EVE Search - A serie of possible solutions to the Insurance Fraud crisis thing

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

A serie of possible solutions to the Insurance Fraud crisis thing

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
SebbyTheFreak Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2009.12.22 18:47:00 - [1] Edited by: SebbyTheFreak on 22/12/2009 18:50:45 Edited by: SebbyTheFreak on 22/12/2009 18:50:28 Edited by: SebbyTheFreak on 22/12/2009 18:48:43 Greetings fellow Pod pilots. I see there's been quite a commotion because of the insurance, and above all, because of the current mineral market as well as the PvP people wishing a reduction of insurance power etc. Now, beside all the whining, I've seen very little constructive talk done. Now, a list of major problems that surfaced would be: - The insurance covering the entire "mineral cost" of the ship, which is unrelate to actual mineral cost. - Suicide ganking being pretty much free because of insurance. - Very little to no effect of ship destruction in wars - Doesn't really make sense for insurance to cover self-destruction - Insert all the other whining in the previous threads I figured maybe it would be a good idea to brainstorm a little on possible modifications to the insurance? Here's a list of elements and ideas that can mixed and matched together to form a solution. You're welcomed to add your own ideas to this. This is more a brainstorm thread. I'm not here to whine, it's just there because there seems to BE a problem, and there HAS to be something that can be done about it. I'll start with the more simple/drastic solutions. (I'm not proposing to have the insurance value related to "actual" mineral market price, because that is a) region-related b) if it wasn't, then you could get a glimpse of the overall galactic prices at a glance and ruin parts of the market mechanics c) it fluctuates too much, after all, the contracts lasts for a couple of months) Idea 00 : A common concept shared by many: remove insurance from criminally flagged activities. (I feel like that one would create a would new set of problems though) Idea 01 : Remove insurance cost from insured payout. You do not recieve the money back from the insurance, just the ship's value. Maybe reduce insurance cost by half. Idea 02 : Remove Platinium (similar to 01 in effects) Idea 03 : Give a week cooldown time between Platinium insurances (can't mass suicide your ships) and/or a day cooldown time for Gold (No insurance company would willingly throw their money at someone who obviously frauds them of tens to thousands of ships per day) Idea 04 : Dynamic insurance price related to player's folio. (Like real life, insurance costs less if you never have any accident, and skyrocket if you keep crashing your cars like my brother) Idea 05 : Similar to above, put a STANDING SCORE with the insurance company. Would be a re-use of already existing game mechanics and probably fairly easy to add. Standing is affected by statistics like frequency of ship loss, ratio of money paid/gained to/from insurance company, security status, etc. Idea 06 : Make insurance a corp asset. NPC corps would give fairly average coverage, but consistent to all ship types. FW could give excellent coverage to their own race's ships (and perhaps even some acceptable insurance of the faction ones). And player corps could offer Insurance tailored to their own industry, choosing insurance cost and returns on the specific ships. Being able to offer insurance on t2 of their choice (such as 50% payback of t2 ships they actually manufacture), etc. Idea 07 : Offshoot idea of 06; Make insurance a contract. It would create ACTUAL insurance companies, competition, and all the cool and horrible things insurance companies would do (except there'd be no court for the companies to refuse paying clients who deserves their insurance =P) Idea 07 addendum : At least make corps able to issue insurance contracts? Idea 08 : Giving the ability to ensure only to specific stations: A few stations in 1.0 that offers current insurance, a few stations in lowsec that offers insurance at higher cost. I doupt there would be insurance companies in null. Feel free to comment and or add to the list. These are just a few ideas I had while taking my bath this morning =P
Vossejongk Caldari Bendebeukers Green Rhino	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:01:00 - [2] Very much like #7 Problem is corps will do pricefixing and instead of beeing competitive they will keep it up way way more expensive then its now and probably on the brim of useless to insure your ship because it costs more then to actually replace it out of own funds. But then again I cant really approve of any of this because this is my signature
Zalmin	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:12:00 - [3] I agree with idea 4 and idea 5, with no payout on self destruction of ones property. A very good start to some brainstorming Sebby
Malephar	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:14:00 - [4] I'd like to see a combination of the above, but mainly insurance contracts, possibly with some Insurance Contracting skills. The way I see this working, is that any corp going into insurance gets another special wallet account, into which they put some amount of money. Then every time someone takes out insurance with that corp, some portion of that cash is locked into escrow. The amount locked in could be dependant partially on skills, but crucially should have some sort of "contention" factor, which increases as the number of individual contracts grows. Eg, if you have hundreds of contracts, you can reasonably have only a fraction of the full payout sum in escrow, as the money from one can be used to pay for the claims of another... but if you only have one contract, it would be unreasonable not to have almost the entire value of it in escrow, as if there is a claim made, you need to be able to pay. There would probably need to be a system of keeping track of a persons insurance history, so that the appropriate premiums can calculated... I'd personally like to see a public central killboard for this purpose, but I know thats not a particularly popular suggestion. Finally, I think that the existing system of insurance needs to be modified to remove payouts for criminal actions, and potentially should be removed entirely for characters over 3 months old. Just my point of view.
SebbyTheFreak Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:22:00 - [5] Edited by: SebbyTheFreak on 22/12/2009 19:22:13 Originally by: Vossejongk Problem is corps will do pricefixing and instead of beeing competitive I dunno, since anyone could just take advantage of it and offer some ridiculously low-priced insurance and suddently get nearly all the contracts xD
Vysnaite Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:22:00 - [6] I'd prefer this: Only basic insurance option available, meaning you receive only a part of what you paid for the ship.
Ryhss Caldari The Templar Navy	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:28:00 - [7] I really like idea 04. The others have merit too. Billy Corgan is dating Jessica Simpson, my cousin has dubbed the celeb couple "Smashing Dumbkins".
SebbyTheFreak Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:28:00 - [8] Originally by: Vysnaite I'd prefer this: Only basic insurance option available, meaning you receive only a part of what you paid for the ship. Care to elaborate on this rather vague proposition? Define basic. This mostly sounds like a disguised "remove insurance, I want to grief"
Woodwraith Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:30:00 - [9] It's puzzling that a 6 year old game mechanic that has never changed is suddenly a 'crisis' The benefits of insurance to new/poor players in getting back on their feet isn't something that's going to get removed, your all kidding yourselves to think otherwise.
vulnevia EVE Marshals Veni Vidi Vici	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:33:00 - [10] If Concord is invovled: no insurance. The only rule we need.

Albion Stormchaser	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:34:00 - [11] So, wheres the fraud, I've just checked the Recovery on a Drake, which is 38 mil with platinum, the market value is about 29mil, so you make 9 mil, however the cost of the insurance is 11 mil, thus theres a net loss of 2mil. I dont fly Battleships at the moment so i cant compare the market value+insurance vs recovery. If someone could enlighten me on this I'd be much appreciated.
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:36:00 - [12] Originally by: vulnevia If Concord is invovled: no insurance. The only rule we need. Doing this would unfairly harm newer players because older players want to suicide gank, which is not a good thing _____________________
Cypherous Minmatar Liberty Rogues Rally Against Evil	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:39:00 - [13] Since when has it been a crisis, i see no issues here :P Rally Against Evil Site
Albion Stormchaser	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:39:00 - [14] Originally by: Chaos Incarnate Originally by: vulnevia If Concord is invovled: no insurance. The only rule we need. Doing this would unfairly harm newer players because older players want to suicide gank, which is not a good thing I think he means that theres no payout for the Ganker, but the ganked gets insurance.
Vysnaite Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:40:00 - [15] Originally by: SebbyTheFreak Originally by: Vysnaite I'd prefer this: Only basic insurance option available, meaning you receive only a part of what you paid for the ship. Care to elaborate on this rather vague proposition? Define basic. This mostly sounds like a disguised "remove insurance, I want to grief" AS it stands now there are several insurance "levels": Basic, standard, bronze, silver, gold platinum. I came up with "basic" out of ym head. My point is that just remove the platinum gold and/or silver (might as well remove just platinum, or all the way to standard). I think that insurance in EVE should not pay out the full value, only a portion. So lets say you receive back 70% of what you paid. What most here go are for extremes - full removal or don't touch it. I believe it needs to be looked at by CCP and cahnges have to be made. My sollution would be a sort of compromise - it does not pay out the full value of what your ship cost (so it hurts more then it does now) and yet the person who lost receives a part of what he paid for the ship to continue on pvp.
Magnus Orin Minmatar United Systems Navy Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:40:00 - [16] Insurance Contracts, in my opinion, are by far the best option. For one, it is taking a market out of the hands of CCP and NPCs and giving it to the players, creating more sandbox. For two, it would give Corporations and Alliances a huge relief to the headache of ship reimbursement programs. And three, I think the guys up in the Market Discussion forums have been salivating over the insurance market in Eve for a long time brainstorming ways for this to work. I can see many insurance corps opening and a very competitive market emerging.
Breaker77 Gallente Reclamation Industries	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:40:00 - [17] Originally by: Chaos Incarnate Originally by: vulnevia If Concord is invovled: no insurance. The only rule we need. Doing this would unfairly harm newer players because older players want to suicide gank, which is not a good thing I believe hey meant if you lose your ship to concord then no payout. That way the gankee still gets a payout.
MelKrieg	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:43:00 - [18] Originally by: Cypherous Since when has it been a crisis, i see no issues here :P http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?t=31247
Trvaeler	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:43:00 - [19] There is no 'insurance issue'. If people are willing to make ships below mineral costs, that's their problem. self destructing ships for insurance payout is, in my opinion, a waste of time as the financial gains are marginal. You would make more money just running level 4 missions in the time it takes you to buy, undock, self destruct, dock, undock, self destruct and so on... So you can make 10-15m/h self destructing ships at best? So what? You can make twice that doing a level 4 in the same amount of time. The law of supply/demand will work itself out. The people willing to work for a few mil an hour will eventually not be able to keep up with demand because it takes them longer to manufacture the ships because they are 'mining the free minerals themselves', and the people that are doing it right, with a small profit (buying minerals cheap and building the ships) will supply said demand.
Aloriana Jacques Amarr Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:46:00 - [20] Originally by: Breaker77 Originally by: Chaos Incarnate Originally by: vulnevia If Concord is invovled: no insurance. The only rule we need. Doing this would unfairly harm newer players because older players want to suicide gank, which is not a good thing I believe hey meant if you lose your ship to concord then no payout. That way the gankee still gets a payout. The whole problem with this, as Chaos Incarnate realises, is that newbies often accidentaly get themselves killed for doing an illegal act in high sec without realising they've done something wrong. A blanket ban would hurt them. - - - Aloriana Jacques - Skill Sheet

Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:46:00 - [21] Originally by: Albion Stormchaser I think he means that theres no payout for the Ganker, but the ganked gets insurance. Yeah, I know that's what he meant. I'm referring to new players getting themselves CONCORDed by accident and losing everything they've got, because the older players don't like that you can highsec gank in a bs. _____________________
SebbyTheFreak Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:49:00 - [22] Originally by: Vysnaite AS it stands now there are several insurance "levels": Basic, standard, bronze, silver, gold platinum. I came up with "basic" out of ym head. My point is that just remove the platinum gold and/or silver (might as well remove just platinum, or all the way to standard). I think that insurance in EVE should not pay out the full value, only a portion. So lets say you receive back 70% of what you paid. What most here go are for extremes - full removal or don't touch it. I believe it needs to be looked at by CCP and cahnges have to be made. My sollution would be a sort of compromise - it does not pay out the full value of what your ship cost (so it hurts more then it does now) and yet the person who lost receives a part of what he paid for the ship to continue on pvp. So basically idea 01 and 02
Albion Stormchaser	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:55:00 - [23] Originally by: Magnus Orin And three, I think the guys up in the Market Discussion forums have been salivating over the insurance market in Eve for a long time brainstorming ways for this to work. I can see many insurance corps opening and a very competitive market emerging. Having a player driven Insurance market would be intersting, as it would open a lot of new avenues such as Re-insurance, Insurance for Towers and other Pos Modules (Property). The only business type that fits for hulls is Marine, for freighters/orcas/industrials you could probably extend a P&I insurance models so you can cover the cargos. However its a lot of work to set up, and needs a lot of fiscal backing.
Breaker77 Gallente Reclamation Industries	Posted - 2009.12.22 19:56:00 - [24] Originally by: Aloriana Jacques The whole problem with this, as Chaos Incarnate realises, is that newbies often accidentaly get themselves killed for doing an illegal act in high sec without realising they've done something wrong. A blanket ban would hurt them. So then you could still get a payout until your character is 30 days old. If you haven't learned about concord mechanics within 30 days then you probably never will.
Rhatar Khurin Minmatar Dead poets society The Laughing Men	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:00:00 - [25] I like 4-5, I would get uber cheap insurance as the last ship i lost was in 2007 and i have a decent security rating
Amanda Mor	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:12:00 - [26] Edited by: Amanda Mor on 22/12/2009 20:12:27 While I'm a little confused about what and if there really is an "insurance issue" (as the guy a few posts up there said - it's a 6 year old unchanged mechanic, why is it suddenly a crisis now?), I really do like the idea of player issued insurance contracts. This seems like a long over-due idea. I imagine it would have been very hard to implement in the early days of the game b/c there weren't enough players/corps with enough ISK to do it, but now there are individuals and corps/alliances that light cigars with trillion ISK bills and any type of insurance business requires huge amounts of capital to get going. I'd imagine introducing another level of high-finance would make them wet in the pants. As mentioned, it also makes it easier for corps/alliances to run their ship replacement programs. Allowing the market to determine the payouts and such would eliminate the current problems (if they do in fact exist).
davet517 Raata Invicti Undivided	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:14:00 - [27] Edited by: davet517 on 22/12/2009 20:16:11 What you're trying to do is cure stupidity, but there isn't a cure. As long as people are willing to sell their time unreasonably cheaply, this will be an issue. If insurance were removed or made to be market sensitive in some way mining and T-1 ship building as a high-sec profession would collapse in fairly short order. Right now the "free market" is trying to devalue those activities, and insurance payouts are the only thing standing in the way. In many ways the eve economy acts like a real economy, but it isn't a real economy. It's a game, and at the end of the day, a game still needs to be fun or people won't play. If insurance payouts were removed or substantially modified the net effect would be that it would take a new player (especially one who isn't keen to PvP) a lot longer to progress in the game. The progression in Eve is already pretty slow compared to other games, so making it substantially slower would probably have a sizable impact on the game attracting and retaining new players. This is one of those instances were CCPs interests (revenue) conflicts with the interests of veteran players, who would probably like less server lag and a more elite player base, rather than a larger one. When CCPs interests conflict with ours, my money is on them doing whats best for them. ---------------- We're recruiting quality players. Check us out.
5pinDizzy Amarr Pillow Fighters Inc	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:23:00 - [28] You haven't said one idea that cannot by circumvented. doesn't understand the economy implications, or can be exploited to high heaven. Hence why CCP is probably in this mess in the first place. It's a bit of a Catch 22 for fixing insurance.
Yuki Ren	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:31:00 - [29] Wow, a well though out post on GD that actually makes sense and presents good solutions, the world must be ending... I really like the idea of dynamic insurance, but I foresee some difficult balancing questions.
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:33:00 - [30] Originally by: Amanda Mor Edited by: Amanda Mor on 22/12/2009 20:12:27 While I'm a little confused about what and if there really is an "insurance issue" (as the guy a few posts up there said - it's a 6 year old unchanged mechanic, why is it suddenly a crisis now?), I really do like the idea of player issued insurance contracts. It's stuff changing around insurance that require it to be updated, really. Calling it a crisis is definitely over the top - the eve economy isn't going to collapse tomorrow if we don't fix insurance _____________________



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.