| 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
_____________________
|
|
|
Kalnov
Gallente
Problematique Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 20:42:00 -
[31]
There is no issue.
|
Obsidian Hawk
Free Galactic Enterprises
FREGE
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 20:48:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.
This.
Plus what is wrong with scamming an insurence company all the time?
|
Elena Laskova
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 20:56:00 -
[33]
Insurance fraud is a symptom of a badly messed up economy. It works, but it's on permanent "emergency" life-support.
CCP have a chance to fix the real issues as part of the introduction of T3. So far they don't seem to be taking advantage of the opportunity.
|
Darriele
Minmatar
THE MuPPeT FaCTOrY
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 21:11:00 -
[34]
Insurance isnt always a good business, that you should know by now.
Insurance covers always an estimative value of a ship(who cares if zydrine gets sold on jita market for 0.00000001 isk)
Suicide ganking, tough one, related to facultative insurances, hey i've smashed my car in a wall, i'm the only one to blame for, ofc the insurance will refund the whole stuff based on its current value.
Self-destruction , as above.
;)
Insurance in eve is like the insurance in real world, you do not need it but it may help you when it's the case.
Inappropriate signature removed.Applebabe |
vulnevia
EVE Marshals
Veni Vidi Vici
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 21:21:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Albion Stormchaser
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.
Albion is right; if you get ganked by Concord you don't get any pay out  BUT that would mean that you couldn't gank macro miners as effective as we can do now.
|
Aqriue
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 21:34:00 -
[36]
They should just include a 5% tax/processing charge on insurance payouts. That should just about nuke the few million per destruction of each battleship that most people are reporting they make after the market cost and full platnium coverage.
|
Winters Chill
Amarr
Shadow Legion.
Talos Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 21:38:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.
qft.
and
/thread
|
Aloriana Jacques
Amarr
Royal Amarr Institute
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 21:41:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.
If this were true, then there wouldn't be even a fraction of the discussion on the subject that currently exists. :)
- - -
Aloriana Jacques - Skill Sheet
|
SweetHoney
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 21:44:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.
^^ This |
SweetHoney
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 21:51:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Aloriana Jacques
Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.
If this were true, then there wouldn't be even a fraction of the discussion on the subject that currently exists. :)
hmm , so if I start a topic with "Battleships issue" and start moaning about they should cost 1million isk only, then it will become a issue after it ?
|
|
|
Turin
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 21:51:00 -
[41]
Option number 9. Leave it alone except for removing insureance for criminally flagged activities.
Option number 10. Just leave it alone.
|
Mrs Thaiberian
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 21:53:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Trvaeler
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.
Which brings us to other Hot thread: "Nerf L4's.." LOL oh my, I really love this game 
Originally by: Magnus Orin
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.
yeah, pretty much this.
I think it could be very interesting. I like it.
|
Kalexander
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 21:53:00 -
[43]
I don't think theirs any problem, but i'm not a market guru...
Who cares if a few guys are making millions off the fraud, its really not enough to be worth it in the larger market sense, and do you know why? Because more people would be doing it in mass if it was. Mineral prices are at the low of low right now, if they go lower, that profit margin per suicide gets bigger, and if it gets bigger, more do it because its more attractive, and if more do it, demand for the minerals that are required to make battlehips increases, and as demand increases for minerals, the prices on minerals will go up just a bit again. They'll go back up to about the point where they are at now, where its kinda profitable, if you are bored and crazy enough to want to do it seriously, but not profitable enough for everyone to go out and start popping their ships.
Now as far as suicide ganking hulks and payments go, thats all besides the point and reserved for one of the other threads. Insurance as it is, is not in crisis.
|
Tippia
Reikoku
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 22:00:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Aloriana Jacques
Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.
If this were true, then there wouldn't be even a fraction of the discussion on the subject that currently exists. :)
By that logic, EVE doesn't even exist any more, considering the amount of "EVE is dead" threads we've seen. And highsec, lowsec, and nullsec all need to be purged from the game. In other words, the amount of discussion (which, btw, is very very tiny compared to most other issues around) has nothing to do with whether there is an actual problem or not.
…also, none of the "problems" in the OP are really problems. At most, insurance might be an unduly large ISK faucet because mining is poorly implemented, but that's about 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 |
Mr Epeen
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 22:12:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.
There was no issue with ghost training either... until everyone started doing it. Then CCP took notice. Funny that.
Now that the knowledge of how to self destruct for fun and profit is is out in the general population, you will see everyone taking a shot at it. CCP will take notice, sooner or later and changes will be made.
Might as well have a thread such as this one where ideas can be discussed before that happens.
