective price of the ship is the same. The real price of minerals will probably not change much either, given the deflation of everything if the subsidy is removed, because initially the market will be saturated with everything because of how cheap minerals became, and eventually people will ask the prices of everything down until equilibrium is restored.
I didn't make this explicit, but I thought it was obvious: removing insurance will not change anything in Eve Online in terms of real prices. An economist ought to be indifferent to these two options.
Quote:
As for your snipe about miners not valuing their minerals, they don't control that.
Actually, they do to some extent, and insurance is the mechanism that allows them to do this. Right now, it is their fault if they sell too low because they could have gotten more out of their minerals by blowing them up in the way illustrated earlier û if they sell for less than that, they're just being silly (or, rather, they have no interest in making money, which raises the question why they put the minerals on the market to begin with)à
See my second post regarding the opportunity cost of "fun" for my rebuttal.
|
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 18:16:00 -
[237]
I think the important point many are missing is the source of ISK.
If miners sell their minerals it is bought by players who have earned that isk from other activities. The ISK flows through the economy.
With insurance the minerals are sold at a fixed price to "the game", and the isk is generated from no-where. This is a bad mechanic. The value of minerals should be determined by what the market will sustain based on supply and demand, and not an arbitary fixed price set by game mechanics.
Insurance is bad for so very many reasons. I can understand why people love their comfort blankets, but ultimately I think Eve would be better off without. I like having insurance, and I use it, but I would be equally happy for it to be removed or nerfed, even though it would force me to adapt my gameplay.
Besides, Rifter fights are fun.
アニメ漫画です
|
Tippia
Reikoku
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 18:25:00 -
[238]
Originally by: Transmit Failure
No, I demonstrated that it will really have no net effect. Losses will not become more expensive and ships will not become cheaper in real terms as the effective price of the ship is the same.
I have to ask why you begin that with a "no" since you then go on to say the exact thing you said no to…? 
Quote:
See my second post regarding the opportunity cost of "fun" for my rebuttal.
…which doesn't change the fact that miners* can control the value of minerals, with insurance being the primary mechanism that allows them to do this. Note: I'm not saying the do this – the fact that insurance fraud is so easy right now proves that they choose not to, but it's still a choice they can make.
* Technically, it's not just miners but any provider of minerals, but meh… the dream still lives that it is and will be miners who hold that role.
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 |
Avernus
Gallente
Imperium Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 18:26:00 -
[239]
Meh... I don't think I've ever bothered insuring a T2 ship, and I forget to insure 80% of everything else. Basic payout is handy though.
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 18:31:00 -
[240]
Originally by: Transmit Failure
....
you are contradicting yourself. if "effective price of a T1 ship is zero for those that are in the know", how is it possible that "removing insurance will not change anything in Eve Online in terms of real prices"? if a pilot after insurance payoff pays 0 ISK to replace ship, without insurance payoff he would have to pay 0 ISK, as well. no matter how much miners enjoy mining, i doubt they would go that low.
*considering T2 fit and rigs prices will not significantly change
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |