EVE Search - Terrorism in Eve Online as a tool for forcing game design change

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Terrorism in Eve Online as a tool for forcing game design change

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.20 07:34:00 - [1] 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. The issue is insurance. It's a huge ISK faucet, and when exploited on an industrial scale it's capable of dumping literally hundreds of billions of raw ISK into the game every month. This is a bad thing. Carebears want insurance removed from suicide ganking payouts but they don't want the insurance removed from their own ships. I simply want insurance removed completely from every ship, at every level. Let new characters enjoy a three month grace period of insurance use and ban people for using 'insurance alts' for insurance fraud, just like you would if you were using alts as disposable hitmen and recycling them after their sec is ruined. Right now it's very easy to use a T1 fit Geddon as an example and have the total loss be around 4m ISK after insurance. I can kill just about any sort of smallish cruiser size ship solo in high sec with this, and I can kill BCs and BS with only a pair or maybe three or four. No ship is safe in highsec with some simple tactics and a little bit of coordination from a few friends. Ramp up the scale and you can kill freighters and Orcas quite easily. But my goal isn't to simply kill freighters. It's to make CCP sit up and take notice of the horribly broken game design that is insurance. Currently there are multiple players that are self destructing ships on a literally industrial scale, making tens of billions of raw ISK per month with 'insurance fraud'. This causes inflation and will in the long term hurt the economy. So I'm going to start using this mechanism to inflict the pain of financial loss upon as many players as possible so that they now have a direct and personal stake in seeing insurance removed from the game completely. Is this griefing? Absolutely not. I'm profiting from my actions, so it's piracy. Completely legit gameplay. Insurance simply facilitates my particular tactics, and once those are made obsolete by the removal of insurance, I'll revert to more traditional ways of doing things. The in game killings will continue on as wide a scale as possible until the game is changed for the better with the removal of insurance. Anyone interested in assisting me with this campaign of militant destruction can contact me in game. The more the merrier. Oh, and one more thing- jump freighter pilots, we're coming for you. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Zartanic Red Federation	Posted - 2009.12.20 07:40:00 - [2] What a boring post.

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2009.12.20 07:48:00 - [3] I for one welcome all the salvage that is one of the results of this terror act Win a Aeon mothership for 10M ISK

Cpt Jagermeister Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.12.20 07:49:00 - [4] Payout is way too high but completely removing it makes for more broke pvpers. This is really a big risk vs reward problem just like l4 missions in high sec, jump freighters etc. But anyways there is no point in talking about it because these subjects have been brought up a billion times and ccp clearly wont do **** to annoy there carebear playerbase. So cool idea man and good luck to you. Best of luck. Maybe you can inspire more to do this and get something changed for once.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.20 08:20:00 - [5] Have 160 Geddons sitting and ready to go, should keep me busy for a bit. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.12.20 08:20:00 - [6] Originally by: Cpt Jagermeister Payout is way too high but completely removing it makes for more broke pvpers. This is really a big risk vs reward problem just like l4 missions in high sec, jump freighters etc. But anyways there is no point in talking about it because these subjects have been brought up a billion times and ccp clearly wont do **** to annoy there carebear playerbase. So cool idea man and good luck to you. Best of luck. Maybe you can inspire more to do this and get something changed for once. What carebear playerbase will be annoyed? Those that lose ships on a daily base? Not carebears (or very incompetent) Those that lose capital ships? Not carebear generally Those that lose multi billion ships with faction, deadspace or officer fittings? insurance don't make a difference. If you leave a 3 play months grace periods for account(i.e. you have insurance in the first 3 months of active subscription on one account, not per character) most players would have learned to avoid most mistakes that cause the loss of ships to Concord and or in PvE and will have a decent cash reserves to survive the loss of a ship without hindrances. What can suffer a bit can be Faction Warfare and people that approach PvP on the basis "no problem, if I lose the ship I can buy another with the insurance payout". And those aren't carebear in the meaning generally used in EVE. The problem of removing insurance are 2: - a lot of furious PvPers that lament the increase cost of their playthings; - the crash of the mineral market. Removing insurance payout would require a complete rethinking of mining (to keep it profitable), drone loot and rats (mission or not) loot. Just to remember it, 0.0 belt rat loot, if gathered, give 50-100% more minerals per hour that mission running.
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2009.12.20 08:22:00 - [7] Hm. Have fun with the blowing-people-up thing, there. _____________________ R.I.P Old face
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2009.12.20 08:29:00 - [8] 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? But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started.
Trustworthy Joe Minmatar	Posted - 2009.12.20 08:53:00 - [9] Originally by: Chaos Incarnate Hm. Have fun with the blowing-people-up thing, there. SWEET PRINCE, YOU HAVE RETURNED HOME want a sig? thats great! post it in response to my posts!
Herzog Wolfhammer Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.12.20 09:02:00 - [10] 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.
Wen Jaibao Aperture Harmonics K162	Posted - 2009.12.20 09:13:00 - [11] Sweet, more info plox on how to do this and I'll make sure to suicide some geddons on people whenever I'm in hisec.
Artassaut Minmatar Oblivion Amalgamated	Posted - 2009.12.20 09:17:00 - [12] Originally by: Trustworthy Joe Originally by: Chaos Incarnate Hm. Have fun with the blowing-people-up thing, there. SWEET PRINCE, YOU HAVE RETURNED HOME HOLY CRAP. REDIRECT ALL TOPIC POSTING TO THE FACELESS. --- The Gate: Lol, try targeting me in a fleet fight. The Station: No U.
Callista Sincera Amarr	Posted - 2009.12.20 09:24:00 - [13] Good idea. But CCP will most likely just do what they intended to do a year ago: remove insurance from concord incidents. Anyway, have fun :-) -
SupaKudoRio	Posted - 2009.12.20 09:24:00 - [14] May I suggest starting this run of suicidal ganking by popping a few faction BS in mission hubs? On another note, how do you like your pods in the morning?
Swiftgaze	Posted - 2009.12.20 09:31:00 - [15] Edited by: Swiftgaze on 20/12/2009 09:32:39 Originally by: Bellum Eternus It's a huge ISK faucet, and when exploited on an industrial scale it's capable of dumping literally hundreds of billions of raw ISK into the game every month. This is a bad thing. Someone enlighten me. How much money can you actually make with this whole insurance thing? How many players does it take to make hundreds of billions of ISK per month? I somehow bet its not worth the time, could that be? EDIT: Oh, but, Bellum, if youre looking for more suicide gankers, Id prolly be up for it in the future. If youre still looking for a crew, that is. :)
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.20 09:46:00 - [16] Originally by: Swiftgaze Edited by: Swiftgaze on 20/12/2009 09:32:39 Originally by: Bellum Eternus It's a huge ISK faucet, and when exploited on an industrial scale it's capable of dumping literally hundreds of billions of raw ISK into the game every month. This is a bad thing. Someone enlighten me. How much money can you actually make with this whole insurance thing? How many players does it take to make hundreds of billions of ISK per month? I somehow bet its not worth the time, could that be? EDIT: Oh, but, Bellum, if youre looking for more suicide gankers, Id prolly be up for it in the future. If youre still looking for a crew, that is. :) It takes one character and some dedication and you can see 100b / mo. And as for additions to the bunch, we'll be suiciding ships around the clock from here on out. Just stop on by and join the fun. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Serpents smile	Posted - 2009.12.20 09:48:00 - [17] Originally by: Chaos Incarnate Hm. Have fun with the blowing-people-up thing, there. w00t! he's back! :P
Intigo Amarr Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.12.20 09:55:00 - [18] Bellum posting more terrible threads and trying to create drama. Yawn. ___________________ HELLO! My name is Inigo Mont...oh f' it.
fazeley Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists	Posted - 2009.12.20 10:04:00 - [19] Removal of insurance, what a fantastic idea, I mean people in Eve aren't risk averse enough already are they? God, people are dumb.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.12.20 10:12:00 - [20] Originally by: Bellum Eternus It takes one character and some dedication and you can see 100b / mo. LOL! You need to come up with some proof for that. This number looks like it came straight out of your ass. --------
TimMc Gallente Psykotic Meat Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.12.20 10:19:00 - [21] Originally by: fazeley Removal of insurance, what a fantastic idea, I mean people in Eve aren't risk averse enough already are they? God, people are dumb. Pretty much my feelings on the idea. Bellum please stop posting your horrible ideas.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.12.20 10:32:00 - [22] As a rather more dull-but-practical alternative, please support my insurance reform proposal. In short, base insurance on 90-95% of the normalised aggregate mineral sale price over the preceeding day (or week, if it's computationally expesive to calculate this, although I don't see why it should be). Buy/sell orders dont count, only actual mineral sales. So if the total mineral cost of a Raven is 100 million ISK, then the insurance value will be 95 million (with the premium also being modified on a pro-rata basis). In theory, someone could manipulate this system, but they'd have to spend fantastic amounts of ISK to do so, and their manipulations would be public and susceptible to interference.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.20 10:34:00 - [23] Originally by: Abrazzar Originally by: Bellum Eternus It takes one character and some dedication and you can see 100b / mo. LOL! You need to come up with some proof for that. This number looks like it came straight out of your ass. My corpmates are currently researching 18 Abaddon BPOs up. Each Abaddon can be self destructed for a profit of 12-15m each, not including the massive profits from Amarr specific salvage, which is more valuable than most. In order to make 1b/day you need about 66 Abaddons destroyed in a 24h period. We can do much more than that. In order to achieve 100b ISK per month, you need to destroy 200 Abaddons per day. Using Concord to destroy ships is much faster than self destructing them, so you're limited by the dock/undock timers. With perfect time conservation, that's 200 minutes or a little over three hours to destroy 200 ships in one day. Even doubling that figure, you're looking at 6 hours, assuming only one person is destructing the ships. Materials are provided by buy orders and courier contracts, plus dedicated contracts from mining corps. It's very easy to achieve 100b per month exploiting the insurance system. Anyone who can't do the simple math for themselves is either an idiot, lazy or both. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Yarton Killmore	Posted - 2009.12.20 10:40:00 - [24] Edited by: Yarton Killmore on 20/12/2009 10:44:32 my word.... what a dumb ass suggestion... so let me get this right... 1. you remove insurance from the game 2. casual mission runners start to get scared about loosing ships they have work for and move away from the game... 3. modules on the market go up in price as it is not being seeded by mission runners 4. minerals go up in price because industrialists leave... they get sick of being suicide ganked every day and move to another game... 5. PVP'ers can no longer afford ships unless they build them them selfs, but they have to now get in a miner to do it and get ganked... (this is where the biting the hand that feeds them really comes in) 6. ???:? oh so maby an extreme outlook but the jist of it is the system is fine... apart from the payout for criminals.. Edit: insurance should not be paid to suicide gankers (or red flashy in highsec), also self destructs should not include a payout.... System Fixed! Yay The insurance no loss thing is the best thing that has happend for PVP, because now people who couldent afford to loose ships can, with the current system my alts in faction war are not worried about plowing in a BS/BCS as i only loose a small amount, ergo more fun for all you PVP'ers. YOU ARE ONLY DISTROYING YOUR SELFS!!!!! :p
Illwill Bill Svea Rike Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.12.20 10:40:00 - [25] Edited by: Illwill Bill on 20/12/2009 10:40:57 I get the feeling that Jita 4-4 is going to become VERY interesting. EDIT: Dude, your face!
Selrid Miamarr Amarr	Posted - 2009.12.20 10:41:00 - [26] Why would this force CCP to do one thing? Unless you assume that you can suicide gank or kill enough people to cause a large number of players to potentially leave the game, it would be business as usual for EVE, and players would "adapt or die" as the cliche says. CCP is not stupid. Despite the so-called sandbox and lawless nature of EVE, they have done a very good job of making it impossible to inflict any real change to inconvienience people enough to quit en masse. That's why we can't blow up jumpgates or trade hubs. If you wish to kill people and encourage others to do so, just state it. No need to dress it up as a crusade which will fail to achieve the objective.
Omal Oma Aurelius Federation Apotheosis of Virtue	Posted - 2009.12.20 10:59:00 - [27] Edited by: Omal Oma on 20/12/2009 11:00:11 Possible solution?: When you crash your car in RL, you become a liability to the insurance company. Possibly a standing with the insurance company so that if you blow up a lot of ships and cost them a lot of money, your fees go up. Eventually, your insurance (say... 10 blowups in < 2 weeks) would drive your rates so high that the cost versus reward would lessen greatly. They also don't like insuring you for so long... The only way this would lessen is time. I would also like a way for a corp to start an insurance agency. The ability to insure fittings would be amazing. ________________________________________________ <--- My in-game me.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.12.20 11:02:00 - [28] Originally by: Yarton Killmore Edited by: Yarton Killmore on 20/12/2009 10:44:32 my word.... what a dumb ass suggestion... so let me get this right... 1. you remove insurance from the game 2. casual mission runners start to get scared about loosing ships they have work for and move away from the game... 3. modules on the market go up in price as it is not being seeded by mission runners 4. minerals go up in price because industrialists leave... they get sick of being suicide ganked every day and move to another game... 5. PVP'ers can no longer afford ships unless they build them them selfs, but they have to now get in a miner to do it and get ganked... (this is where the biting the hand that feeds them really comes in) 6. ???:? oh so maby an extreme outlook but the jist of it is the system is fine... apart from the payout for criminals.. Edit: insurance should not be paid to suicide gankers (or red flashy in highsec), also self destructs should not include a payout.... System Fixed! Yay The insurance no loss thing is the best thing that has happend for PVP, because now people who couldent afford to loose ships can, with the current system my alts in faction war are not worried about plowing in a BS/BCS as i only loose a small amount, ergo more fun for all you PVP'ers. YOU ARE ONLY DISTROYING YOUR SELFS!!!!! :p lrn2economics before you make a fool of yourself. Although I dont agree with removing insurance completely, I can tell you what the first effect would be: Mineral prices would drop through the floor. Insurance is primarily a huge subsidy to miners. T1 module prices would also tank in value. The sale price of T1 ships would fall, probably by about 40-50% However, the relative cost of T1 ships vs T2 ship would rise hugely, so T2 ship prices would almost certainly rise due to increased demand.
RaTTuS BIG Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.12.20 11:08:00 - [29] Operation Insurance fraud -- 3 Titans Lottery EB \| Capital
Lexx Khadar Minmatar Free Minmatar Union	Posted - 2009.12.20 11:12:00 - [30] Best of luck OP. personally I agree the insurance system really does need a rework. Such as insurance being void if you get involved with concord. Plus if it could be made more dynamic payout based on the cost you bought the ship ( or average mineral worth based off a perfectly researched BPO ) for or an average sales price across all empire regions for that ship in a month. Maybe you could add a sort of no claims bonus of 5% per month discount on all ship insurance up to 20% capped to also reward careful flyers whilst not penalizing people who are guaranteed to regularly lose ships ( 0.0, war etc ). This would also make insuring t2 ships more sensible whilst not artificially holding the mineral market in place whilst also negating/removing insurance fraud and also making suicide gankers who want to do so still be able to but at a higher isk cost.
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.12.20 11:28:00 - [31] No need to remove insurance. Just : 1- remove insurance form concord kills 2- limit insurance to 70% of current value.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2009.12.20 11:41:00 - [32] Originally by: Seishi Maru No need to remove insurance. Just : 1- remove insurance form concord kills 2- limit insurance to 70% of current value. 3- go die in a magnesium fire Originally by: a51 duke1406 The girls just dont understand that sunday is pvp night, not cuddle on the couch watching tv night.
Mashie Saldana BFG Tech	Posted - 2009.12.20 11:57:00 - [33] Just keep the base (30%) insurance and be done with it. People flying T2/T3 don't cry over lack of 100% insurance coverage.
Alt0101	Posted - 2009.12.20 12:02:00 - [34] Insurance make a hard floor for minerals price, so if completely removed, mineral prices would fall with no limits. Nevertheless I'm agree with insurance not being paid to suicide gankers.
Yarton Killmore	Posted - 2009.12.20 12:03:00 - [35] people dont cry over t2/t3 losses because they can afford it, and besides if you removed insurance who in their right mind is gonna grind missions for a week to get a ship and then loose it just to have to grind again. people who have been in eve a long time seem to have forgotten how much hassle it is to make money to buy these ships... oh and how would removing insurance make the mineral price drop? unless we are talking of the opposite effect that this would have in removing suicide ganking because of no insurance causing ship demand to lower? I can understand in RL if insurance was removed from cars for instance the price of cars would drop, but this isnt real life... this is eve...
Kazang Wrecking Shots	Posted - 2009.12.20 12:05:00 - [36] Originally by: Malcanis As a rather more dull-but-practical alternative, please support my insurance reform proposal. In short, base insurance on 90-95% of the normalised aggregate mineral sale price over the preceeding day (or week, if it's computationally expesive to calculate this, although I don't see why it should be). Buy/sell orders dont count, only actual mineral sales. So if the total mineral cost of a Raven is 100 million ISK, then the insurance value will be 95 million (with the premium also being modified on a pro-rata basis). In theory, someone could manipulate this system, but they'd have to spend fantastic amounts of ISK to do so, and their manipulations would be public and susceptible to interference. This a far better solution than your drama queen "terrorism" act. Not to mention the fact that removing insurance would do far more damage to the economy than insurance fraud ever has. The problem needs to be solved not simply pushed aside by removing insurance. Suicide ganking is so common now your plan and efforts to break the system will simply be a drop in the ocean, unless you start killing fully loaded jump freighters en masse you won't even be noticed. Of course this is why you made this thread, as you wouldn't be noticed unless you did. Kazang
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.12.20 12:31:00 - [37] Originally by: Intense Thinker Originally by: Seishi Maru No need to remove insurance. Just : 1- remove insurance form concord kills 2- limit insurance to 70% of current value. 3- go die in a magnesium fire byt that i can take as granted that you are a professional suicide ganker that wants near zero loss for the capability of ruining the month or months of other players without chance them to do anything and WITHOUT RISK TO YOU! No the chance they drop nothing good is NOT risk for you. For the point of view of the suicided its ALWAYS them loosing. And any activity like that should have GREAT cost. want to have 100% sure that you will kill that guy.. ok.. but will cost you A LOT! AQnd no. i have never been suicide ganked.. so no crying here, just someone with sense of GAME BALANCE.
Evil Incarn8 Amarr Silentium Mortalitas Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2009.12.20 12:43:00 - [38] Originally by: Seishi Maru No need to remove insurance. Just : 1- remove insurance form concord kills 2- limit insurance to 70% of current value. This is my favoured solution to Insurance, CONCORD kill = no money for you.
Seth Ruin Minmatar Ominous Corp Cult of War	Posted - 2009.12.20 12:53:00 - [39] I've wondered about this myself, actually. It would affect PvPers more than carebears, as has been mentioned, and I believe over time, it would change the makeup of common nullsec gangs and fleets. But, unfortunately, if CCP implemented this, there would be epic amounts of whining (see: "zomg CCP is trying to force carebears out of NPC corps with a measly 11% tax!")
Keida	Posted - 2009.12.20 12:56:00 - [40] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Swiftgaze Edited by: Swiftgaze on 20/12/2009 09:32:39 Originally by: Bellum Eternus It's a huge ISK faucet, and when exploited on an industrial scale it's capable of dumping literally hundreds of billions of raw ISK into the game every month. This is a bad thing. Someone enlighten me. How much money can you actually make with this whole insurance thing? How many players does it take to make hundreds of billions of ISK per month? I somehow bet its not worth the time, could that be? EDIT: Oh, but, Bellum, if youre looking for more suicide gankers, Id prolly be up for it in the future. If youre still looking for a crew, that is. :) It takes one character and some dedication and you can see 100b / mo. And as for additions to the bunch, we'll be suiciding ships around the clock from here on out. Just stop on by and join the fun. You're exaggerating just a small bit? I calculated how much can be made from building and self destructing T3 battleships and to make 100 bill a month you would need a lot more than 1 character, the amount of work involved in making that much money could only be accomplished by a team of players. A single player could not do it.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.20 13:03:00 - [41] Originally by: Keida Edited by: Keida on 20/12/2009 12:56:58 Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Swiftgaze Edited by: Swiftgaze on 20/12/2009 09:32:39 Originally by: Bellum Eternus It's a huge ISK faucet, and when exploited on an industrial scale it's capable of dumping literally hundreds of billions of raw ISK into the game every month. This is a bad thing. Someone enlighten me. How much money can you actually make with this whole insurance thing? How many players does it take to make hundreds of billions of ISK per month? I somehow bet its not worth the time, could that be? EDIT: Oh, but, Bellum, if youre looking for more suicide gankers, Id prolly be up for it in the future. If youre still looking for a crew, that is. :) It takes one character and some dedication and you can see 100b / mo. And as for additions to the bunch, we'll be suiciding ships around the clock from here on out. Just stop on by and join the fun. You're exaggerating just a small bit? I calculated how much can be made from building and self destructing T3 battleships and to make 100 bill a month you would need a lot more than 1 character, the amount of work involved in making that much money could only be accomplished by a team of players. A single player could not do it. You'd need at least 50 abaddon bpos in constant production, good luck with that. No, not exaggerating at all. It's been done before, by quite a few people. It's not difficult. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.20 13:08:00 - [42] Originally by: Evil Incarn8 Originally by: Seishi Maru No need to remove insurance. Just : 1- remove insurance form concord kills 2- limit insurance to 70% of current value. This is my favoured solution to Insurance, CONCORD kill = no money for you. Insurance payouts for suicide ganking isn't the problem. It's the existence of insurance at all that is the issue. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Captain Organs Space Lobster Expeditionary	Posted - 2009.12.20 13:19:00 - [43] I think if CONCORD destroys the ship or you self destruct the ship there should be no insurance payout. Insurance for pvp ships is an important part of the game. Keeps us from going dead broke and going carebear. Everyone. Carebears. Think about that.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.20 13:24:00 - [44] There should be no insurance. Mineral prices would be far more dynamic if a base price wasn't set by insurance, and PvP would be more meaningful. Scrap it. アニメ漫画です
Yakumo Smith Gallente No End To Infinity Fleetingly Finite	Posted - 2009.12.20 13:26:00 - [45] The 100B mentioned was made by players considered to be MD elite with plenty of isk to flash around to make things possible. Now the procedure is in the wild, the chances of making those sums again are less likely. Not impossible though. I suppose this must be my sig. I'll do something cool with it eventually.
gallchecker	Posted - 2009.12.20 13:54:00 - [46] puts credit card back in wallet steps away from the game Sounds like a cool game bro, shame it seems to be full of ******s.
Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiau	Posted - 2009.12.20 14:05:00 - [47] Originally by: gallchecker puts credit card back in wallet steps away from the game Sounds like a cool game bro, shame it seems to be full of ******s. Well the game will be better without you. So bye. Eve is the last hardcore MMO left, i hope the devs don't change it to World of Eve, just because some whiny WoW players don't like to be blown up.
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.12.20 14:10:00 - [48] Originally by: Avon There should be no insurance. Mineral prices would be far more dynamic if a base price wasn't set by insurance, and PvP would be more meaningful. Scrap it. problem is, that woudl make even harder that new players try pvp. In other words exactly oposite of what ccp want. Lots, in fact vast majority of players need to work (in game) for a full week to get a battleship, they are not in alliances. And no its not possible for everyone to make isk on the market on huge ammounts, by definition market work cannot make all parts involved richer. Realistically. Insurance wil not go aways because ccp wants more people to pvp. What can be done is tune it so it achieves just the desired results without causign too much colateral damage.
gallchecker	Posted - 2009.12.20 14:18:00 - [49] Originally by: Seishi Maru Realistically. Insurance wil not go aways because ccp wants more people to pvp. What can be done is tune it so it achieves just the desired results without causign too much colateral damage. No insurance for concord kills. Just like in reality, where if your car is run off the road by the cops the insurance is null and void as you arent insured whilst committing a criminal act :)
NightmareX Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.20 14:28:00 - [50] Yes, i'm in for removing of insurance ONLY if Concord is involved. Removing insurance totally are a good way to destroy PVP for newer players. And for making EVE into a big ass grind fest when you have to carebear your ass of to get money back again. Yes not all can do the insane 100 bill isk a month. Specially not newer players. If it had been that easy, then fine, it would be a good idea. Director of Infinitus Odium.
JrsWoman	Posted - 2009.12.20 14:35:00 - [51] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Have 160 Geddons sitting and ready to go, should keep me busy for a bit. 320 ships died in Eve did anyone notice ?
Junko Togawa Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.20 14:44:00 - [52] I agree, stop insurance payouts for CONCORD kills. This means the real PVP'ers can continue to PvP with little loss, while the suicide gankers out to make a profit only have to be a wee bit more picky. The ones out trying to raep miners will just have to spend more ISK for their lulz. And isn't a bigger money sink a good thing?
Princess Jodi Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.20 14:51:00 - [53] Wait... so your terrorist threat is that you're gonna blow up all your own ships? Cool.
The Wicked1	Posted - 2009.12.20 14:52:00 - [54] Originally by: Bellum Eternus ..... Completely legit gameplay..... Yep it is! And you want to ban it? Please crawl back into your little WoW hole and leave EVE to the rest of us.
ropnes	Posted - 2009.12.20 14:52:00 - [55] Edited by: ropnes on 20/12/2009 14:56:14 The fact that you can make money self destructing ships is not something that can be used to argue against insurance. If enough people do it the mineral prices will rise and it'll stop being profitable Also, the 100B figure comes from when the mineral basket price was MUCH lower and to do something like that requires at least a hundred billion to begin with
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.20 15:00:00 - [56] Originally by: Seishi Maru Originally by: Avon There should be no insurance. Mineral prices would be far more dynamic if a base price wasn't set by insurance, and PvP would be more meaningful. Scrap it. problem is, that woudl make even harder that new players try pvp. In other words exactly oposite of what ccp want. Lots, in fact vast majority of players need to work (in game) for a full week to get a battleship, they are not in alliances. And no its not possible for everyone to make isk on the market on huge ammounts, by definition market work cannot make all parts involved richer. I don't agree that it would make it harder for new players to get in to pvp. The very difficulty of replacing expensive ships means that people will tend to fly more affordable ships, which are also the ones which newer player tend to fly anyway due the skill requirements. If anything it would make PvP easier to get in to because the bar would have been lowered. アニメ漫画です
Feilamya Pelennor Swarm THE KLINGONS	Posted - 2009.12.20 15:07:00 - [57] Oh, what an original idea...
cu2hell	Posted - 2009.12.20 15:10:00 - [58] I have a very good suggestion for you, why don't you take all those "isk" you are going to make and buy the game from CCP and then you can change the game design.... It would probably be easier and less time consuming.
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.12.20 15:23:00 - [59] Originally by: cu2hell I have a very good suggestion for you, why don't you take all those "isk" you are going to make and buy the game from CCP and then you can change the game design.... It would probably be easier and less time consuming. _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008 Originally by: CCP Fallout :facepalm:
Washell Olivaw	Posted - 2009.12.20 15:50:00 - [60] The problem is selfcorrecting. Mineral supply plus stockpile vs regular demand plus selfdestruct demand is average price. Selfdestruct competes with regular. Selfdestruct can only stay the same or increase while removing minerals and finished products from the economy. The only possible outcome is that at some point it will have used up the stockpile minerals on the supply side at which point prices will rise above insurance value. Should the sitution threaten to become critical, they will just (silently) change the respawn of minerals to force a reduction on the supply side. They have done so before. Originally by: Signature Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
Anslo The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2009.12.20 16:05:00 - [61] Attention ***, Attention ***, lookit me! I'm gonna be bad and do things that could get me in trouble! Ohohohoh lookit meeeeeeeeee!
Juan Valhdez	Posted - 2009.12.20 16:52:00 - [62] 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. The issue is insurance. It's a huge ISK faucet, and when exploited on an industrial scale it's capable of dumping literally hundreds of billions of raw ISK into the game every month. This is a bad thing. Carebears want insurance removed from suicide ganking payouts but they don't want the insurance removed from their own ships. I simply want insurance removed completely from every ship, at every level. Let new characters enjoy a three month grace period of insurance use and ban people for using 'insurance alts' for insurance fraud, just like you would if you were using alts as disposable hitmen and recycling them after their sec is ruined. Right now it's very easy to use a T1 fit Geddon as an example and have the total loss be around 4m ISK after insurance. I can kill just about any sort of smallish cruiser size ship solo in high sec with this, and I can kill BCs and BS with only a pair or maybe three or four. No ship is safe in highsec with some simple tactics and a little bit of coordination from a few friends. Ramp up the scale and you can kill freighters and Orcas quite easily. But my goal isn't to simply kill freighters. It's to make CCP sit up and take notice of the horribly broken game design that is insurance. Currently there are multiple players that are self destructing ships on a literally industrial scale, making tens of billions of raw ISK per month with 'insurance fraud'. This causes inflation and will in the long term hurt the economy. So I'm going to start using this mechanism to inflict the pain of financial loss upon as many players as possible so that they now have a direct and personal stake in seeing insurance removed from the game completely. Is this griefing? Absolutely not. I'm profiting from my actions, so it's piracy. Completely legit gameplay. Insurance simply facilitates my particular tactics, and once those are made obsolete by the removal of insurance, I'll revert to more traditional ways of doing things. The in game killings will continue on as wide a scale as possible until the game is changed for the better with the removal of insurance. Anyone interested in assisting me with this campaign of militant destruction can contact me in game. The more the merrier. Oh, and one more thing- jump freighter pilots, we're coming for you. Cool wall of text brah
Kuronaga The Drekla Consortium	Posted - 2009.12.20 17:05:00 - [63] insurance is what seperates high priority targets from "meh" targets, and it is what keeps a pvp'r from completely voiding himself out of the game. ignorant thread is ignorant, moving on.
Nareg Maxence Gallente JotunHeim Hird	Posted - 2009.12.20 17:15:00 - [64] I totally agree that insurance should be removed. It keeps mineral prices artificially high and it encourages racing to bigger ships. Problems that arise if you remove it may be lower mineral prices, making mining less viable. Therefore if you do remove it, you need to balance loot drops so mining becomes the main source of new minerals. One way to do that would be to have npc wrecks drop broken modules that need to be reverse engineered into blueprints for named mods, instead of fully working modules. Then npc wrecks becomes a drain for minerals instead of a faucet.
Merii Kha'sen Amarr Unity Exploration	Posted - 2009.12.20 17:55:00 - [65] I never insure my ships anyway, since I fly Tech 2. Fix tech 2 insurance payouts first, then we can talk about removing it.
Shawshanke	Posted - 2009.12.20 18:09:00 - [66] CCP doesn't really give a crap about the "carebear playerbase", everything they do for carbears is only to keep enough victims around to feed their greifer playerbase. The player base they truly care about is the 0.0 alliances although vastly smaller according to the map, every video CCP comes out with is completely centered on 0.0 alliances. The last alliance tournament we saw how CCP was tripping over themselves to hang off of goon swarms man b00bs. The 0.0 alliances boast about their profits from suicide ganking all the time, atlas boasts that 2 of their newest titans were paid for entirely by suicide ganking.
Ryhss Caldari The Templar Navy	Posted - 2009.12.20 18:12:00 - [67] 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. The issue is insurance. It's a huge ISK faucet, and when exploited on an industrial scale it's capable of dumping literally hundreds of billions of raw ISK into the game every month. This is a bad thing. Carebears want insurance removed from suicide ganking payouts but they don't want the insurance removed from their own ships. I simply want insurance removed completely from every ship, at every level. Let new characters enjoy a three month grace period of insurance use and ban people for using 'insurance alts' for insurance fraud, just like you would if you were using alts as disposable hitmen and recycling them after their sec is ruined. Right now it's very easy to use a T1 fit Geddon as an example and have the total loss be around 4m ISK after insurance. I can kill just about any sort of smallish cruiser size ship solo in high sec with this, and I can kill BCs and BS with only a pair or maybe three or four. No ship is safe in highsec with some simple tactics and a little bit of coordination from a few friends. Ramp up the scale and you can kill freighters and Orcas quite easily. But my goal isn't to simply kill freighters. It's to make CCP sit up and take notice of the horribly broken game design that is insurance. Currently there are multiple players that are self destructing ships on a literally industrial scale, making tens of billions of raw ISK per month with 'insurance fraud'. This causes inflation and will in the long term hurt the economy. So I'm going to start using this mechanism to inflict the pain of financial loss upon as many players as possible so that they now have a direct and personal stake in seeing insurance removed from the game completely. Is this griefing? Absolutely not. I'm profiting from my actions, so it's piracy. Completely legit gameplay. Insurance simply facilitates my particular tactics, and once those are made obsolete by the removal of insurance, I'll revert to more traditional ways of doing things. The in game killings will continue on as wide a scale as possible until the game is changed for the better with the removal of insurance. Anyone interested in assisting me with this campaign of militant destruction can contact me in game. The more the merrier. Oh, and one more thing- jump freighter pilots, we're coming for you. This tactic will do nothing to CCP. ITt will just **** off abunch of players who will then hunt you down, they'll even suicide gank you for the insurance. I would. I think not, therefore I am not...............
Vyktor Abyss The Abyss Corporation	Posted - 2009.12.20 18:26:00 - [68] You're a plonker with more moodswings than a pregnant wife, Bellum. For months you repeatedly post on the forum crying about game mechanics & balancing problems, then you post a "Dominion is an awesome patch" thread. Now you're back to crying about something that only you seem to really care about. I really should have leanrt by now to stop bothering to read your posts.
Ryusoath Orillian Minmatar INDUSTIENCE	Posted - 2009.12.20 18:29:00 - [69] 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. The issue is insurance. It's a huge ISK faucet, and when exploited on an industrial scale it's capable of dumping literally hundreds of billions of raw ISK into the game every month. This is a bad thing. Carebears want insurance removed from suicide ganking payouts but they don't want the insurance removed from their own ships. I simply want insurance removed completely from every ship, at every level. Let new characters enjoy a three month grace period of insurance use and ban people for using 'insurance alts' for insurance fraud, just like you would if you were using alts as disposable hitmen and recycling them after their sec is ruined. Right now it's very easy to use a T1 fit Geddon as an example and have the total loss be around 4m ISK after insurance. I can kill just about any sort of smallish cruiser size ship solo in high sec with this, and I can kill BCs and BS with only a pair or maybe three or four. No ship is safe in highsec with some simple tactics and a little bit of coordination from a few friends. Ramp up the scale and you can kill freighters and Orcas quite easily. But my goal isn't to simply kill freighters. It's to make CCP sit up and take notice of the horribly broken game design that is insurance. Currently there are multiple players that are self destructing ships on a literally industrial scale, making tens of billions of raw ISK per month with 'insurance fraud'. This causes inflation and will in the long term hurt the economy. So I'm going to start using this mechanism to inflict the pain of financial loss upon as many players as possible so that they now have a direct and personal stake in seeing insurance removed from the game completely. Is this griefing? Absolutely not. I'm profiting from my actions, so it's piracy. Completely legit gameplay. Insurance simply facilitates my particular tactics, and once those are made obsolete by the removal of insurance, I'll revert to more traditional ways of doing things. The in game killings will continue on as wide a scale as possible until the game is changed for the better with the removal of insurance. Anyone interested in assisting me with this campaign of militant destruction can contact me in game. The more the merrier. Oh, and one more thing- jump freighter pilots, we're coming for you. i only want insurance removed if the (build reqs.) cost of all t1 ships is lowered. if not it will kill pvp for all but the super rich (bellum). i can't afford to lose 100m in 10 seconds when i'm primaried . bellum, srsly, i'm usually with you but this ** goes against pvp. insurance sure, but make a bs cost 10m then. people with a **ton of money can afford to throw 100m ships away all time. cheaper ships = more pvp. the only reason most people i know can afford to pvp in anything bigger than a frigate is because of insurance. and why do you want ccp to nerf suicide ganking ? you some kind of carebear ?
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.12.20 18:37:00 - [70] Hi, we've been doing this for a year or so now. -----------------
Awesome Possum Imperium Signal Corps	Posted - 2009.12.20 18:39:00 - [71] Originally by: Chribba I for one welcome all the salvage that is one of the results of this terror act Is this an official Chribba endorsement of said tactics? If Chribba likes it, it must be good for Eve. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.12.20 18:42:00 - [72] While I think that insurance could use some work, the current system does provide that hard cap for mineral prices. Although Bellums figures presented here show that most miner/producers of Tier 3 ships fail at doing basic math. If insurance were removed completely, prices for ships and minerals would plummet because frankly the main flaw with the EVE economy is that people really don't have to survive on the money they make. Under the current production/marketing model you will ALWAYS have people who sell for less than the ship/modules are worth using the "if I mine it, its free" idiotic philosophy. It does strike me that if more things were introduced in game that people desired to purchase (possibly through Incarna) beyond simply ships and equipment, perhaps people would begin to try to keep the mining/production mechanic truly profitable. Although you will probably always have the idiots in game that think their mined minerals are free. Ironically, the two things that keep the economy stable are insurance payouts and resellers (the people buying the ships/modules you made for "free" and reselling them for actual profit). ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Halcyon Ingenium	Posted - 2009.12.20 18:47:00 - [73] 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. The issue is insurance. It's a huge ISK faucet, and when exploited on an industrial scale it's capable of dumping literally hundreds of billions of raw ISK into the game every month. This is a bad thing. Carebears want insurance removed from suicide ganking payouts but they don't want the insurance removed from their own ships. I simply want insurance removed completely from every ship, at every level. Let new characters enjoy a three month grace period of insurance use and ban people for using 'insurance alts' for insurance fraud, just like you would if you were using alts as disposable hitmen and recycling them after their sec is ruined. Right now it's very easy to use a T1 fit Geddon as an example and have the total loss be around 4m ISK after insurance. I can kill just about any sort of smallish cruiser size ship solo in high sec with this, and I can kill BCs and BS with only a pair or maybe three or four. No ship is safe in highsec with some simple tactics and a little bit of coordination from a few friends. Ramp up the scale and you can kill freighters and Orcas quite easily. But my goal isn't to simply kill freighters. It's to make CCP sit up and take notice of the horribly broken game design that is insurance. Currently there are multiple players that are self destructing ships on a literally industrial scale, making tens of billions of raw ISK per month with 'insurance fraud'. This causes inflation and will in the long term hurt the economy. So I'm going to start using this mechanism to inflict the pain of financial loss upon as many players as possible so that they now have a direct and personal stake in seeing insurance removed from the game completely. Is this griefing? Absolutely not. I'm profiting from my actions, so it's piracy. Completely legit gameplay. Insurance simply facilitates my particular tactics, and once those are made obsolete by the removal of insurance, I'll revert to more traditional ways of doing things. The in game killings will continue on as wide a scale as possible until the game is changed for the better with the removal of insurance. Anyone interested in assisting me with this campaign of militant destruction can contact me in game. The more the merrier. Oh, and one more thing- jump freighter pilots, we're coming for you. This post is bad and you should feel bad. __________ I'm just an ordinary Caldari trying to turn an ISK. What's wrong with that?
Rascael Rascaels	Posted - 2009.12.20 19:21:00 - [74] Simple solution. No insurance for self destruct, no insurance for concord kills (suicide ganking) Insurance fraud would be much harder then. You would have to build ships, fly to mission or belts, have rats kill ship, repeat. Not very time productive now. You have said your having concord kill you for speed, (and to gank others I suspect). Well there you go, no more speed, no more insurance payout, problem solved
Nekopyat	Posted - 2009.12.20 19:40:00 - [75] Originally by: Cpt Jagermeister Payout is way too high but completely removing it makes for more broke pvpers. This is why insurance removal (or, say, caps that leave it available for newbies loosing cruisers etc) would have to be combined with better ways to make profit from PvP. The solution I always liked is to have a more complete salvage system. Something like towing the wreaks back to station (or having a much bigger module) that recoups most of the construction value of the ship, or even allows repairs to be preformed to bring the ship back up to usable condition. Thus PvP could focus on the disabling and capture of ships. Right now you blow up most of the potential value of your targets.. poor profit.
Khemul Zula Amarr Keisen Trade League	Posted - 2009.12.20 20:04:00 - [76] Originally by: Ryhss ...It psises me off when people think a games economy runs like a real economy. It does not matter how much ISK there is. CCP can add or subtract anyamount of ISK at any time with the push of a button or a few lines of code. That is pretty much how real economies work. Atleast modern economies. It's just that we are told not to think about it too much. Thinking leads to silly questions like "where the **** did those 100s of billions of dollars all the sudden come from?!". Veal, murder. Baby Carrots, healthy snack. Food hypocrisy at work.
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2009.12.20 21:17:00 - [77] Originally by: Nareg Maxence Problems that arise if you remove it may be lower mineral prices, making mining less viable. Therefore if you do remove it, you need to balance loot drops so mining becomes the main source of new minerals. One way to do that would be to have npc wrecks drop broken modules that need to be reverse engineered into blueprints for named mods, instead of fully working modules. Then npc wrecks becomes a drain for minerals instead of a faucet. That's a great idea, I think. As a missioner I don't have much use for the minerals I refine from loot anyway. Though named modules would probably become scarce because looting wouldn't really even be worth doing at all. Hmm... would probably kill the salvage/rig market off too, ah well. So much for that Originally by: Rascael Simple solution. No insurance for self destruct, no insurance for concord kills (suicide ganking) Insurance fraud would be much harder then. You would have to build ships, fly to mission or belts, have rats kill ship, repeat. Not very time productive now. You have said your having concord kill you for speed, (and to gank others I suspect). Well there you go, no more speed, no more insurance payout, problem solved Leave self destructing alone. No really, it's pointless to change it. I would just have a corpmate blow up my ship or otherwise have someone outside waiting with a can for me to loot and get flagged to accomplish the same thing (and this would be faster than waiting for self destruct timer anyway). Aggressive acts should have consequences but simply collecting an insurance payout shouldn't be a big annoyance. But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started.
Ki Tarra Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2009.12.20 21:38:00 - [78] Edited by: Ki Tarra on 20/12/2009 21:39:30 Originally by: Rascael Insurance fraud would be much harder then. You would have to build ships, fly to mission or belts, have rats kill ship, repeat. Because having a friend/alt blow the ship up would be too much work. There is nothing wrong with insurance payouts. Same thing was happening when I first started playing back in 2006. I made my first million ISK from self-destructing frigates because it paid better than level 1 missions. Don't worry, you will get plenty more tears when mineral prices self-correct. The only thing you should be worrying about is which mineral to horde to make the most profit when prices come back up. I made my first billion ISK when pyerite shot up from ~4 ISK/unit to ~8 ISK/unit a patch latter.
Governor LePetomane Rock Ridge Brokerage Solutions	Posted - 2009.12.20 21:39:00 - [79] Originally by: Washell Olivaw The problem is selfcorrecting. Mineral supply plus stockpile vs regular demand plus selfdestruct demand is average price. Selfdestruct competes with regular. Selfdestruct can only stay the same or increase while removing minerals and finished products from the economy. The only possible outcome is that at some point it will have used up the stockpile minerals on the supply side at which point prices will rise above insurance value. Should the sitution threaten to become critical, they will just (silently) change the respawn of minerals to force a reduction on the supply side. They have done so before. This. Plus, even if it weren't that, Jita T1 ship prices are all nastily close to insurance payout and could stand to go up a little anyway. But nevertheless, Bellum Eternus is very smart and important and special and I've printed out his post and put it right there on the refrigerator where everybody can see it.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.12.20 21:54:00 - [80] Make three insurance methods: 1.) Rookie Aid: Quite generous, free of charge, available for 2 weeks after the account is first activated. 2.) Carebear Special: High payout with average rates, low basic insurance, many options, if you blow up, rates go up. 3.) Combat Cover: High basic payout, but expensive rates for higher levels, doesn't increase per ship lost. 3.1.) Militia Support: Like Combat Cover but with better rates. And if you want to add a drop of realism, make 52386 different varieties of the above that look and sound different but really are just screwing you over in 52386 different ways. --------
Vaneshi SnowCrash	Posted - 2009.12.20 22:57:00 - [81] Originally by: Venkul Mul Those that lose multi billion ships with faction, deadspace or officer fittings? insurance don't make a difference. CNR's insure like a standard Raven. It the game pays out, your still heavily out of pocket. Most high end missions ships aren't insured for this reason. Now, PvPers seem to insure everything that moves simply because it something is better than nothing. Removing insurance might stop the odd bit of fraud now and again. But it'll cause a grinding halt to half the pew pew going on as people run out of ISK. Which probably means they'll end up in empire grinding more L4's and we'll see an increase in the "nerf L4" rants appearing as a meta gaming tactic to break smaller corps/alliances. Busted.
Skoot The Scope	Posted - 2009.12.20 23:00:00 - [82] Edited by: Skoot on 20/12/2009 23:00:21 thanks a lot murder, I was making **** loads of isk from this and now you are going to get it taken away. Edit: P.S. LocalThreat CEO says hi :P
Jitko	Posted - 2009.12.21 00:15:00 - [83] I'm a bit confused. How does insurance make a price floor on minerals? Because it keeps ship price stable? Thanks in advance for explaining it.
Mr Epeen	Posted - 2009.12.21 00:33:00 - [84] Originally by: Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiau ...i hope the devs don't change it to World of Eve, just because some whiny WoW players don't like to be blown up. As long as there is insurance this IS World of EVE. Hard to call a game harsh and hardcore when you have a respawn button. I agree with the OP. Insurance...lose it. Make a real hardcore game out of EVE. Not some pretender that talks the talk. Time to walk the walk, EVE. Mr Epeen
NEMESIS SIN FURY.	Posted - 2009.12.21 00:38:00 - [85] Edited by: NEMESIS SIN on 21/12/2009 00:44:54 You sir are an idiot beyond measure. The end result (assuming CCP even gives a crap) will be to void the insurance payout of ships that are either killed by concord or self destructed. You are on a fail crusade and seem a bit butt hurt about something. Que Cliche: Are you mad? Considering my last encounter with the MeatSausage EXPRESS id be surprised if you could even find Jita.
Proctoria Khian Garoun Investment Bank	Posted - 2009.12.21 00:48:00 - [86] So would not the real problem be that miners sell their ore too cheap?
stoicfaux	Posted - 2009.12.21 01:27:00 - [87] Edited by: stoicfaux on 21/12/2009 01:36:02 So... if insurance fraud is viable and insurance payouts create a mineral price floor, then shouldn't that mean: a) minerals are being sold below the floor price, and b) this situation should be self-correcting? As people get in on the fraud, mineral prices should go back up once the mineral suppliers get a clue. If insurance is removed, then, mineral prices will go into a free-fall, and thus ships become cheaper. Insurance makes ships cheap and affordable for PvP, so why not just have cheap ships to begin with? Is the insurance middle man really needed? If insurance goes away, then PvPers will simply need to make deals with miners and manufacturers. This would make Eve politics more complicated and make Eve more sandboxy overall. Small/Casual PvPers would suffer, but the 0.0 alliances would be fine which is where the main action is. Or not? Doesn't CCP have an economist on staff? Where's his dev blog? ----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Nietzsche, and PvP"
Anubis Xian Reavers	Posted - 2009.12.21 01:34:00 - [88] Insurance was supposed to promote pvp. I personally think it failed to have the desired effect. Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
Herzog Wolfhammer Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.12.21 01:45:00 - [89] Originally by: Mr Epeen Originally by: Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiau ...i hope the devs don't change it to World of Eve, just because some whiny WoW players don't like to be blown up. As long as there is insurance this IS World of EVE. Hard to call a game harsh and hardcore when you have a respawn button. I agree with the OP. Insurance...lose it. Make a real hardcore game out of EVE. Not some pretender that talks the talk. Time to walk the walk, EVE. Mr Epeen Lets take it up a notch. No more clones.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.21 02:28:00 - [90] Edited by: Bellum Eternus on 21/12/2009 02:28:37 Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer Lets take it up a notch. No more clones. Haha, works for me. However, I think you'll see the 0.0 population reduced to about 1% of it's current level. -------- So far the thread is going about as expected: a few people get it, the other 95% of the posts so far are from the losers and carebears that depend on insurance to play the game. Insurance ruins the game because it devalues the one thing that makes Eve so special: loss. Lots of players worry that ships will be 'too expensive' to fly. Well, if you mean 'other than free' when you say 'too expensive' then yes, they'll be 'too expensive'. Once insurance is removed, then all mineral prices will reach a true market equilibrium because there is no artificial cap on what their price will be due to insurance payouts. What we'll see are less expensive ships, although the amount of ISK per loss will increase. Both of these are good things. Currently people fly the largest most powerful ship they can because it doesn't cost much more than the smaller versions. If insurance goes away then some of the smaller ships like T1 cruisers and BCs will increase in popularity due to better cost per performance. The 'new players need insurance' argument: I'VE ALREADY STATED that I think that all new accounts (not characters) should get something like a 3-6 month period where players are allowed to insure their ships. After that they need to learn from their mistakes and take their lumps like everyone else. How hard is it to grasp this simple concept? So many posters seem to just ignore that I put that in the OP. 90% of you are simply reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest. Insurance doesn't make PVP more viable. Why should T2 pilots be penalized with lack of insurance? Frankly I think that no insurance for T2 is CCP's admission that it's a bad idea, otherwise they would have added it for T2, no? And then we have the issue of large scale insurance fraud dumping literally hundreds of billions of ISK into the economy, thereby creating inflation. It's only starting to become an issue, but once things get going and large groups of players realize just how easy it is to exploit this then it will start affecting the game in a very big way. Just look at how drastic the market was affected by the moon mineral exploits and the macro miners. Speaking of which, macro mining doesn't create ISK out of thin air, insurance fraud does. How long before all the macro miner guys figure out that this is easier and safer and more profitable? Only a complete idiot would be incapable of seeing the potential damage that this will do to the game. And everyone posting in this thread are just super smart, right? Right? -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Megan Maynard Minmatar Clown Punchers. Clown Punchers Syndicate	Posted - 2009.12.21 02:35:00 - [91] I like the idea, player controlled insurance should be the ONLY option. Originally by: F'nog Originally by: Stareatthesun No no no ... Polaris is where CCP keeps the death star that will destroy eve when the servers shut down. Thankfully I've got Interceptors trained to V. S
Allen Ramses Caldari Typo Corp	Posted - 2009.12.21 03:01:00 - [92] Wow, Bellum Eternus using a wall of text to QQ about something as a way to mask his hate for bears? What an original and exciting concept! Anyway, the only thing that needs to go is the 40% unconditional payout. The 2:1 payout (without the 40% on top of it) is more than acceptable. 'Nuff said. ____________ I'd make a forum signature that didn't suck, but I'm restricted by a character limit that does.
Destrous Light Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.21 03:16:00 - [93] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Once insurance is removed, then all mineral prices will reach a true market equilibrium because there is no artificial cap on what their price will be due to insurance payouts. What we'll see are less expensive ships, although the amount of ISK per loss will increase. Both of these are good things. Currently people fly the largest most powerful ship they can because it doesn't cost much more than the smaller versions. If insurance goes away then some of the smaller ships like T1 cruisers and BCs will increase in popularity due to better cost per performance. I'd just like to point out two things, if insurance creates a base price for minerals, then how is the insurance fraud industry possible at all? (hint: if that was actually the case, minerals would cost more than they do now) And second, haven't you noticed that flying those big powerful ships makes the game more fun? What makes you think removing the "average" players ability to fly those on a regular basis will increase the number of pvp pilots there are? I like the idea that there are "special" ships that give basically no insurance, they're more powerful or more specialized or just give you that all important epeen. But at the same time, an average pilot making little if any actual isk can still pvp basically whenver he wants thanks to insurance.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.12.21 03:35:00 - [94] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 21/12/2009 03:37:44 Whats the OP on about anyway? Apart from the fact that a single individual rarely has the option to turn "mined minerals" into "automobile", thats exactly how it works in the real world. Its actually a basic industrial concept that a finished product is worth more than the sum of its parts (including the worktime put into it) ... Now removing insurance coverage from stuff that gets destroyed by police (aka concord) might be a sound concept, as well as increasing premiums for people claiming 300 insurance contracts a day, but the basic idea of 100% insurance is sound (and works in the real world).
Taedrin Gallente The Green Cross DEFI4NT	Posted - 2009.12.21 03:39:00 - [95] Originally by: Megan Maynard I like the idea, player controlled insurance should be the ONLY option. Hexxx alt spotted. ---------- 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.
Governor LePetomane Rock Ridge Brokerage Solutions	Posted - 2009.12.21 04:25:00 - [96] Originally by: Bellum Eternus And everyone posting in this thread are just super smart, right? Right? This proposition and the condition, "Bellum Eternus has posted in thread" are mutually exclusive.
Professor Tarantula Hedion University	Posted - 2009.12.21 04:41:00 - [97] Ship insurance should work like car insurance does. Any damage you do to other ships while in hisec is reimbursed to them through your insurance policy, and your price for insurance goes up. Flying without any kind of insurance will make CONCORD keep impounding your ships. My deepest sympathies. Prof. Tarantula, Esq.
Stuart Price Caldari The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2009.12.21 04:47:00 - [98] Personally, I won't be happy until ALL Empire systems are basically lowsec, GCC is removed from 'actual' lowsec, stations have windows and a full sixty second redock timer and I can shoot actual beams of burning plasma from my eyes. I can see entirely why CCP wouldn't agree with my line of thinking though. While I'm on the wish bus can I have people whose characters are more than 3 months old be incapable of being in an npc corp? Force them into a 1 man corp of their very own if you have to CCP, cunningly titled, "This Character's Corporation". Oh yeah, and the insurance thing. SOME insurance is good, crazy levels of insurance is bad. Remove the ability to insure at platinum if you've lost a ship within 7 days. Job done. Putting the 'irate' into 'Pirate'
Ghoest	Posted - 2009.12.21 04:51:00 - [99] 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. The issue is insurance. It's a huge ISK faucet, and when exploited on an industrial scale it's capable of dumping literally hundreds of billions of raw ISK into the game every month. This is a bad thing. Carebears want insurance removed from suicide ganking payouts but they don't want the insurance removed from their own ships. I simply want insurance removed completely from every ship, at every level. Let new characters enjoy a three month grace period of insurance use and ban people for using 'insurance alts' for insurance fraud, just like you would if you were using alts as disposable hitmen and recycling them after their sec is ruined. Right now it's very easy to use a T1 fit Geddon as an example and have the total loss be around 4m ISK after insurance. I can kill just about any sort of smallish cruiser size ship solo in high sec with this, and I can kill BCs and BS with only a pair or maybe three or four. No ship is safe in highsec with some simple tactics and a little bit of coordination from a few friends. Ramp up the scale and you can kill freighters and Orcas quite easily. But my goal isn't to simply kill freighters. It's to make CCP sit up and take notice of the horribly broken game design that is insurance. Currently there are multiple players that are self destructing ships on a literally industrial scale, making tens of billions of raw ISK per month with 'insurance fraud'. This causes inflation and will in the long term hurt the economy. So I'm going to start using this mechanism to inflict the pain of financial loss upon as many players as possible so that they now have a direct and personal stake in seeing insurance removed from the game completely. Is this griefing? Absolutely not. I'm profiting from my actions, so it's piracy. Completely legit gameplay. Insurance simply facilitates my particular tactics, and once those are made obsolete by the removal of insurance, I'll revert to more traditional ways of doing things. The in game killings will continue on as wide a scale as possible until the game is changed for the better with the removal of insurance. Anyone interested in assisting me with this campaign of militant destruction can contact me in game. The more the merrier. Oh, and one more thing- jump freighter pilots, we're coming for you. LOL I quote the silly giant post. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.12.21 04:56:00 - [100] No insurance scheme more complex than 'it blows up and you get isk' would ever get introduced. Too much room for gaming the system. KISS If CCP has any plans for removing insurance or changing it, they'll never tell us until it's deployed due to market manipulation.
NEMESIS SIN FURY.	Posted - 2009.12.21 05:13:00 - [101] From this moment on, you and this south park episode will forever be tied together in my mind. Linkage Kiss <3
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2009.12.21 05:23:00 - [102] Originally by: Professor Tarantula Ship insurance should work like car insurance does. Any damage you do to other ships while in hisec is reimbursed to them through your insurance policy, and your price for insurance goes up. Flying without any kind of insurance will make CONCORD keep impounding your ships. EVE Online - now with real insurance action!. I like it. _____________________ R.I.P Old face
Par'Gellen Gallente Tres Hombres Psychiatric Hospital Uno Chica Loco	Posted - 2009.12.21 05:25:00 - [103] I agree with Bellum 150% about the insurance fraud -> inflation issue. I don't like his method of trying to get CCP to get off their asses and do something about it though... In the end it may be the only way to get through their thick skulls but it still seems rather harsh. In my opinion there should be no payouts on self-destruct, sentry gun, or CONCORD kills. The other types of kills are what insurance is in the game for in the first place. On a daily basis I find myself wondering how devs that can create a game as wonderful as Eve can get some aspects of it so completely and totally assbackward wrong. --- To err is human but it shouldn't be the company motto...
Saint Germain The Orthography Commandos	Posted - 2009.12.21 05:45:00 - [104] How about having the insurance company replace your ship instead of paying out cash? If they buy the nearest available replacement ship from the market then it even supports player industry. Text Editing Service
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2009.12.21 06:03:00 - [105] Originally by: Saint Germain How about having the insurance company replace your ship instead of paying out cash? If they buy the nearest available replacement ship from the market then it even supports player industry. There's no way to do it that's fair to the manufacturers and balanced in terms of isk injection. The system can't fairly know how much or little to pay for a ship everywhere in the universe _____________________ R.I.P Old face
Jitko	Posted - 2009.12.21 07:00:00 - [106] Because no one answered me directly, I take it my understanding was correct: insurance keeps ship prices stable, so it creates a price floor on minerals. Right?
Esercitare	Posted - 2009.12.21 07:03:00 - [107] eve economy doesnt count for anything \thread.
Kirsi Kirjasto	Posted - 2009.12.21 07:20:00 - [108] Actually the OP is missing the point. In my opinion, this is a fantastic situation. Its well known that wardec mechanics are kind of FUBAR, due to the relative simplicity of evading it through NPC corps or corp hopping. Strategic targets like haulers and Hulks are generally never going to be in a position to be attacked during any wardec, barring sheer incompetence. Aggressive economic hi-sec war is REALLY possible now - waged entirely by suicide ganking, especially with the new high-alpha artillery. 1. Pick out individual miners mining in Hulks - and blow them up with a single Arty-BS. 2. Give them 'the black spot' - and a ransom note for several hundred million. 3. After the grace period expires, if no ransom is paid, track them with address books and locator agents. 4. Blow them up again and again until they get the message. Eventually they either pay - or are forced to start mining in Retrievers/Ospreys again. 5. If a CEO threatens you with petitions - extend the threat to the ENTIRE corp, using a standing flag to quickly identify them, and increase the ransom five-fold. Ransoms from targeted miners/bearcorps more than pay for further punitive action against those that are defiant. Some of them whine that this is 'griefing' and actually petition us, and it makes us LOL. Complain to CCP = ransom request go away? Don't think so. All actions taken are within legal game mechanics, and we acknowledge that others are perfectly free to do the same to us. Advantages: - Targets can NOT escape by dropping corp. In fact, these individuals are singled out for 'special' attention. - No weekly wardec fee - Complete suprise - local chat is no longer effective radar. (no WT flags, alts avoid neg standing flags) - Targets end up 'always' having to be alert and afraid - they can't just 'wait out' the dec. Disadvantages: - expense of ships (though this is rather negligible now) - sec status grinding required to stay in hi-sec. - you collect dozens and dozens of 'kill rights' - which means you have to be alert, even if they are 'just miners' Blowing up random Hulks is fine - but when you start concentrating on a single player or group of players, forcing interaction with them becomes much more interesting - and profitable. After all, it takes 40-50 hours of hi-sec mining to pay for a rigged and fitted Hulk. Finding the miner takes only minutes - and blowing them up takes mere seconds.
Elena Laskova	Posted - 2009.12.21 07:35:00 - [109] Edited by: Elena Laskova on 21/12/2009 07:38:25 Originally by: Par'Gellen .... On a daily basis I find myself wondering how devs that can create a game as wonderful as Eve can get some aspects of it so completely and totally assbackward wrong. TLDR: the easy way deal with a complex problem is to hide from it: if you dont change anything, maybe your problems won't get worse. The "Law of Unintended Consequences" says that anything which is done to change a complex system will have unforseen counterproductive side-effects. And of course any system which allows for personal gain will be "gamed" by people. These issues can sometimes be addressed by active tuning of the system. MMO suppliers don't do this because they don't have to. Their customers are in denial, so they can ignore the facts too. I read somewhere that CCP has a serious professional economist on staff, so they probably know that EvE's economy is deeply flawed. But that's not the point: change means risk. And like EvE's players, they talk risk=reward, but avoid risk. The easy plan is always "change nothing and it won't get any worse". We'll know CCP wants to fix the economy if/when they do something about the T3 mess.
Eliza Dagon Amarr	Posted - 2009.12.21 07:36:00 - [110] 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. . Fail. And boring, too. Suck it up and quit being a pu$$y... Oh, and I get the impression you're too stupid to understand what you're talking about.
Clenis Wooden Wang Enterprises	Posted - 2009.12.21 07:51:00 - [111] Nerfing insurance is a stupid idea. You will see one change. People will no longer use bcs to suicide others. Cruisers and bses will still be viable because highsec idiots will still deadspace fit their ships, which is what makes it all viable. So, if your goal is hurt bc producers, you're on the right track. Otherwise, you're just an idiot.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.21 08:04:00 - [112] Originally by: Jitko Because no one answered me directly, I take it my understanding was correct: insurance keeps ship prices stable, so it creates a price floor on minerals. Right? Correct. Insurance payout minus the insurance cost fixes the minimum price for each ship. Anything lower than that and the ship can be insured and destroyed for a profit. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
LittleTerror Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.21 08:08:00 - [113] Op is a clueless moron... Removing insurance will only cause the market to collapse making prices plummet to a level which would eventually balance out to what people would be willing to pay/lose. It would ruin any chance of finding decent pvp because people would be too scare of losing their ships without insurance and as for titans and cap ships you could simple forget it.
Melor Rend	Posted - 2009.12.21 08:26:00 - [114] Your idea has merit but there is one main issue that I can't see how you'll get around it: security status. You can go out on your terrorist killing spree and murder a few people but very soon you'll be falshy red and have to go grind sec status for 3 weeks until you can re-enter highsec. Using recycled alts is out of the question (bannable offence) so you have about 3-5 kills per character until you have to go to 0.0 and grind sec status. Beside this small flaw your idea is good.
Elena Laskova	Posted - 2009.12.21 08:50:00 - [115] Edited by: Elena Laskova on 21/12/2009 08:51:32 So many PvPers crying over actually being exposed to ISK-risk. This thread is almost as good as the "Mothership" one. Rookies get told they are wimps if they care about their losses. It seems high-SP players get to squeal like little piglets if they might face significant losses. Face it whiners: the only good reason for insurance is to make PvP more attractive to rookies. And since the majority of EvE players view ganking and insulting helpless rookies as a solemn duty, it's pointless for that purpose. Non-rookies have to accept the costs of PvP (or get even better at running away from it). Remove insurance. The only people it actually helps are those who least deserve it. EvE's economy should be built on player's time (the only real resource in the game), not insurance. It will be better for taking away the fake floor on some ship prices.
LittleTerror Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.21 09:01:00 - [116] Edited by: LittleTerror on 21/12/2009 09:03:46 Because high end players understand the effects it would have, hell most of the rookies or non pvpers would probably quit the game upon losing a battleship without insurance If they had started this game without insurance it could have worked out but try and remove it now and it will be a disaster. obviously you don't understand supply and demand and have never lost a fully T2 fitted ship which last time I checked can bring a loss of well over 100mill and that's with insurance. More grinding isk = less pvp = boring game.
Elena Laskova	Posted - 2009.12.21 09:07:00 - [117] Edited by: Elena Laskova on 21/12/2009 09:14:56 Apart from rookies, who exactly will be hurt by removing insurance? And how? If you're really trying to say "high-SP players will be scared to PvP, therefore ship-manufacturers will be affected", please do it in clear text. Edit(after yours): lol - you did it. I already know high-SP players talk up a storm about ignoring losses, but fight in cheap ships, or require their Corp to replace losses. See my post above: The most notably insane thing about EvE's economy is that T2 and T3 ships are stupidly expensive. I'm staying away from T2 because it's "water under the bridge". But T3 represents a chance to fix the worst distortions in EvE's economy. Currently being passed up by CCP, because EvE's players are so frightened of change they won't let CCP make major changes.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.21 09:13:00 - [118] Originally by: Melor Rend Your idea has merit but there is one main issue that I can't see how you'll get around it: security status. You can go out on your terrorist killing spree and murder a few people but very soon you'll be falshy red and have to go grind sec status for 3 weeks until you can re-enter highsec. Using recycled alts is out of the question (bannable offence) so you have about 3-5 kills per character until you have to go to 0.0 and grind sec status. Beside this small flaw your idea is good. Lol. 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. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.12.21 09:23:00 - [119] 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.
Vysnaite Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.12.21 09:24:00 - [120] lol That is all... Not really. So your saying: I will suicide attack other ships that are insured, with my own insured ship? I'm sorry but this is an intended game mechanic called pvp. FYI Terrorism is largely a failcascade, but it gets a lot of attention.
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!
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive The Obsidian Legion	Posted - 2009.12.21 16:01:00 - [151] Originally by: Elena Laskova 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". I think I'm starting to like you. You have a snide, cynical nature that appeals to me. --Vel In the world of emoticons, I was colon capital d.
ovenproofjet Caldari Swords of Clarity	Posted - 2009.12.21 16:09:00 - [152] General Discussion is becoming more and more like COAD by the day.....
Amaron Ghant Caldari Icarus' Wings	Posted - 2009.12.21 16:15:00 - [153] If you blow up your ship - No Insurance. If Concorde blow up your ship - No insurance. This adresses the OPs concern about ships being blown up for insurance scams.
Denise Richard	Posted - 2009.12.21 16:19:00 - [154] Since openly commiting 180 geddons to mass carnage you have actually managed to suiside gank 3 hulks. Hulks are t2 ships without insurance anyway... How does this help your argument ? Open excuse to grief if you ask me, am I now to assume that your off ratting like a madman so you can kill another ? Op's a plank.
Turiel Demon Minmatar Celtic industries The AsyIum	Posted - 2009.12.21 16:30:00 - [155] I noted the increasing number of industrial-scale insurance fraud operations on SHC a couple of weeks ago, here's some of my OP and selected posts: Quote: Can you really make a lot of ISK from this? Battleships are the most efficient to perpetrate insurance fraud in. Undocking a new ship through to self destructing and redocking for the next ship takes about 3 minutes, if you're doing it with shuttles or dreadnoughts. Dreadnoughts however are cumbersome to produce in bulk, while shuttles don't give you any noticeable ISK... Battleships are just right. Here we finally come to what prompted me to make this hread. A little while ago I learned of a few people running businesses specifically for insurance fraud, he recently revealed its details. I won't copy it all, as you can find it all here; I found it is quite an interesting read. A short summary: Quote: In total I built [13600, he writes 1360 but its a typo, TD] Rokh's in November at an average price of 106.45M (including BPC cost) and an average sell price of 113.5M Quote: I accounted for 13,662 Abaddons created for someone else to turn into dust, in the last two months. Quote: There was no way I could pop all the ships my self (I did about 100) so I sold to contract mainly via SCC channel at 2M under insurance for both parties to make a good profit. Quote: to move all these minerals (200B units) would have required 2300 Freighter trips. [...] I used many courier contracts and specialist companies of which one stood out [RedFrog Freight service]. They handled 5-10B ISK contracts requiring 20-40 freighter loads in 24 hr periods easily. Those numbers are staggering, and become even more mind-blowing when you think about them more. Just those two people, using a few alts, produced 30 THOUSAND battleships in a month, they used about 300 BILLION units of tritanium... We saw the market fluctuations of Pyerite, but really all this construction barely caused a ripple. The really amazing number is this: ~ 27.000 battleships self-destructed at ~120m isk each, generates well over THREE TRILLION ISK A good 90% of that ended up with the miners, they got paid for the minerals, 8% ended up with the producers, and 2% ended up with the suiciders. This is a pure ISK faucet, minerals from a renewable source produced commodities which were destroyed, making the net mineral creation 0 but ISK creation 100% profit from essentially nothing. Invidualy these two guys kept 27000 x 8m profit per BS which is about 200 billion profit in total Originally by: TurielD Originally by: Tsaya where are you getting "tens of trillions" of isk from? if they are buying the minerals, the additional isk is very small, if you're talking about additional isk generated through mining all those minerals, then its fine since that's a huuuuuuuuuge period of time spent mining or did I miss something, long day today :( 2 or 3 accounts built 27.000 battleships for no isk; it only cost minerals. They then self destructed them at ~120m per ship. this comes to 3.240.000.000.000,- or 3,24 trillion isk generated by these two people. Yes, they paid the miners for the minerals but that isk doesn't disappear from the economy... it's just gone to the miners wallets who will use it for whatever. That 400 bil (its actually a bit less, firstly it's only about 8m profit per ship, not 15) is just the profit made after paying the miners, the other generated isk having gone to them. I'm saying its tens of trillions generated, because it's a safe bet that if two people did it publicly at least 10 (arbitrary number) did it privately. So lets say there's those 12 people doing this, they'll have generated 19,4 trillion... hence tens of trillions.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.21 16:52:00 - [156] Originally by: Turiel Demon I noted the increasing number of industrial-scale insurance fraud operations on SHC a couple of weeks ago, here's some of my OP and selected posts: […] So, in conclusion, miners are getting screwed and/or stupid. What else is new? 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
Banana Torres The Green Banana Corporation	Posted - 2009.12.21 17:06:00 - [157] Is this general discussion on the WoW forums? Use your f'cking brains before posting. 27,000 battleships in a month, how many BPs would that take? And how much minerals would it take? How much salvage would be generated? Methinks I would have noticed it in the markets.
Cassius Longinus Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2009.12.21 17:15:00 - [158] Originally by: Grez No insurance = less PVP. This is just not correct, no matter how often repeated. People who play the game to PVP will not stop just because ship values are juggled. They will simply re-evaluate PVP options. Remove insurance changes PVP, doesn't decrease it. Whatever, remove it, keep it, I can't see myself changing the way I spend my hours in the game.
Vysnaite Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.12.21 17:29:00 - [159] Originally by: Cassius Longinus Originally by: Grez No insurance = less PVP. This is just not correct, no matter how often repeated. People who play the game to PVP will not stop just because ship values are juggled. They will simply re-evaluate PVP options. Remove insurance changes PVP, doesn't decrease it. Whatever, remove it, keep it, I can't see myself changing the way I spend my hours in the game. lol Read the quote and what you replied. Your ignorance is unbelievable. Your experience is not everyone else experience. OVERALL there would be less pvp, because it includes hardcore pvp, casual, carebear etc. Whatever the form 0.0, low sec ganking, suicide in high sec, wars etc. these are forms of pvp that involve ship destruction. Remove a safety factor called insurance and the risk vs reward changes. Sure true pvp'ers will still continue, 0.0 will as well, but that does not represent the whole pie. Some players will be affected by this so much that they may choose to go in bigger gangs or pvp less or whatever the solution they come up with to balance the additional risk. Personally I think that the "basic insurance" (the lowest payout atm) is the only insurance option you should get.
Corduroy Rab The Executives IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.21 18:20:00 - [160] Originally by: Malcanis As a rather more dull-but-practical alternative, please support my insurance reform proposal. In short, base insurance on 90-95% of the normalised aggregate mineral sale price over the preceeding day (or week, if it's computationally expesive to calculate this, although I don't see why it should be). Buy/sell orders dont count, only actual mineral sales. So if the total mineral cost of a Raven is 100 million ISK, then the insurance value will be 95 million (with the premium also being modified on a pro-rata basis). In theory, someone could manipulate this system, but they'd have to spend fantastic amounts of ISK to do so, and their manipulations would be public and susceptible to interference. Interesting. What would you think of including some kinda of...oh lets call it depreciation mechanic? Where the insurance payout on a ship is reduced over the course of the insurance contract. Perhaps go so far as to only let an asset be insured once but extend the length of the contract and for a small SCC fee the beneficiary could be transferable. ---- Proper piracy starts at home.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.21 18:24:00 - [161] Originally by: Vysnaite Originally by: Cassius Longinus Originally by: Grez No insurance = less PVP. This is just not correct, no matter how often repeated. People who play the game to PVP will not stop just because ship values are juggled. They will simply re-evaluate PVP options. Remove insurance changes PVP, doesn't decrease it. Whatever, remove it, keep it, I can't see myself changing the way I spend my hours in the game. lol Read the quote and what you replied. Your ignorance is unbelievable. Your experience is not everyone else experience. OVERALL there would be less pvp, because it includes hardcore pvp, casual, carebear etc. Whatever the form 0.0, low sec ganking, suicide in high sec, wars etc. these are forms of pvp that involve ship destruction. Remove a safety factor called insurance and the risk vs reward changes. Sure true pvp'ers will still continue, 0.0 will as well, but that does not represent the whole pie. Some players will be affected by this so much that they may choose to go in bigger gangs or pvp less or whatever the solution they come up with to balance the additional risk. Personally I think that the "basic insurance" (the lowest payout atm) is the only insurance option you should get. Actually I think he is right and you are wrong. Overall there would be the same amount of PvP, just people will use cheaper ships - ones they can really afford to lose, rather than the more expensive ones which they can only afford to lose because of the insurance crutch. That would have the advantage of lowering the entry requirements for effective PvP. Insurance as it stands was a terrible change, making it way too cheap. Scrap it, or at least revert it to the much shorter insurance periods. Eve was far more interesting when losing a ship actually meant something. Without meaningful loss PvP becomes meaningless. アニメ漫画です
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.12.21 18:41:00 - [162] Originally by: Tippia Soà what is the problem people are trying to solve here? An absolutely huge ISK fountain.
Vysnaite Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.12.21 18:48:00 - [163] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Vysnaite Originally by: Cassius Longinus Originally by: Grez No insurance = less PVP. This is just not correct, no matter how often repeated. People who play the game to PVP will not stop just because ship values are juggled. They will simply re-evaluate PVP options. Remove insurance changes PVP, doesn't decrease it. Whatever, remove it, keep it, I can't see myself changing the way I spend my hours in the game. lol Read the quote and what you replied. Your ignorance is unbelievable. Your experience is not everyone else experience. OVERALL there would be less pvp, because it includes hardcore pvp, casual, carebear etc. Whatever the form 0.0, low sec ganking, suicide in high sec, wars etc. these are forms of pvp that involve ship destruction. Remove a safety factor called insurance and the risk vs reward changes. Sure true pvp'ers will still continue, 0.0 will as well, but that does not represent the whole pie. Some players will be affected by this so much that they may choose to go in bigger gangs or pvp less or whatever the solution they come up with to balance the additional risk. Personally I think that the "basic insurance" (the lowest payout atm) is the only insurance option you should get. Actually I think he is right and you are wrong. Overall there would be the same amount of PvP, just people will use cheaper ships - ones they can really afford to lose, rather than the more expensive ones which they can only afford to lose because of the insurance crutch. That would have the advantage of lowering the entry requirements for effective PvP. Insurance as it stands was a terrible change, making it way too cheap. Scrap it, or at least revert it to the much shorter insurance periods. Eve was far more interesting when losing a ship actually meant something. Without meaningful loss PvP becomes meaningless. Much like everything else we are just speculating on these forums. It's hard to know how things will turn out. I see your point with moving to cheaper ships, that is really stressing the rule "fly only what you can afford to lose". Yet none have actual proof to support their claims (neither do I). To speculate further - it would come down to the ones capability of making isk, to support the expensive hobby called pvp.
Grez Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings	Posted - 2009.12.21 19:02:00 - [164] Thank you Vysnaite, you took the words from my mouth. I myself vary in degrees of PVP, I go from casual to hardcore every so often - varies from year to year. However, on the whole, PVP will lessen if insurance is removed. I'll still PVP, but others wont. I have a feeling people will leave too. Again, stop trying to fix the hammer, by changing the nails. ---
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.12.21 19:03:00 - [165] easiest fix would be to have the server search eve for the cheapest Same type ship in the region, and give you 10% less every time. That or just reduce the amount of insurance a person gets. cut all insurance payouts by 15-25% somewhere around there.
Turiel Demon Minmatar Celtic industries The AsyIum	Posted - 2009.12.21 19:20:00 - [166] Originally by: Banana Torres Is this general discussion on the WoW forums? Use your f'cking brains before posting. 27,000 battleships in a month, how many BPs would that take? And how much minerals would it take? How much salvage would be generated? Methinks I would have noticed it in the markets. Feel free to click links and check the market before posting yourself A single alt using BPO's can make something like 10K bs per month. About 300b units of trit were used for those 27K BS, and the markets took it wthout any trouble, though many private contracts were used with mining corps. Pyerite on the other hand as you may have noticed jumped up quite considerably during the last month, take a look for yourself. It's safe to say not all these ships have been self-destructed yet, a single person can self-destruct only about 30 per hour at best.
SupaKudoRio	Posted - 2009.12.21 19:25:00 - [167] Removing insurance will only work if several other changes are made at the same time. - Module drops from NPCs removed - Drone refineables removed, replace with bounty - Cut mineral requirements and production time by several factors Put simply; prices will crash hard, people will switch to other professions. But they will also quickly bounce back as particularly industrious/trade loving people put the liquidated assets back onto the market at a price pretty close to current (and make ridiculous amount of isk for their efforts as a lot of things will default to buy orders - to avoid mass dissatisfaction at that though CCP should put a temporary freeze on buy orders, giving people a bit of time to choose how to proceed, but most will simply cancel or put them to <=1 isk). The lesser mineral reqs and improved production speed will mean much less people would be needed to meet the consumer demand, which means the industrious individuals can easily take up the slack. All in all, prices will be all over the place for a while, and may crash again, but they will more or less stabilize at a reasonable level around the people with the best nose for the market. [/stream of thought] I'm done now... On another note, how do you like your pods in the morning?
LittleTerror Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.21 20:11:00 - [168] Originally by: Malcanis 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. I think that actually happens already?
randomname4me	Posted - 2009.12.21 20:25:00 - [169] Edited by: randomname4me on 21/12/2009 20:32:55 Insurance should not be removed but it should be changed. I have always thought it should run a little more like a real company rather then a no questions asked ship replacement program. Real insurance companies look at a persons past history to decide on what they charge you for their service. The insurance in eve should do the same. If you are a safe pilot that never gets blown up then your insurance should cost the same or less then it does now but each time you get blown up your rates should change depending on why and how you got blown up. IE getting attacked and killed in high sec would result in only a small increase but attacking someone else and getting concorded is a large increase. The system could take security status of the system and pilots involved into account. There should also be a time factor to it so if a pvper hangs up his blasters for a few months his rates would go down. A system like that would allow new players and safe and\or smart players to benefit from insurance but would put a hurt on reckless players. Suicide gankers would lose the benefit of insurance but so would stupid carebears autopiloting 50 jumps with 20 billion in cargo. A smart alert carebear who is not likely do die anyway would get nice cheap insurance for that unexpected gank same for the PVPer that knows how to pick fight they can win. Edit: I am however in agreement that insurance should be removed from self destruct. What insurance company would pay you if you put a pipe bomb in your own car. EVE Online: Rated RRR- For Explicit Breakfast Piercing Bullets.
thetorsoboy Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.21 20:29:00 - [170] I'm a bit late to this topic, but I disagree. Although, I agree with taking out insurance for people that Self-Destruct, that makes sense. A lot of sense. I disagree with taking it out entirely though. I like insurance. Sure, I'm biased since I'm a new player. But it helps because when my ship gets destroyed, then I get some ISK to help get a new one. Besides, I go by the rule "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose". If I flew, say, a battleship, and didn't have insurance, I'd be screwed if it was destroyed. With insurance, I'd still be screwed, but I'd have money to buy some of it back or something. Take out insurance if you Self-Destruct and I think we'd be fine. Besides, you don't make a profit on it otherwise, because you pretty much always have equipment on your ship that costs a lot, too. You don't get insurance for that. -- My Blog: http://moobs.avempire.net/
Drunk Driver Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.12.21 20:46:00 - [171] Insurance payout for self destruct and crime.... Only in Eve. lol
Little Tigerlilly	Posted - 2009.12.21 21:09:00 - [172] Pretty interesting operation. It's not a lot different than selling ships on the market but your customer in this case pays a static fee and will buy an infinite amount. (the insurance company will pay you X isk no matter how many times you claim on your insurance policies). I wouldn't call this an exploit, it involves massive amounts of minerals, isk, and playing the game. In this case it turns out ot be more porfitable to build and destroy ships than build and sell them. Pretty comical... Stopping payments for self-destructs and concord related incidents seems like a good way to stop this practice.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.12.21 21:22:00 - [173] Originally by: LittleTerror Originally by: Malcanis 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. I think that actually happens already? You think wrong. Insurance has, as far as I know, always been the same base value for every ship. Certainly since I started playing in 2006.
Aristaeus Themis	Posted - 2009.12.21 21:34:00 - [174] This game is largely player driven. Remove insurance from the game. People will create corporations with the sole purpose of insurance. The potential is amazing. The risk doubly so. The reward... Incredible.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.21 22:00:00 - [175] Originally by: Celestal 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 ) Yes, you got me. I cower in the face of ships with real guns. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.21 22:19:00 - [176] I really don't understand all the hate towards removing insurance. To me it looks like the people against removing insurance are viewing it as a personal attack on them in that I'm trying to take something away from them personally, and that it will be unfair to them in particular. Why is that? Do they depend on insurance that much in order to continue to play Eve? Are they really that bad at the game? Fine, how about a compromise? Player driven insurance. It's simple. You make a contract, similar to how existing contracts are currently created with the contract system. You assemble a ship and then look at existing insurance contracts that are up for purchase on the market. Once you select one then the issuer has to approve it. The issuing person's ISK is put into escrow and then it sits there, along with your insurance payment. At the end of the contract term the issuer gets their ISK back, plus the insurance payment ISK. If the ship is repackaged or destroyed in any fashion then the insurer loses his ISK but keeps the payment as the contract pays out. The catch: everyone can see how many insurance contracts have been claimed by you, and how much was claimed and how frequently. This will determine whether or not a player will accept your request to be insured. Lose to many ships too frequently because of your own stupidity and guess what? You're no longer going to find anyone willing to insure you. SURPRISE BENEFIT- this isn't an ISK fountain. No ISK is created. This solution is completely fair and player driven. Frankly I see no downside to this design at all. Everyone gets what they want. The ONLY PLAYERS who don't want this are the ones who are so horrible at the game that they'll be rejected by the insurance providers within the first few months of the system going live because they lose so many ships. Basically those players who are too stupid to live and have only themselves to blame. They rely on the current insurance situation as a crutch and they don't want that taken away from them. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Kolatha	Posted - 2009.12.21 22:25:00 - [177] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Tippia So… what is the problem people are trying to solve here? An absolutely huge ISK fountain. An imaginary problem brought to you by a bunch of WoW bunnies who completely fail to comprehend the size of Eve's economy or player base. Most of Bellum and buddies whines about 'bears and isk fountains, including this current one, would be quite valid if Eve's population was no more than the 3 or 4 thousand of a typical WoW server. The rest of their whines are simply because they can't cope with the fact that most people don't want to play the game their way. Seriously, this particular scheme of insurance fraud as an income source has been around since before I started playing in 06. If it really was big enough to damage the economy it would have done so by now. If you want proof that it hasn't, then go back and take a look at the economic video from the last fan fest. One of the most interesting points made is that Eve's economy is robust and big enough that there is very very little the players can do to damage it. You need a huge co-ordinated push to cause anything more than a blip in the economy. I very much doubt there are enough people operating the insurance scheme for the economy to even notice if one day they all just stopped.
Zeredek	Posted - 2009.12.21 22:30:00 - [178] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Frankly I see no downside to this design at all. Everyone gets what they want. The ONLY PLAYERS who don't want this are the ones who are so horrible at the game that they'll be rejected by the insurance providers within the first few months of the system going live because they lose so many ships. Basically those players who are too stupid to live and have only themselves to blame. They rely on the current insurance situation as a crutch and they don't want that taken away from them. Yes because everyone should become carebears/gankbears, right? _________________ rawr
Bodega Cat	Posted - 2009.12.21 22:35:00 - [179] why is no one seeing how easy of a solution this really is... Ummm, just nerf Geddon's so they can't kill stuff before concord shows up! problem solved... nyuk nyuk
Turiel Demon Minmatar Celtic industries The AsyIum	Posted - 2009.12.21 22:38:00 - [180] Really, most of you don't have a clue what you're talking about. There's an incredible amount of ISK inflation combined with, paradoxically, price deflation. The reason for this is that there are far more ISK and minerals entering the economy, while there isn't very much actually leaving it, this makes the ISKpool grow, and on an individual level means that each person is simply much more wealthy than say two years ago in both ISK and assets. Bellum's stunt isn't going to do a damn thing about it with this, if anything he will make CCP remove insurance only for suicide/concord, which would just hide the problem a little bit - and make Highsec much safer because it would influence hte economics of suicide-ganking. Nethertheless I'm more than happy that he's going to be suiciding hulks and driving the price of Technetium up (Made a good 50b off of that already).
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.12.21 22:39:00 - [181] Originally by: Bellum Eternus I really don't understand all the hate towards removing insurance. To me it looks like the people against removing insurance are viewing it as a personal attack on them in that I'm trying to take something away from them personally, and that it will be unfair to them in particular. Why is that? Do they depend on insurance that much in order to continue to play Eve? Are they really that bad at the game? Some of us live in 0.0 mate. Losing ships there isn't always a question of being terrible. I know you dont care for fleet battles for sov and such, but there are thousands who do. Your proposal would be a terrible economic blow to 0.0 PvPers. Why dont you like my idea?
Selrid Miamarr Amarr	Posted - 2009.12.21 23:14:00 - [182] Player driven insurance is a horrible idea. The reason why NPC insurance exists is because players trying to underwrite insurance would face losses that would make EVE bank's ones look like petty cash. In the real world, insurance only works because payouts are very rare compared to the body of people paying, and even then insurance companies put large deductibles, turn away a lot of potential subscribers, and fiercely contest any claims with the hint of fraud. The only way it could work would be each individual corp footing the bill for ship replacement on a micro level, or players making ship saving accounts like the health saving accounts we have irl. I leave it to you all to debate the feasibility of that, but trying to reproduce NPC insurance simply wont work.
Joe Stalin Unknown-Entity Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.12.21 23:17:00 - [183] Edited by: Joe Stalin on 21/12/2009 23:20:40 Removing insurance will mean less players venture out into low sec and 0.0, which is the complete opposite outcome than what CCP wants out of Dominion. So not going to happen, and its pretty stupid to even suggest it Oh, and in 0.0 even the best and most experienced players get killed in fleet battles. When your fleet gets a bubble dropped on you suddenly, and 30 enemy ships all call you primary, you can't always be blamed for that kind of loss personally. Its hard enough when insurance only covers the cost of your rigs, let alone the ship and modules.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.21 23:50:00 - [184] Originally by: Malcanis Some of us live in 0.0 mate. Losing ships there isn't always a question of being terrible. I know you dont care for fleet battles for sov and such, but there are thousands who do. Your proposal would be a terrible economic blow to 0.0 PvPers. I support the removal of insurance for exactly that reason. アニメ漫画です
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.22 00:43:00 - [185] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Malcanis Some of us live in 0.0 mate. Losing ships there isn't always a question of being terrible. I know you dont care for fleet battles for sov and such, but there are thousands who do. Your proposal would be a terrible economic blow to 0.0 PvPers. I support the removal of insurance for exactly that reason. This. Malcanis- I respect your opinion and your outlook on the game, but isn't 'a terrible economic blow' the whole point? I completely agree that losing ships in 0.0 combat isn't always a reflection on the individual pilot, and my remark wasn't meant to imply such a thing with respect to 0.0 pilots in general. But that being said, it's not like one group of players won't be getting insurance if it is totally removed. Everyone is on an equal playing field. The point is to make combat hurt. The way to remove an enemy from their space is to cripple their ability to fight and support that fight and then you can force them out. Insurance delays this by reducing your success by half, or almost completely, every time you kill one of their ships. Shouldn't you be rewarded for being good? Shouldn't they suffer 100% of the loss that is posted on the killboard? Not just whatever modules they had fit? With no insurance the smarter and stronger opponent will win in a faster and more decisive fashion than the current massive blob/grind that attrition warfare has become today. Insurance is a crutch that simply isn't needed any more. On top of the other obvious reasons why it should be removed, plenty of 0.0 guys are currently flying around in uninsurable T2 ships and they seem to do just fine. So what will be so drastically different if T1 doesn't have insurance as well? So far I haven't heard one single solid reason to keep insurance in the game. The only remotely reasonable point is to allow new players to have insurance for a while, which I agreed was a valid reason and suggested that each new account be allowed access to insurance for it's first three months of existence. But even then people will use that to exploit insurance fraud. As for the people continuing to stick to the idea that it 'doesn't affect the economy', just look at the overall prices of best in game faction items, whos rarity remains fairly constant given the growing player population. There has been massive inflation in pricing for these items over the years and it will continue to grow. CCP is just ruining the relative value of ships with insurance by basically saying 'it's ok, we'll give most of it back if you lose it'. With mineral prices and the insurance payouts the way they are today, Eve is closer to WoW in space than ever before with virtually no real loss after the payout. Is this what people really want? -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.12.22 00:46:00 - [186] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Malcanis Some of us live in 0.0 mate. Losing ships there isn't always a question of being terrible. I know you dont care for fleet battles for sov and such, but there are thousands who do. Your proposal would be a terrible economic blow to 0.0 PvPers. I support the removal of insurance for exactly that reason. Same. Considering that BS mineral prices are already hitting the insurance price floor, removal of insurance would result in T1 ships costing less than now. A fully fitted T2 cruiser hull comes at about the same as fully fitted T1 battleship hulls without insurance. Since there are players who can afford to lose T2 cruisers regularly, there would also be those who could afford to lose T1 battleships at the same rate. Obviously there wouldn't be the same kind of RR BS fleets flying around all the time, but that's IMO a good thing. More diversity and price/effectiveness trade-offs would have to be made. With the new changes to 0.0 income there's really no excuse for residents to not have ISK enough to replace battleships. (Assuming the alliance allows them time to rat and stuff between fights ^_^)
Zeredek Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2009.12.22 00:48:00 - [187] Also... What would you going about suicide ganking people do? CCP doesn't really care what people do ingame... _________________ rawr
Wod Gallente Fallen Pandas	Posted - 2009.12.22 00:53:00 - [188] Quote: The point is to make combat hurt. The way to remove an enemy from their space is to cripple their ability to fight and support that fight and then you can force them out. Insurance delays this by reducing your success by half, or almost completely, every time you kill one of their ships. Shouldn't you be rewarded for being good? Shouldn't they suffer 100% of the loss that is posted on the killboard? Not just whatever modules they had fit? Well CCP wants you to play the game for as long as possible hint It's a game... - I like cookies
Destrous Light Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.22 03:35:00 - [189] Originally by: Bellum Eternus With no insurance the smarter and stronger opponent will win in a faster and more decisive fashion than the current massive blob/grind that attrition warfare has become today. Actually, removing insurance would only mean more blobs. who would risk any kind of "equal" engagement where they know they'll take losses, which means who would fly in small fleets when there's a chance they'll hit a blob? All you would do is ensure the bigger and more financially stable alliances have a stronger hold onto their space, and the weaker alliances or the ones that are only out for "good fights" slowly disappear since they can't afford to continue their ways.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.22 04:46:00 - [190] Originally by: Destrous Light Originally by: Bellum Eternus With no insurance the smarter and stronger opponent will win in a faster and more decisive fashion than the current massive blob/grind that attrition warfare has become today. Actually, removing insurance would only mean more blobs. who would risk any kind of "equal" engagement where they know they'll take losses, which means who would fly in small fleets when there's a chance they'll hit a blob? All you would do is ensure the bigger and more financially stable alliances have a stronger hold onto their space, and the weaker alliances or the ones that are only out for "good fights" slowly disappear since they can't afford to continue their ways. You seem to be missing something. Mostly, a point. Where is it? I never said there would be less blobbing, just a faster victory. As for small fleets- why would they cease to be? Most small fleets are T2 ships anyway, which again, has no insurance. Once again someone posts something completely irrelevant with no real structure behind their argument and no supporting evidence or solid reasoning. In short, you're talking out your ass. Nobody engages the enemy with the idea that they're going to lose. If they do, they're defeated already. And any Alliance who can't afford to absorb a billion ISK in damage (10x BS for instance) doesn't have any business owning space in the first place. Again, I've yet to see anyone make a solid argument for insurance. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Destrous Light Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.22 04:57:00 - [191] Originally by: Bellum Eternus And any Alliance who can't afford to absorb a billion ISK in damage (10x BS for instance) doesn't have any business owning space in the first place. I'm afraid it's you this time that read only a portion of my post and missed the actual point to it. The proof is in your statement quoted above. Your solution would only remove any semblance of ability for non-space holding entities to get into the business further increasing the gap between the "true 0.0 elite" and the new players. if this is your goal than so be it, but make sure you state that.
Kern Hotha Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.12.22 05:08:00 - [192] I hope that CCP eventually sees that insurance devalues an important aspect of this game: meaningful consequences resulting from combat.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.22 05:19:00 - [193] Originally by: Destrous Light Originally by: Bellum Eternus And any Alliance who can't afford to absorb a billion ISK in damage (10x BS for instance) doesn't have any business owning space in the first place. I'm afraid it's you this time that read only a portion of my post and missed the actual point to it. The proof is in your statement quoted above. Your solution would only remove any semblance of ability for non-space holding entities to get into the business further increasing the gap between the "true 0.0 elite" and the new players. if this is your goal than so be it, but make sure you state that. The bil is the new 100m. If you seriously think that 1b ISK is that much spread across multiple corp/alliance mates, then you have no idea what it takes to actually make a successful venture in 0.0. I'm well versed in the requirements needed to compete in 0.0, both financially and manpower wise. My goal isn't to further increase any 'gap', because there isn't one. The cost of entry to gain a foothold in 0.0 was low four years ago. It isn't anymore. And removing insurance isn't going to exacerbate that either. Again, you're grasping at straws trying to come up with any possible reason to support your argument and you're coming up empty. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Destrous Light Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.22 05:29:00 - [194] Originally by: Bellum Eternus The bil is the new 100m. And there's your problem, you've been amongst the "elite" group for so long that you've forgotten what it's like to actually earn your isk the hard way. Lesson is it all adds up, running missions/mining all day is not fun (anyone who says it is clearly has something wrong in their heads, we all know that) and the second you take out insurance you force more of that. Do you even run missions for 2-3 hours a day just so that you can lose that HAC the next day anymore? yes there are fleets of t2 ships being lost every day, the groups that do those events daily do so because they have the manufacturing background and the income to support it. It's not something a newer player has access to, and it's definately not something a newer alliance has access to, meaning if you take away their only strategy for at least trying to put together fleets to compete with those larger alliances. The only thing you're accomplishing is highlighting the massive hole in your logic, nothing more.
Rhaegor Stormborn H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.12.22 05:50:00 - [195] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Malcanis Some of us live in 0.0 mate. Losing ships there isn't always a question of being terrible. I know you dont care for fleet battles for sov and such, but there are thousands who do. Your proposal would be a terrible economic blow to 0.0 PvPers. I support the removal of insurance for exactly that reason. /signed
Shogun Archer Gallente	Posted - 2009.12.22 06:05:00 - [196] I totally agree with Bellum Eternus on this, and want to follow his exploits. What I have seen so far on the Death of Virtue KB's so far is only a few Hulks. Is there another KB I should follow? I have checked both GriefWatch and Battleclinic.
Junko Togawa Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.22 07:31:00 - [197] Originally by: Kern Hotha I hope that CCP eventually sees that insurance devalues an important aspect of this game: meaningful consequences resulting from combat. I see what you did there, Goon.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.22 07:39:00 - [198] Originally by: Shogun Archer I totally agree with Bellum Eternus on this, and want to follow his exploits. What I have seen so far on the Death of Virtue KB's so far is only a few Hulks. Is there another KB I should follow? I have checked both GriefWatch and Battleclinic. Haven't had much time to devote to killing anything atm. I'm sure the stats will improve in the future. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Lady Spank Amarr Sekret Kool Klubb	Posted - 2009.12.22 08:01:00 - [199] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Shogun Archer I totally agree with Bellum Eternus on this, and want to follow his exploits. What I have seen so far on the Death of Virtue KB's so far is only a few Hulks. Is there another KB I should follow? I have checked both GriefWatch and Battleclinic. Haven't had much time to devote to killing anything atm. I'm sure the stats will improve in the future. Too busy isk whoring amirite? Remove insurance for people with too much isk, insurance fraud and suicide ganks. Leave the poor plebs alone. ~
Transmit Failure	Posted - 2009.12.22 08:19:00 - [200] Edited by: Transmit Failure on 22/12/2009 08:23:29 So if I'm reading this right, the problem is really self-correcting. As soon as ship prices drop below the insurance payout less insurance cost, people will buy ships by the dozens and blow them up and collect the difference. The increased demand will bid prices of ships up to the point where its no longer profitable to do this. I don't know what the problem is to be honest. Inflation is probably going to happen in Eve unless they actually make minerals a scarce resource. This will never, ever happen. The best they can do is make it harder to mine resources by throwing them in low-sec or getting rid of belts and making miners scan down places to mine that are guarded by big rats or something. I think they were considering that a few years ago. I was sort of excited about it, not sure where that idea went. To me that seems like a much more effective way to combat inflation in eve. Aside from that, I don't really see inflation as a huge problem in Eve atm anyway. The only thing that's growing in Eve is wallets. People have a lot more in their wallets than before, but they aren't spending the same percentage of it like they did three or four years ago.
Herzog Wolfhammer Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.12.22 08:35:00 - [201] A little side note here about insurance for corporations and SOV warfare. It might be more fitting for ships to be ensured not individually but through and insurance bond of the corporation. Thus the corporation pays for fleet insurance. This would make things easy on newer pilots who find the cost of losing ships in 0.0 a bit too much.
Windjammer Gallente	Posted - 2009.12.22 09:09:00 - [202] Dear Mr. Eternus, Wow. You must be really powerful and a great leader. You're actually taking on CCP itself. I'm awed. Seriously. You are going to force CCP to change EVE and they're the ones who have ultimate control over what occurs in EVE. CCP doesn't stand a chance. They'll never think to do something impossible like eliminate insurance payouts for criminal activity (i.e. anything which results in Concord blowing you up) and/or self destructs....or anything else which crosses their minds to cause you to fail. No, they'd never do that. Not when faced with your overwhelming might and numbers. Knock yourself out, Bellum. The important thing is that you have fun doing it. I'm sure EVE will be on its knees inside a month. Nice troll. I can see you put a lot of effort into it and it's generated a lot of posts. Well done. Regards, Windjammer
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.12.22 10:10:00 - [203] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Malcanis Some of us live in 0.0 mate. Losing ships there isn't always a question of being terrible. I know you dont care for fleet battles for sov and such, but there are thousands who do. Your proposal would be a terrible economic blow to 0.0 PvPers. I support the removal of insurance for exactly that reason. Well I suppose 0.0 still has economic parity with hi-sec on a few things, and that we might as well remove those anomalies (see what I did thar?) and outright declare that hi-sec is where you make ISK and 0.0 is where you spend it.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.12.22 10:17:00 - [204] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Destrous Light Originally by: Bellum Eternus And any Alliance who can't afford to absorb a billion ISK in damage (10x BS for instance) doesn't have any business owning space in the first place. I'm afraid it's you this time that read only a portion of my post and missed the actual point to it. The proof is in your statement quoted above. Your solution would only remove any semblance of ability for non-space holding entities to get into the business further increasing the gap between the "true 0.0 elite" and the new players. if this is your goal than so be it, but make sure you state that. The bil is the new 100m. If you seriously think that 1b ISK is that much spread across multiple corp/alliance mates, then you have no idea what it takes to actually make a successful venture in 0.0. I'm well versed in the requirements needed to compete in 0.0, both financially and manpower wise. My goal isn't to further increase any 'gap', because there isn't one. The cost of entry to gain a foothold in 0.0 was low four years ago. It isn't anymore. And removing insurance isn't going to exacerbate that either. Again, you're grasping at straws trying to come up with any possible reason to support your argument and you're coming up empty. That's the biggest load of ignorant bull**** I've ever seen you write. Seriously, shut up about things you dont know about. Maybe the for the carebear alliances who can plex 22/7 & spend 1 hour formed up in a "defence gang" hiding in a POS "100mil is the new 1bill", but for actual fighting corps, 100 mill is still very much the old 100 mill. But perhaps you want to see 0.0 composed of nothing but plexing alliances, I dont know. You tell me? Because I can tell you for sure that for the great majority of the people in my alliance spending a billion ISK is a very serious thing. Do try and remember that not every 0.0 PvPer is the beneficiary of months of sitting on R64s.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.22 10:39:00 - [205] Originally by: Malcanis That's the biggest load of ignorant bull**** I've ever seen you write. Seriously, shut up about things you dont know about. Maybe the for the carebear alliances who can plex 22/7 & spend 1 hour formed up in a "defence gang" hiding in a POS "100mil is the new 1bill", but for actual fighting corps, 100 mill is still very much the old 100 mill. But perhaps you want to see 0.0 composed of nothing but plexing alliances, I dont know. You tell me? Because I can tell you for sure that for the great majority of the people in my alliance spending a billion ISK is a very serious thing. Do try and remember that not every 0.0 PvPer is the beneficiary of months of sitting on R64s. All the 0.0 peeps that I rub elbows with can replace BS losses two and three deep without worrying about it. And I'm not just talking a few people, but dozens, if not hundreds, across many different alliances of many different scales and differing compositions. T2 ships are the same way. The players I know don't have just one BS and one HAC, they have multiple ships in each class, and usually multiple ships of their main types. And this is just for the individual players. Corp insured and issued ships are provided on top of their personal ships. You make it sound like everyone is running around in rags in T1 fit T1 cruisers most of the time. Has 0.0 really become that poor? Can the PVP alliances not make enough ISK PVPing that they can't afford their losses without resorting to missioning in highsec? I'd seriously like to know, as my current first hand personal experiences seem to be vastly different from yours. I can recall being a complete noob way back in the day in LFC over three years ago and having maybe 5-8m SP and being able to afford multiple BS as well as fit them, even when a full rack of 425mm T2 railguns cost more than the Megathron that they were fit to. And hell, the Megas back then cost more ISK than the platinum insurance payout did. Imagine that. I guess that's partly why I just don't see how todays players have it so hard. ISK is easier than ever to make, modules and ships are cheaper than ever to buy and still people can't seem to afford to PVP? It doesn't add up. In all seriousness, I'd like you to give me your viewpoint on the economics of what you consider the average 0.0 PVPer's bank account, ships available on hand and how they usually generate income for their ships and modules. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Jagga Spikes Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.12.22 10:54:00 - [206] i'd like to know what you consider average isk/hour gained and hours/day played. perhaps it would put things into perspective?
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.12.22 11:02:00 - [207] I have just over a billion ISK across my accounts. I have 3 fitted & rigged BS, largely because my name starts with an M and I dont get primaried a lot. There are a few people in my corp who are far richer than me. They care about making ISK. Most of us dont; I'm considered rather well off, if not "rich" by corp standards. For people who are interested in making ISK, replacing a HAC or an uninsured BS is trivial. For alliances with substantial moongoo incomes, replacing cap losses is trivial. Think about the consequences of wht you are proposing. Is the political map not static enough for you? Remind, me, what dont you like about dynamic insurance at around 85-95% of ship mineral value?
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.22 11:12:00 - [208] Originally by: Jagga Spikes i'd like to know what you consider average isk/hour gained and hours/day played. perhaps it would put things into perspective? I don't grind ISK like most players and don't play a lot like I think some people do, so I'd have to go off of other people's figures. I've heard 20m ISK/hour bandied about by all the mission runner types and the 0.0 guys arguing back and forth about ratting income balance etc. If that's true, and a dedicated 0.0 guy spends two hours or so five days a week ratting then that's 200m/week and 800m/mo doing some brain dead afkish ratting/missioning. You know, the stuff you can do while watching TV at the same time. Or doing your homework, or real work, or whatever. Do I consider this average? No. I'm just demonstrating how easy it is to make ISK. Personally I generate ISK through piracy, so it's a little harder to judge just how much ISK/hour I generate as it comes in big spikes of ISK and I don't really have a fixed schedule of playtime as I'm mostly AFK and usually show up when people need the help for big scores. Either that or I specifically hunt a player down and ransom them, in which case I'm making quite a bit of ISK per target and generally doesn't require that much time. Example: commit three hours to hunt down and ransom a Kronos, ransom payment is 1.1b ISK, and I did it solo, so I don't have to split it. Presto, my accounts are paid for for the month, with ISK left over. And that's just one of the many ransoms per month that I get. Killboards are nice, but they never demonstrate just how successful pirates really are because there is no official way to record ransoms in the game or any way to verify it. For every battleship or carrier kill you see, there could be multiple ransoms, ejections and so on. 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. I've lost a lot of ships, a lot of very expensive ships, to very stupid reasons on my part, I'll be the first to admit. But I don't fly what I can't afford to lose in the first place. Maybe people are flying way way beyond their means? -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.22 11:20:00 - [209] Originally by: Malcanis I have just over a billion ISK across my accounts. I have 3 fitted & rigged BS, largely because my name starts with an M and I dont get primaried a lot. There are a few people in my corp who are far richer than me. They care about making ISK. Most of us dont; I'm considered rather well off, if not "rich" by corp standards. For people who are interested in making ISK, replacing a HAC or an uninsured BS is trivial. For alliances with substantial moongoo incomes, replacing cap losses is trivial. Think about the consequences of wht you are proposing. Is the political map not static enough for you? Remind, me, what dont you like about dynamic insurance at around 85-95% of ship mineral value? Because when I kill someone's ship, I want them to LOSE THE VALUE OF THAT SHIP. Not just what they had fitted on it. Or in the case of a T1 fit BS, actually make money on the LOSS FFS. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.22 11:26:00 - [210] It still seems to me like the main issue here is that miners have no business sense. 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
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
Forge Lag Jita Lag Preservation Fund	Posted - 2009.12.22 18:35:00 - [241] Yeah it is kinda funny that communist gestures end up getting against whom they were ment to protect in the first place - here insurance makes ships considerably less affordable for new players while not really helping covering loses. It is BC, BS and capital pilots who profit from insurance most. Unfortunately completely removing insurance would obsolete half or more of BSs. Sure, budget minded people like me would hop into BB and be fine as always.
Bicx	Posted - 2009.12.22 18:36:00 - [242] Edited by: Bicx on 22/12/2009 18:40:16 1) Insurance is removed 2) Ship and mod prices go down a little, but not much due to still-high mineral prices. "Power sellers" use their ability to mass produce ships at extremely slim profit margins, pushing out smaller manufacturers who see no way to compete and make any considerable ISK (think Wal-mart vs the vegetable stand) 3) Fewer and fewer ships are destroyed due to inability to commit "fraud" and due to increased desire to stay in one piece :) 4) The market is flooded with minerals, and supply exceeds demand. Mineral prices begin plummeting. Miners start crying. 5) The manufacturing newbies think they can make a comeback, but their sucky BPOs and limited production capability still don't allow them to compete with more advanced manufacturers because there is no price floor. 6) The mineral market begins to adjust to demand after players find that they can make much more ISK doing something else like running lvl IV missions, begin trading in other goods, or just quit playing as much. It's not like mining is that fun and exciting in itself. It's a means to an end. 7) With supply dropping to meet the decrease in demand, mineral prices slowly begin to increase. 8) The mineral supply and demand reaches an equilibrium, and the result is that mining is no longer a viable career for some, just like in the real world. Who wins? Experienced, well-skilled manufacturers who can survive the removal of a market floor, as well as most non-industrial players who now pay lower prices. Who loses? Miners, and small manufacturers who need a price floor to compete (meaning only material costs determine the majority of profit margins). Sure, ships may now be more affordable for them, but it all depends on how much the market changes. It also depends on whether or not miners set their own price floor. Personally I think at some point, miners just won't sell any lower, or enough miners leave the market to allow those with market power to set a floor. Anyway, that's my guess. I could be overlooking something. Either way, I don't think it's going to have that significant of an effect. I don't think the insurance system is being taken advantage of as much as some believe.
Destrous Light Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.22 18:37:00 - [243] Originally by: Tippia 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 You assume the average miner also has the capabilities to manufacture with the appropriate skills that make insurance fraud possible. Odds are that's not the case for the "average player" trying to make a living in high sec.
Ryusoath Orillian Minmatar INDUSTIENCE	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:09:00 - [244] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Because when I kill someone's ship, I want them to LOSE THE VALUE OF THAT SHIP. Not just what they had fitted on it. Or in the case of a T1 fit BS, actually make money on the LOSS FFS. and there it is. i knew you'd say it if waited. this is a ****ing game. do you understand ? A GAME. its supposed to be fun.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:28:00 - [245] Originally by: Ryusoath Orillian Originally by: Bellum Eternus Because when I kill someone's ship, I want them to LOSE THE VALUE OF THAT SHIP. Not just what they had fitted on it. Or in the case of a T1 fit BS, actually make money on the LOSS FFS. and there it is. i knew you'd say it if waited. this is a ****ing game. do you understand ? A GAME. its supposed to be fun. Chess is a fun game, but no-one wins if you get your peices back when they are captured. アニメ漫画です
Jagga Spikes Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:32:00 - [246] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Ryusoath Orillian Originally by: Bellum Eternus Because when I kill someone's ship, I want them to LOSE THE VALUE OF THAT SHIP. Not just what they had fitted on it. Or in the case of a T1 fit BS, actually make money on the LOSS FFS. and there it is. i knew you'd say it if waited. this is a ****ing game. do you understand ? A GAME. its supposed to be fun. Chess is a fun game, but no-one wins if you get your peices back when they are captured. riiight. your have to bring your own pieces, and if you lose your opponent breaks them into smithereens. then you have to work for hours for new set before you can play again. /sarcasm off
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Undivided	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:42:00 - [247] Quote: riiight. your have to bring your own pieces, and if you lose your opponent breaks them into smithereens. then you have to work for hours for new set before you can play again. /sarcasm off If you're dumb and dump all your ISK into one ship then yes, that's true.
davet517 Raata Invicti Undivided	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:45:00 - [248] The problem is self-balancing. Insurance serves as a base level price support for miners. If things (battleships mostly) get too cheap, people start blowing them up for the insurance until they get more expensive again. For a long time the price of shuttles (which was fixed) supported tritanium prices. That was changed a while back. Anything that you are likely to do will only help the economy rebalance itself, unless you start mining in high-sec and building battleships that you sell as if the mins you mined were "free", then you'll be contributing to the underlying reason that some battleships are selling for less than insurance payout. Sounds to me like you just want to do some suicide ganking, and you're looking for a way to justify it in the name of "fixing" the game. If role-playing the crusading terrorist is fun for you, cool, but it will neither have much of an impact on the economy itself nor will it put any pressure at all on CCP to change the game in the way you have in mind. If too many people follow your lead, they'll just make it harder and more expensive to suicide gank. ---------------- We're recruiting quality players. Check us out.
Weredel	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:47:00 - [249] Successful troll is successful...
Transmit Failure	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:49:00 - [250] Originally by: Jagga Spikes 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 No idea if I'm just not explaining myself adequately or you're just not getting it. For those that maximize utility when playing the game by maximizing their assets, the effective price is zero. For those that put a fun premium on certain activities, blowing up ships to collect insurance is actually a losing proposition to them, so the worth of their ships is NOT zero. I'm also assuming that you know demand curves are downward sloping so that when the price for all ships is no longer zero, there simply won't be as much output of t1 ships, not that no ships at all will be supplied and demanded in the market. A person may demand 10,000 ships if the price is zero, but demand 3 if the price is 10 million ISK. In this way there are still commodities on the market and the market will not collapse.* Minerals will still be worth something because the price of ships will still not be negative or zero. As to the other person that responded to me, I have no better way to explain the differences between what I said and what you said that I said, so I shan't comment any further.
Andrea Griffin	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:05:00 - [251] Removal of insurance from the game would be interesting. It would make losing a larger ship more meaningful. If losing battlecruisers and battleships becomes an actual loss, then we might see more people in smaller ships. It would be interesting to see what would happen with insurance removed... could even have an in-game reason for it. Due to widespread insurance fraud, Eve's insurance company has been forced into bankruptcy and has had to fold. Make the game insurance-free for a month or two, then introduce a revamped insurance system with a new company.
Rhanna Khurin Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:11:00 - [252] Do not have to remove insurance, merely remove it from self destruct and being concordokkened which is realistic.
Guttripper Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:15:00 - [253] There needs to be a popcorn eating emote, since this is one of the better threads I have read in a while. Seriously.
Rhanna Khurin Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:20:00 - [254] Originally by: Guttripper There needs to be a popcorn eating emote, since this is one of the better threads I have read in a while. Seriously. Maybe not an emote, but there sure is a gif
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:30:00 - [255] 25% insurance reduction will be fine imo posting in orange make you look like a moderator -fact
Zeredek Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:32:00 - [256] Insurance is not broken, it doesn't need to be fix'd _________________ rawr
Alt0101	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:53:00 - [257] Actually the insurance system works as a huge machine to "refine" ore into ISK. you can mine ore, refine it into minerals, manufacture a ship, blow it up and collect the cash... Rinse and repeat. Hell, CCP should make Roids to yield ISK straight away for the sake of time saving! Now seriously, the destruction of commodities should be a sink of ISK not a fountain..
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.22 21:13:00 - [258] Edited by: Tippia on 22/12/2009 21:17:02 Originally by: Transmit Failure As to the other person that responded to me, I have no better way to explain the differences between what I said and what you said that I said, so I shan't comment any further. I'm saying that the costs won't change; you're saying that no, the costs won't change… If you can't explain the "no", then perhaps it shouldn't be there. Originally by: Rhanna Khurin Do not have to remove insurance, merely remove it from self destruct and being concordokkened which is realistic. Realism isn't particularly relevant – it's a control mechanism for the economy, not a business. In addition, in those two cases in particular, it wouldn't really serve a good purpose. Originally by: Alt0101 Now seriously, the destruction of commodities should be a sink of ISK not a fountain.. It's already an item sink. Why should it be an ISK sink as well? 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
Sean Faust Gallente Swarm of Angry Bees	Posted - 2009.12.22 21:35:00 - [259] Edited by: Sean Faust on 22/12/2009 21:35:28 I dislike the idea of Insurance but not for the same reasons as you, Bellum. You see, I myself love flying T2 ships. I love my HACs and my Recons. But I can't bring them on alliance ops because it's all about fighting "cost effectively" which means BS gangs or drake armies because theyre "insurable" and thats the only thing that makes them more cost effective than ships such as HACs and Command Ships. If Insurance is nerfed or removed completely then I think we will see a lot more players running around in T2 ships which will take the PVP aspect of the game to a whole new level. Right now, the concept of insurance and how it currently works is essentially an anchor, making it so that even the most seasoned PVP veterans would rather bring a "throwaway" T1 ship to many gangs than T2. Take away that anchor and everyone will be upping their PVP game by bringing out the "good" ships a lot more often. And that isn't bad.
Dr Cron Northern Lights Number 5 Hydroponic Zone	Posted - 2009.12.22 22:05:00 - [260] Not Supported. Logic Fail. Stop making problems where there aren't any. The economy is perfectly suited to deal with this issue. If it aint broke... dont fix it. And stop attention whoring.
Alt0101	Posted - 2009.12.22 22:09:00 - [261] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Alt0101 Now seriously, the destruction of commodities should be a sink of ISK not a fountain.. It's already an item sink. Why should it be an ISK sink as well? Because an item is nothing but a bunch of minerals. Minerals spawn everyday in the form of roids and T1 loot. So, if you have a system to change minerals (ships/mods) into ISk (insurance payout) you have a daily spawn of ISK into the economy which create inflation.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.22 22:15:00 - [262] Originally by: Alt0101 Originally by: Tippia It's already an item sink. Why should it be an ISK sink as well? Because an item is nothing but a bunch of minerals. Minerals spawn everyday in the form of roids and T1 loot. So, if you have a system to change minerals (ships/mods) into ISk (insurance payout) you have a daily spawn of ISK into the economy which create inflation. So you're advocating that we remove missions and bounties and commodities, I take it? 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
Alt0101	Posted - 2009.12.22 23:14:00 - [263] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Alt0101 Originally by: Tippia It's already an item sink. Why should it be an ISK sink as well? Because an item is nothing but a bunch of minerals. Minerals spawn everyday in the form of roids and T1 loot. So, if you have a system to change minerals (ships/mods) into ISk (insurance payout) you have a daily spawn of ISK into the economy which create inflation. So you're advocating that we remove missions and bounties and commodities, I take it? No, these are actually the fountains of Isk into the system and should be like that ( we need Isk don't we?) but also should be some sort of isk sink to make the system a bit more "steady" A good way to get rid of the extra isk that come with the bounties and mission rewards by the mission runners/ratters/explorers AND the extra minerals that spawn in the roids and get mined by miners is destroying the final product made by manufactures by the pvp guys. That's what I think is a "steady" system in where everybody plays a role.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.22 23:32:00 - [264] Originally by: Selrid Miamarr 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. I don't understand what is so difficult about this- The peak cost of ships will decrease once insurance is removed. Oversupply? Every ship priced under the insurance payout break even point is instantly bought and insured and self destructed. Once all those same ships are built but not destroyed due to insurance fraud there is your massive oversupply. Industrialists and miners will continue to overproduce if insurance goes away, simply because they can do it relatively AFK. It's the stuff that costs hard man-hours that remains expensive (see T3). Insurance subsidizes mineral prices, otherwise minerals would be driven into the dirt. So be it. Eventually they'll get a clue. And as for cheaper ships, but more 'real loss': DUH. That's the WHOLE POINT. The ships will cost less relative to other existing ships (T2) but now it'll actually cost you something when you lose one instead of MAKING ISK on the loss. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.22 23:43:00 - [265] Originally by: Alt0101 No, these are actually the fountains of Isk into the system and should be like that ( we need Isk don't we?) Yes we do, so why should the ISK faucet that is insurance be removed and not those when they all do the same thing? Quote: but also should be some sort of isk sink to make the system a bit more "steady" So the ones that exist are not enough? Quote: That's what I think is a "steady" system in where everybody plays a role. Everyone already do. PvE in general creates ISK and items (rewards, bounties, loot, salvage). Running missions, in particular, destroy ISK and convert items (LP store). PvP combat creates ISK and destroy or convert items (insurance, ammo, ship→salvage). Industry create or convert items and destroy ISK (mining, manufacturing). Traders destroy ISK (fees and taxes). …in the ciiiiiiircle of EVE… 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
Kyra Felann Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies	Posted - 2009.12.23 00:21:00 - [266] Originally by: Ryusoath Orillian Originally by: Bellum Eternus Because when I kill someone's ship, I want them to LOSE THE VALUE OF THAT SHIP. Not just what they had fitted on it. Or in the case of a T1 fit BS, actually make money on the LOSS FFS. and there it is. i knew you'd say it if waited. this is a **ing game. do you understand ? A GAME. its supposed to be fun. This is probably the dumbest thing said in this thread. Many games, including EVE are competitive**. If you want a game where everyone wins, try WoW or Hello Kitty Online. Or if you want riskless, casual PvP, try just about any other MMO out there, or even better, a online FPS.
Kyra Felann Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies	Posted - 2009.12.23 00:42:00 - [267] Originally by: Rhanna Khurin Do not have to remove insurance, merely remove it from self destruct and being concordokkened which is realistic. ding ding We have a winner. It would fix the problems with insurance, plus it'd be more realistic and immersive. Sounds like a double-win to me. Maybe even make it where the more risky behavior you engage in, the more you start to pay for insurance.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.23 01:12:00 - [268] Originally by: Kyra Felann Originally by: Rhanna Khurin Do not have to remove insurance, merely remove it from self destruct and being concordokkened which is realistic. ding ding We have a winner. It would fix the problems with insurance, plus it'd be more realistic and immersive. Sounds like a double-win to me. Maybe even make it where the more risky behavior you engage in, the more you start to pay for insurance. ding ding No we don't. Not only would this not stop insurance fraud, but one of my corpmates is currently grinding standings on a factional warfare alt SPECIFICALLY to kill the insured ships. This would get around your 'no insurance for concorded and self destructed ships', but in addition to that he's GAINING LP for every ship destroyed with this method. Hmm, let's see here: FW LP, Salvage and insurance payout for self destructing a ship. The total profit is huge when you do it right. Insurance is bad mmkay? Get rid of it. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
FunzzeR Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.23 01:37:00 - [269] Edited by: FunzzeR on 23/12/2009 01:37:33 Originally by: Kyra Felann Originally by: Rhanna Khurin Do not have to remove insurance, merely remove it from self destruct and being concordokkened which is realistic. ding ding We have a winner. It would fix the problems with insurance, plus it'd be more realistic and immersive. Sounds like a double-win to me. Maybe even make it where the more risky behavior you engage in, the more you start to pay for insurance. That fixes nothing, as a astute insurance frauder like myself will shift over to destroying battleships with a pos guns or by shooting them with another ship. Either way I can continue on my merry way and collect my shiny insurance isk. Sorry but the notion that removing insurance for concord and self destruct is tired, fail argument that solves really nothing. PRAISE THE SCOTTISH FOLD!!
Forge Lag Jita Lag Preservation Fund	Posted - 2009.12.23 01:56:00 - [270] It is really not about people getting rich any more. It is about lapse of player driven economy, lasting for months now. CCP can go back to NPC sold ships and NPC bought minerals, it would hardly get any worse than it is now. Mineral prices are artificially inflated, market tries to drive them down but they won't budge as they are bought by central authority at fixed prices and to that end new money are being printed en masse. You have to be blind to not see this Absurdistan. Sure it can kinda work, Monopoly real estate market kinda works too.
Obsidian Hawk Free Galactic Enterprises FREGE	Posted - 2009.12.23 02:15:00 - [271] And now for the most intelligent post in this thread. Ahem....... Bellum, shut up and quit your whining, trolling, just stop posting. /thread
LeeIaa	Posted - 2009.12.23 02:45:00 - [272] wasn't this already done?
Typhado3 Minmatar	Posted - 2009.12.23 04:04:00 - [273] this doesn't sound like it's gonna work. Your plan is to go grief someone then hope that it will make them support your proposals? Most likely these ppl aren't gonna care what you say (u did just gank them), you may increase the support for removing insurance from concord kills but considering jihadswarm I don't imagine this being anymore than a drop in the pond in the current problem. Really all your doing is exploiting a crap game mechanic and saying your doing it for good and space honor rather than trying. If you wanted to change it you might wanna try coming up with a good solution or supporting a thread or get CSM to help. ------------------------------
Selrid Miamarr Amarr	Posted - 2009.12.23 05:45:00 - [274] Quote: I don't understand what is so difficult about this- The peak cost of ships will decrease once insurance is removed. Oversupply? Every ship priced under the insurance payout break even point is instantly bought and insured and self destructed. Once all those same ships are built but not destroyed due to insurance fraud there is your massive oversupply. Industrialists and miners will continue to overproduce if insurance goes away, simply because they can do it relatively AFK. It's the stuff that costs hard man-hours that remains expensive (see T3). Insurance subsidizes mineral prices, otherwise minerals would be driven into the dirt. So be it. Eventually they'll get a clue. And as for cheaper ships, but more 'real loss': DUH. That's the WHOLE POINT. The ships will cost less relative to other existing ships (T2) but now it'll actually cost you something when you lose one instead of MAKING ISK on the loss. You are only looking at this through insurance fraud blinders though. Not everyone loses rigless, module-less ships to do so for a profit. If your point is to fix fraud, fix the fraud. What you are doing instead is getting rid of something that works fine when not abused, and really doesn't have that much of an impact. Miners and industrialists are not stupid. They keenly gauge profit and loss, and will not continue to make things half-afk when its obvious its not worth the time. Once we see oversupply, from both production and demand, the market will correct yeah. But it may correct to the detriment of us all, even with insurance fraud gone. As for losses hurting, isn't it hard enough to entice us carebears to put themselves in situations to lose as it is without increasing the loss? People can always just rat or mission you know, and the only loss then is from ninja salvagers. You have to be very careful about increasing risk.
Mrs Thaiberian	Posted - 2009.12.23 08:30:00 - [275] Edited by: Mrs Thaiberian on 23/12/2009 08:33:25 Seems like at this time there's an oversupply of minerals in the market. That's because mining is waaaaaaay too easy. everybody with with 2-3 month of dedicated skills can fly a Hulk and grind minerals WHILE watching TV, studing, dinning or having fun with their bf/gf. otherwise, why just al the items that are made purely from minerals are so ridiculous cheap compared with items the need salvage? That's why T1 ships/mods are "free"(with the insurance) and T2 mods and rigs are more expensive than the hull. Also there's a huge lack of demand (people who are ready to risk ships in pvp fly T2 and those who has no skills/money to afford them are too much risk adverse to lose their T1 ships/mods even if those are "FREE") Why? because you have to add in the loss the pod/implats.. This game is skill based, so all the new guys want to increase them ASAP to be able to get access at the cool stuff. a set of +4 implants are around 100M. not enough players want to risk them (again even is the ship/mods are virtually free) Add the removal of the insurance and even less people will go out to shoot at other people. If now, that you actually get paid if you lose your T1 fitted ship after insurance, there's still a lack of demand (that make more profitable to destroy the ship than actually sell it) I don't know what else is needed to push people to go out and shoot stuff (where I think is the fun, not grinding ISK) Maybe make pods invulnerable? so, you can't die? And for the excess of minerals.. nerf roids spawn? make it really impossible to do it AFK? Insurance fraud is a consequence not the the problem.
Callista Sincera Amarr	Posted - 2009.12.23 08:55:00 - [276] Originally by: Mrs Thaiberian And for the excess of minerals.. nerf roids spawn? make it really impossible to do it AFK? Nerfing mining yield would be stupid. The only reason people still mine, is because they don't have to pay a 100% attention and can do stuff on the desktop while mining. There have been plenty of suggestions on how to make it harder to AFK-mine and I think that would be the better approach. If however that is done, mining yield has to be increased, too. Shouldn't be a problem though, since you remove a lot of previous AFK-miners from the pool, so it's ok that the rest of them produces more minerals. Also reduce minerals from missions by reducing the amount of T1 loot. :) -
Mrs Thaiberian	Posted - 2009.12.23 09:35:00 - [277] Originally by: Callista Sincera Originally by: Mrs Thaiberian And for the excess of minerals.. nerf roids spawn? make it really impossible to do it AFK? Nerfing mining yield would be stupid. The only reason people still mine, is because they don't have to pay a 100% attention and can do stuff on the desktop while mining. There have been plenty of suggestions on how to make it harder to AFK-mine and I think that would be the better approach. If however that is done, mining yield has to be increased, too. Shouldn't be a problem though, since you remove a lot of previous AFK-miners from the pool, so it's ok that the rest of them produces more minerals. Also reduce minerals from missions by reducing the amount of T1 loot. :) I agree with you 100% Mining should be a decent "career" just for those who really enjoy the Role play of being a miner. I think mining in High-sec should have difficult grades same Missions. Example: Mining in 1.0 system is easy but the roids are few and with poor ore yield ( good for bantams only) Mining in 0.5 system give a good roids but is really hard to do it and require skills/100% attention (same l4 missions)( good for covetor only) Hulks are forbidden in high-sec. so they are just for corporations in 0.0/low-sec.