I'm partial to Concord bowing out of the insurance business altogether.
Sandbox, remember?
Let we, the players figure out how to make it work. Either through corp sponsored or private insurance companies.
Mr Epeen 
|
Grapez
The Greater Goon
Clockwork Pineapple
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 22:13:00 -
[46]
Originally by: SweetHoney
Originally by: Aloriana Jacques
Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.
If this were true, then there wouldn't be even a fraction of the discussion on the subject that currently exists. :)
hmm , so if I start a topic with "Battleships issue" and start moaning about they should cost 1million isk only, then it will become a issue after it ?
Yes. You would have to convince many others in order to flood the forum, but yes, if there's enough *****ing about a particular topic, then it becomes a "problem" regardless of the merits. Additionally, I fully encourage you to start this "battleship issue" campaign, as I think it would be sweet to fly 1m Megathrons.
|
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 22:24:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Woodwraith
It's puzzling that a 6 year old game mechanic that has never changed is suddenly a 'crisis'
Your precept is incorrect.
It is not an unchanged 6yr old game mechanic.
アニメ漫画です
|
Erayo
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 22:56:00 -
[48]
Transferring insurance system to players will be very problematic:
Let me try explain the basics of insurance, this a a very general explanation without getting textbook:
The whole point of insurance is to spread risk, so that not a specific single person would have to bear the full financial risk of any particular event.
The types of events that can be covered falls into two broad categories:
1. Where the risk is purely a loss
2. Where the risk is either a loss or a gain (such as gambling)
By logical reasoning, no insurance company will sanely insure the latter type of event.
The insurer takes a small premium for providing this service.
The events in point 1 are statistical in nature and as such follow 2 fundamental rules of statistics (which i will instead give the meaning):
1. When a sample becomes sufficiently large, it will be close to the true probability (LLN)
2. Even though it gets close to this true number, the absolute difference increases (CLT)
So with a very large base of clients, rule 1 will be sufficiently met
and with a large initial capital cushion, rule 2 is met (although in reality its too large for 1 insurance company to handle and so we have reinsurers which will obviously be Chribba since ive heard hes very honorable)
So far, all good.
The problem comes with this bit: the clients.
Insurance companies must try to minimize their risks by nit picking 'good' clients, thus they can reduce their premium and attract more customers.
Although in reality, these companies are not allowed to be biased to a certain degree, foremost being race. Other things are taken into account: age, gender, geographical location - all of which is not relevant to eve. And two 'personality traits' of risk aversion of the client which are namely Moral Hazards and adverse selection.
The former describes a person who is normally risk averse becoming more complacent because of the pre-knowledge that he is insured. (Will you run back home if you cant remember whether you forgot the stove on)
The latter describes a person who will take up insurance knowing in advance that he/she will need to claim. (Everyone who is 18-25 and owns a car)
Real world population: General mix of all types of personalities
Eve population: All Moral Hazards and All adverse selections
Conclusion:
Thus, with the current mechanics in the game. Player insurance premiums will be too expensive / It will make huge losses as everyone has adverse selection in eve. In any event, it will lead to economic imbalance, as the whole manufacturing chain is balanced off by the fact that time and effort used to mine the ore is eventually made into isk by ship destruction. Although even the current system can use some make over.
Another thing people fail to take into account is, in reality insurance is more for the convenience of sleeping well at night and ,of course, avoiding tax.
Another difference that i thought of (i may be wrong cause not in textbooks) is that in eve, everything is completely homogenous and can be perfectly replaced, whereas in reality we attach sentimental value to lots of useless things (Mona Lisa)
|
kyrieee
Psykotic Meat
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 23:13:00 -
[49]
The situation is self regulating
|
Enoch Thered
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 23:47:00 -
[50]
The only thing that comes close to 'needing fixing' is the self-destruct-insurance. Everything else is fine as it is.
Man these forums are full of nothing but terrible ideas and whines |
|
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar
Celtic industries
The AsyIum
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 00:00:00 -
[51]
Originally by: kyrieee
The situation is self regulating
Haha no it isn't.
Well ok, it kind of is in that 'insurance fraud' gets compensated by using up a ton of minerals making minerals more valuable and so the cost of building ships rises to make 'fraud' unprofitable...
The problem with that is it acomplishes the mineral basket price regulation by injecting a MASSIVE amount of ISK into the economy: At a rough estimate (and I'll be happy to explain it to you in detail but it shouldn't be neccesary - it's talked about here) about 12 people building BS on an industrial scale to profit off of insurance fraud generated 19.8 TRILLION isk in the period of about 6 weeks with nothing but player time spent.
We've actually jsut been talking about this on the MD, of course not for the first and almost certainly not for the last time. It's about as close to an intractable problem as that eve offers.
|
Zeredek
Gallente
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 00:24:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.
_________________
rawr |
Halcyon Ingenium
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 00:36:00 -
[53]
The only sensible fix to this that I've heard is the cancellation of payments to self destructs and criminally flagged activity. Not altering the insurance system, and eliminating it altogether, are extremes that will cause more problems than not in the long run.
__________
I'm just an ordinary Caldari trying to turn an ISK. What's wrong with that? |
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 02:00:00 -
[54]
Originally by: SebbyTheFreak
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.
This.
Base the standing on an NPC corp that you can't run missions for. (If Pend has agents, then spawn a Pend Account Auditing corp without agents and use that corp's standing.) Each insurance payout also generates a standings hit proportional to the "base: insurance payout (before reductions). If there are no payouts for a specified time increment (week or month) then you get a standings boost. And, finally, payouts are linked to standings (ex: you get 0% of what you'd normally be entitled to at -10, 50% at -5, 100% above 0. No bonus insurance for safe flyers, though positive standings would give you a buffer for future losses.
This would have a minimal effect on new players (they would get full insurance for a while, and they would need to lose many frigates and cruisers before having a meaningful impact on their standings), would prevent large-scale insurance fraud, and would penalize suicide gankers, as well, without simply removing insurance entirely.
Excellent idea!
--
Becq Starforged
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 02:39:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Forge Lag on 23/12/2009 02:41:10
We are searching for answers but what was the quiestion? Why do we need insurance?
New players: well insurance is nice but from may own nub experience I took only baseline free insurace and I never got anything for lost modules. On top of it, I wanted to sell my ships anyway as I upgraded, especially if they were rigged. If we indeed need insurance for new players, than we need to broaden insurance into destructed modules too (they have base price the same ships do, it is used for repair costs).
Fleet PvP: now this is IMO the real reson to have insurance. So that CCP can boast they have huge battles. Because huge battles with Apocalypses are so much more awesome than battles with Moas and Feroxes. If you remove insurace, lots of ships, mostly BSs, would become obsolete. Suprisingly enough, BSs will start to actually mean something again.
I am really not sure what is the reason why we still have insurance even after the often cited yet largely pointles removal of shuttles.
Maybe CCP master design revolves around all activities producing raw ISK - ratting, L4s, but also mining (insurance) and wormholes (sleeper tags). Maybe the reason is that converting items to ISK is irreversible process that de-facto removes items from game (but why sell skillbooks for ISK then and not minerals?). It is pretty sick line of thinking but it might be true. And it might be true even if such design was not intentional.
|
SebbyTheFreak
Caldari
Interstellar Corporation of Exploration
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 05:44:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Erayo
Transferring insurance system to players will be very problematic:
Yeah I know that. Also, however, everyone in EvE is "rich" by real world standards as well.
But I'm not really proposing a transfer, but the ability to offer it as well. Even if simply for corp logistics.
-----
Also, whoever said buying and self destructing a ship took as long as making a mission is kinda ******ed.
Level 4 mission: takes between 15 minutes and an hour at least from blitzing for a net payout of between 5 and 30 mils.
Building hundreads of battleship WHILE running missions, and then spending about an hour to undock and get concorded with a criminal flagged character can net between 10 and 15 millions direct profit every minute from insurance (25 seconds undocking, 25 seconds re-docking, 5 second lag between the two) and then the money made from salvaging all the abaddon wrecks can easily add another million or two (or more) per ship.
It's like looting an arbalest heavy missile launcher every minute.
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 06:26:00 -
[57]
if we were to scrap insurance.... mineral prices would "plummet", mining would be even less interesting. the "arkonor for everyone \o/" policy that got kicked off with wormholes and got more ridiculous with the new sys-indu-upgrades has only just begun to unfold.
but hey... without it, the economist would no longer be able to denounce inflation with a straight face... 
i'd sign anything excluding concordokken and self destruct from payouts though.
- raises the bar for high-sec-gank and not every 50mil-content-hauler gets ****d
- self-destruct your mom caught ratting in a belt/plex; player can decide between insurance or embarrassment.