Bodega Cat	Posted - 2009.12.23 18:12:00 - [278] The idea of "fun" as a premium and as a reason for people to do things at certain steps at a loss is a very very important reality the more number crunching inclined are often dismissive, and ignorant about. While the more min/max type way of seeing things, is more profitable and more efficient (and measure their own fun in this regard) way to play EVE, but at the end of the day they must concede that they are in the minority. Its the one thing that always seems to throw a curveball into the most obvious of predictions/expectations. You really should try it though sometime, go do something you have fun doing, and then try your hardest to sell the evidence of it at a loss because you don't care, you had a great time getting it and just put your OWN value on it for what it is. If its valued higher than the market, that is fine, keep it forever (like the one piece of ammo i kept from my first kill, i want to turn it into a necklace some day)... If its lower than the market, then let it go, you had fun getting it.
Transmit Failure	Posted - 2009.12.23 22:08:00 - [279] Originally by: Bodega Cat The idea of "fun" as a premium and as a reason for people to do things at certain steps at a loss is a very very important reality the more number crunching inclined are often dismissive, and ignorant about. While the more min/max type way of seeing things, is more profitable and more efficient (and measure their own fun in this regard) way to play EVE, but at the end of the day they must concede that they are in the minority. Its the one thing that always seems to throw a curveball into the most obvious of predictions/expectations. You really should try it though sometime, go do something you have fun doing, and then try your hardest to sell the evidence of it at a loss because you don't care, you had a great time getting it and just put your OWN value on it for what it is. If its valued higher than the market, that is fine, keep it forever (like the one piece of ammo i kept from my first kill, i want to turn it into a necklace some day)... If its lower than the market, then let it go, you had fun getting it. Thanks. You explained the concept much better than I could have. But you should keep in mind that any good economist is going to assume there is an intangible premium to things people do that make little economic sense in terms of profit. It's the min/max EVE players that assume everyone else is an idiot if people don't like the same things they do.
clamslayer	Posted - 2009.12.24 01:46:00 - [280] I agree with Bellum Eternus, i dont think there should be insurance payout. What makes eve so great is that it hurts when your ship gets destroyed. It makes for a better game. So i guess im going to be a "terrorist" for a while because its fun, and i want to do everything i can do to change eve for the better KILLED 6 HULKS WOOT WOOT!!
Siouxsie Xai Gallente Personal Connection Incorporated	Posted - 2009.12.24 03:23:00 - [281] Someone wanted mineral prices to drop. They did, now t1 ships are cheaper. What did you think would happen? And further, this is not near as lucrative as some believe. Almsot as redicilous as crying because of the the 2-3 million isk an empire miner can make per jetcan. BTW null sec mniners with their 20 million isk per jetcan whining about this is just sad. Cry cry cry. Like the cry to gt people out of empire, but woops no one is inviting them out. Nope just want CCP to force themout so they can be easy targets. Cry cry cry. There is so much crying in eve and everyone acts like babies wanting eve to fix many of the problesm that are in fact player created. Perhaps the elite needs to be somewhat less of an influence on the game? Give the new players no incentive to leave empire and they won't. Risk vs loss needs to be = or as near as possible. Traders buy at very low prices encouraging reprocessing ( the bigger problem than the pathetic mining income in empire ) So player reprocess. Minerals go down, ships become cheaper, insurance becomes exploitable. Solution? drive mineral cost back up. It is a free market. Pirates want more targets, but they also want their one sided battles. Hmm good luck with that. Null sec getting boring? New players not comming to Null sec? Then invite them.. duh. Null sec getting boring, can't sell your goods. Well if you ignore empire then what did you expect. Complaining baout all the mony missioners are making? Invite them and tax them. benefit form it. Nevermind. I need to go cut some onions so I can feel more pity for all these one sided screw the noobs crying that goes on around here. Sorry to bother you. I consider the missing pleasure hub interior a bug.. even if it is not. Please fix it. :P
NightmareX Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.24 22:16:00 - [282] Edited by: NightmareX on 24/12/2009 22:17:58 Originally by: clamslayer I agree with Bellum Eternus, i dont think there should be insurance payout. What makes eve so great is that it hurts when your ship gets destroyed. It makes for a better game. So i guess im going to be a "terrorist" for a while because its fun, and i want to do everything i can do to change eve for the better KILLED 6 HULKS WOOT WOOT!! And what makes you think that when you lose tons of isks makes a better game?. Yeah it makes a better game for the rich and old players with tons of experience. But for newer or poor players, it will be catastrofic and many many will leave the game because they don't have isk to PVP, or to lose any ships. Guys, just keep dreaming. CCP will NEVER EVER remove insurance as long the ships have the prices they have now. Forget it. Director of Infinitus Odium.
Elena Laskova	Posted - 2009.12.26 10:28:00 - [283] Edited by: Elena Laskova on 26/12/2009 10:28:27 Nightmare: If it's necessary to do something to keep new players interested in EvE, an appropriate mechanism should be put in place. For example Insurance for rookies only. Many of the posts in this thread have suggested exactly that. This has nothing at all to do with the "insurance for everybody" system in place today. As implemented, it's helping high-SP players, and (on balance) hurting rookies.
Christina Entrepe	Posted - 2009.12.26 10:54:00 - [284] violence is never the answer. we shall fight terror with terror.
Zetler Nigerian Export Inc	Posted - 2009.12.26 11:20:00 - [285] 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. Nice save, inb4 FBI Party van!
Merdaneth Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2009.12.26 12:23:00 - [286] Pend Insurance should just act like a regular insurance company: rise the insurance fee for people that lose ships on a regular basis, lower them for those that rarely if ever lose ships. If Pend Insurance just operates like a business and tries to make a profit, all insurance problems are solved. ____ The Illusion of Freedom \| The Truth about Slavery
Elena Laskova	Posted - 2009.12.26 12:42:00 - [287] The name is misleading. Insurance in EvE isn't all that similar to RL Insurance. It couldn't be provided profitably by a player corporation. Think of it as being a subsidy to encourage a certain action (having a ship destroyed) rather than a tool for spreading the cost of low-probability / high-consequence events. House insurance IRL isn't intended to encourage you to hire someone to burn down your house :)
RyanSnake Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.26 14:54:00 - [288] Geez, I'm already a paranoid miner... now I gotta watch out for people can flipping me and trying to kill me?! :( I'm quite new here still and really don't have the money to just lose ships over and over, nor do I have the cash to continously insure myself... Then again, maybe I'll just lay low until this blows over.
Dalieus Dakarn Caldari Middle Finger Technology	Posted - 2009.12.26 16:07:00 - [289] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Abrazzar Originally by: Bellum Eternus It takes one character and some dedication and you can see 100b / mo. LOL! You need to come up with some proof for that. This number looks like it came straight out of your ass. My corpmates are currently researching 18 Abaddon BPOs up. Each Abaddon can be self destructed for a profit of 12-15m each, not including the massive profits from Amarr specific salvage, which is more valuable than most. In order to make 1b/day you need about 66 Abaddons destroyed in a 24h period. We can do much more than that. In order to achieve 100b ISK per month, you need to destroy 200 Abaddons per day.[...] Ok... I need some help understanding this. Ships take minerals to build. Even at the basic insurance payout, the money gained does not cover the cost of the minerals used to build said ship. If you PURCHASE insurance, that costs ISK, you must now recover the ISK spent on insurance plus the cost of the minerals in order to "gain ISK" in the destruction of the ship. At what point does it take less minerals to produce a battleship to where it yields a profit from base insurance payout? Is that even possible?
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.12.26 21:27:00 - [290] Originally by: Dalieus Dakarn Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Abrazzar Originally by: Bellum Eternus It takes one character and some dedication and you can see 100b / mo. LOL! You need to come up with some proof for that. This number looks like it came straight out of your ass. My corpmates are currently researching 18 Abaddon BPOs up. Each Abaddon can be self destructed for a profit of 12-15m each, not including the massive profits from Amarr specific salvage, which is more valuable than most. In order to make 1b/day you need about 66 Abaddons destroyed in a 24h period. We can do much more than that. In order to achieve 100b ISK per month, you need to destroy 200 Abaddons per day.[...] Ok... I need some help understanding this. Ships take minerals to build. Even at the basic insurance payout, the money gained does not cover the cost of the minerals used to build said ship. If you PURCHASE insurance, that costs ISK, you must now recover the ISK spent on insurance plus the cost of the minerals in order to "gain ISK" in the destruction of the ship. At what point does it take less minerals to produce a battleship to where it yields a profit from base insurance payout? Is that even possible? I bolded the part where you are in error. It's very easy to buy minerals at a price for which a manufactured ship costs less than the insurance payout minus the cost of the insurance. Yes, it's possible. People are doing it as I type this. Not only is it possible, but it's becoming increasingly profitable to do so with salvage and LP from the FW LP store compounding the ISK/hour profit. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Dalieus Dakarn Caldari Middle Finger Technology	Posted - 2009.12.26 22:33:00 - [291] Originally by: Bellum Eternus I bolded the part where you are in error. It's very easy to buy minerals at a price for which a manufactured ship costs less than the insurance payout minus the cost of the insurance. Yes, it's possible. People are doing it as I type this. Not only is it possible, but it's becoming increasingly profitable to do so with salvage and LP from the FW LP store compounding the ISK/hour profit. So in other words, blanket the area with 0.01 isk mineral purchases and wait for morons... that will take some time.
Nedefeg	Posted - 2009.12.26 22:58:00 - [292] I agree , the strong point of eve is that losses matter...well...they should...umm..shouldnt they? runs off to grab some 48m geddons while they`re hot
Trathen Minmatar	Posted - 2009.12.27 02:40:00 - [293] Edited by: Trathen on 27/12/2009 02:44:01 Originally by: Bellum Eternus I bolded the part where you are in error. It's very easy to buy minerals at a price for which a manufactured ship costs less than the insurance payout minus the cost of the insurance. Yes, it's possible. People are doing it as I type this. Not only is it possible, but it's becoming increasingly profitable to do so with salvage and LP from the FW LP store compounding the ISK/hour profit. Uh-huh. And after that, it's more profitable to build Geddons and self-destruct them than it is to just re-sell the minerals at standard price, amirite? What does this have to do with insurance? - I'll rephrase that: How is it a problem? _
Elena Laskova	Posted - 2009.12.27 10:36:00 - [294] Originally by: Nede*** I agree , the strong point of eve is that losses matter...well...they should...umm..shouldnt they? ... The strong point of EvE is that empty memes like "losses matter" make EvE's players feel hardcore, so they keep paying to play. You have to admire CCP for making a fock of sheep believe they're a pack of wolves. If there were more than a sprinkling of risk-takers in EvE, insurance wouldn't exist.
Gartel Reiman The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2010.02.13 16:21:00 - [295] Originally by: Trathen Edited by: Trathen on 27/12/2009 02:44:01 Originally by: Bellum Eternus I bolded the part where you are in error. It's very easy to buy minerals at a price for which a manufactured ship costs less than the insurance payout minus the cost of the insurance. Yes, it's possible. People are doing it as I type this. Not only is it possible, but it's becoming increasingly profitable to do so with salvage and LP from the FW LP store compounding the ISK/hour profit. Uh-huh. And after that, it's more profitable to build Geddons and self-destruct them than it is to just re-sell the minerals at standard price, amirite? What does this have to do with insurance? - I'll rephrase that: How is it a problem? You don't think it's a problem that T1 battleships, the largest subcapital ships, are cheaper (to lose) than frigates? There's a couple of actual problems: The combination of free market with artificial price levels does not play very well at all. This is exactly the same reason why CCP removed NPC sell orders for shuttles (artificial limits on trit prices). There's no reason why one artificial limit on trit prices is bad, but another is acceptable (and this one isn't). Risk vs reward is ridiculously skewed. When all T1 subcapitals cost roughly the same amount of zero (ironically with battleships often the cheapest at -2m ISK or so), there's no price disincentive to fly the bigger, "more expensive" ships. In particular, cruisers get screwed over by battleships, which fit the same class of modules, but more of them and so have better tank and damage. The only real benefits of a cruiser are slightly better speed & locking time; and the lower threat you may pose in some people's eyes. But if you could actually lose five 5m cruisers for the same price as a 25m BC, that would be a lot more interesting. EVE's concept is great because losses are meaningful. But right now, the fact that you can lose a battleship and gain money on the hull is just screwed up. I can't see it being justifiable that a ship loss should cost negative amounts of ISK...
Gartel Reiman The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2010.02.13 16:31:00 - [296] Incidentally, I should point out that I don't think this will result in less PvP - merely a sort of ship class deflation, as prices balance out properly. If people are content to PvP now in T1 battleships (loss cost around 20-30m ISK with modules taken into account), they can likely lose uninsured BCs/cruisers for the same cost. And since all T1 ships are hit equally, there'll likely be a similar downsizing across the board, such that there'll be more T1 cruisers about to provide viable targets. As an extra plus, this would give more diversity rather than just being BCs/BSes/T2 cruisers. And when someone does bring a battleship, they're putting a lot more on the table for the extra DPS/tank/RR capability.
Blackjack Turner Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2010.02.13 17:00:00 - [297] Seeing as this topic has been brought up numerous times with little to no response from CCP, I believe ya'll are flogging the dead horse. Unless there is some database or software issue that prevents CCP from doing what seems to be a simple procedure (removing insurance payouts from deaths that spawn a Concord response), it's apparent then that they have no intention of changing it.
Anna Lifera Gallente Imperial Legion of Amarr	Posted - 2010.02.13 17:03:00 - [298] 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. The issue is insurance. It's a huge ISK faucet, and when exploited on an industrial scale it's capable of dumping literally hundreds of billions of raw ISK into the game every month. This is a bad thing. Carebears want insurance removed from suicide ganking payouts but they don't want the insurance removed from their own ships. I simply want insurance removed completely from every ship, at every level. Let new characters enjoy a three month grace period of insurance use and ban people for using 'insurance alts' for insurance fraud, just like you would if you were using alts as disposable hitmen and recycling them after their sec is ruined. Right now it's very easy to use a T1 fit Geddon as an example and have the total loss be around 4m ISK after insurance. I can kill just about any sort of smallish cruiser size ship solo in high sec with this, and I can kill BCs and BS with only a pair or maybe three or four. No ship is safe in highsec with some simple tactics and a little bit of coordination from a few friends. Ramp up the scale and you can kill freighters and Orcas quite easily. But my goal isn't to simply kill freighters. It's to make CCP sit up and take notice of the horribly broken game design that is insurance. Currently there are multiple players that are self destructing ships on a literally industrial scale, making tens of billions of raw ISK per month with 'insurance fraud'. This causes inflation and will in the long term hurt the economy. So I'm going to start using this mechanism to inflict the pain of financial loss upon as many players as possible so that they now have a direct and personal stake in seeing insurance removed from the game completely. Is this griefing? Absolutely not. I'm profiting from my actions, so it's piracy. Completely legit gameplay. Insurance simply facilitates my particular tactics, and once those are made obsolete by the removal of insurance, I'll revert to more traditional ways of doing things. The in game killings will continue on as wide a scale as possible until the game is changed for the better with the removal of insurance. Anyone interested in assisting me with this campaign of militant destruction can contact me in game. The more the merrier. Oh, and one more thing- jump freighter pilots, we're coming for you. 1. complete insurance removal would make t1 ships completely useless because the only thing that made them appealing compared to t2 ships is cost-effectiveness. 2. then there'll be no reason to only fly what u can afford to lose because if u fit cheaply now, u'll still lose tons of isk no matter what. 3. as a result, this will only coerce ppl into flying with bigger blobs to minimize the chances of losing their ship. also, they will be forced to grind isk a lot more often. how is this bad? more isk grinding = less pvping. that's how. but by all means, since u're so upset by just suicide ganking (not insurance) by threatening to do it yourself, suicide gank to your heart's content and see how it works out for u if u think it's so riskless.
Cipher Jones Minmatar	Posted - 2010.02.13 17:07:00 - [299] 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. The issue is insurance. It's a huge ISK faucet, and when exploited on an industrial scale it's capable of dumping literally hundreds of billions of raw ISK into the game every month. This is a bad thing. Carebears want insurance removed from suicide ganking payouts but they don't want the insurance removed from their own ships. I simply want insurance removed completely from every ship, at every level. Let new characters enjoy a three month grace period of insurance use and ban people for using 'insurance alts' for insurance fraud, just like you would if you were using alts as disposable hitmen and recycling them after their sec is ruined. Right now it's very easy to use a T1 fit Geddon as an example and have the total loss be around 4m ISK after insurance. I can kill just about any sort of smallish cruiser size ship solo in high sec with this, and I can kill BCs and BS with only a pair or maybe three or four. No ship is safe in highsec with some simple tactics and a little bit of coordination from a few friends. Ramp up the scale and you can kill freighters and Orcas quite easily. But my goal isn't to simply kill freighters. It's to make CCP sit up and take notice of the horribly broken game design that is insurance. Currently there are multiple players that are self destructing ships on a literally industrial scale, making tens of billions of raw ISK per month with 'insurance fraud'. This causes inflation and will in the long term hurt the economy. So I'm going to start using this mechanism to inflict the pain of financial loss upon as many players as possible so that they now have a direct and personal stake in seeing insurance removed from the game completely. Is this griefing? Absolutely not. I'm profiting from my actions, so it's piracy. Completely legit gameplay. Insurance simply facilitates my particular tactics, and once those are made obsolete by the removal of insurance, I'll revert to more traditional ways of doing things. The in game killings will continue on as wide a scale as possible until the game is changed for the better with the removal of insurance. Anyone interested in assisting me with this campaign of militant destruction can contact me in game. The more the merrier. Oh, and one more thing- jump freighter pilots, we're coming for you. -------------------------------------------------- I'm so Old I can remember when QQ was TT
Epic DaSoto	Posted - 2010.02.13 18:49:00 - [300] There is absolutely no proven links between terrorism and insurance. The illuminati just want you to believe that. What it's really about it minerals and who controls it.
Mitawyn Caldari Solar Wind AAA Citizens	Posted - 2010.02.13 18:56:00 - [301] I personally, don't really care about insurance on ships one way or the other. But what I don't understand is why others worry so much about it. Still a game right? So why does one person's style of play which might not agree with game mechanics have to have prescedence over another's who might be perfectly happy with things as they are.? Where does this play the game, change the rules to what I want come from with most of the player base fine with the status quo? So many players telling others, for instance, if you don't pvp you aren't playing the game right. You aren't having fun. How do they know if the others are having fun or not? Someone take a poll?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.