-
putting the gist back into logistics |
Lekegolo Khanid
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 07:07:00 -
[58]
This "problem" will most likely sort it's self out but if action is needed then just say no insurance for self destruct, then they would have to pop the ships, I imagine some would team up with corp mates to pop each other but even so that would cut this down to about half of what it was previously.
|
Elite Qin
Caldari
APOCALYPSE LEGION
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 07:41:00 -
[59]
Easier: we all go out and commit insurance fraud until there aren't any more ships to commit insurance fraud with. That way, everyone on the forums wins, and all the idiots that are selling their ships for such little money lose!
|
Lumie
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 08:43:00 -
[60]
Can't you do Idea 00 but give newbies exempt?
|
|
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente
Davy Jones Locker
Enforcers of Serenity
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 08:51:00 -
[61]
Insurance could be void in cases where you were under attack by concord (not the last hit or it can be circumvented) or selfdestruct the ship.
|
Othran
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 09:16:00 -
[62]
I have a dreadful sense of deja vu here 
A fair few of the insurance "problems" could be solved by :
1) CCP revaluing insurance every 6-12 months based on average mineral/component cost over the period;
2) No insurance if you have an active wardec;
3) No payout if you are the initial aggressor.
The basic (and ongoing) problem with insurance is that its never been anywhere near the correct figure - especially on T2. The effects of this are more complicated than they initially appear and for all I know CCP don't want to revalue as the current values have a deflationary effect on T1 ships. Only they can say but if its not then periodic revaluation would be sensible.
2) and 3) are fairly simple and most people would view them as common sense. Providing insurance for wars/PvP would perhaps be an interesting player activity?
On 3) - I know that would probably be the controversial point, but we really just need some nice simple rules that newbies and current players can understand fast. It wouldn't put me off PvP as I hardly bother with insurance anyway. If they wanted to keep FW low-cost they could allow payouts there - think of it as the relevant state reimbursing its fighters.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 09:38:00 -
[63]
Insurance controlled by players woudl never work. Why? BEcause woudl NEVER ever be profitable for the insurance ompanies. Eve is a war universe. DO you think any company of insurance is NUTS enough to insure war vehicles during a war?
NO... because the probability of those things exploding is very very high. So high that the insurance company woudl have to charge subscriptions costing around 80-90% of base ship cost.
|
PeHD0M
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 10:37:00 -
[64]
How about this:
1. change insurance payouts, so it pays in minerals (not isk) - removes instant profit
2. create consumer goods, wich can be crafted via bpo system, and then selled to npc using dinamic prices (like antibiotics) - saves mineral prices
|
Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 11:10:00 -
[65]
Removing insurance in limited conditions has hardly anything to do with insurance fraud.
You may want to make EvE more forgiving for new players or harsher for highsec gankers but this will not impact large scale insurance fraud. In EvE, if it is posisble with alts and metagaming, it is just plain possible.
The new player argument is strawman, single LSEII costs more than cruiser or BC hull.
The core question remains why do we need insurance and what purpose does it serve. Currently it's two main purposes are:
1) Encouraging removing assets from the game (and injecting ISK, see previous page for my musings on this)
2) Shifting large scale combat towards BSs (making combat cheap in ISK but imposing SP barrier; making pilot count and SP the only relevant variables).
|
SupaKudoRio
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 12:08:00 -
[66]
Edited by: SupaKudoRio on 23/12/2009 12:09:10
Just remove insurance and get it over with. Isn't one of the core rules of EVE to not fly what you can't replace?
Edit: On second thoughts, keep the basic payout for accounts under a month old for ships cruiser and lower.
On another note, how do you like your pods in the morning? |
Albion Stormchaser
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 12:47:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Albion Stormchaser on 23/12/2009 12:47:10
Originally by: Seishi Maru
Insurance controlled by players woudl never work. Why? BEcause woudl NEVER ever be profitable for the insurance ompanies. Eve is a war universe. DO you think any company of insurance is NUTS enough to insure war vehicles during a war?
Yes they do, mainly Aviation and Marine hulls, but then thats what ships are......
Check out the links below.
Brit Insurance
Clements
|
Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 12:50:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Aloriana Jacques
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.
New players should learn the mechanics in small expendable ships, not flying their whole wallet while wearing their hearts on their sleaves...
Delenda est achura. |
Othran
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 13:17:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Seishi Maru
Insurance controlled by players woudl never work. Why? BEcause woudl NEVER ever be profitable for the insurance ompanies. Eve is a war universe. DO you think any company of insurance is NUTS enough to insure war vehicles during a war?
You'll find that most RL insurance companies do just that. Now obviously it is extremely unlikely anyone is going to insure a tank involved in an assault I think you'll find that plenty of companies will insure that same tank when its not in the warzone. That's RL, not the game so I'm sure that with the inventive people we have in-game they can work out ways of making ISK
Insuring in 0.0 should be player-controlled.
Alternatively get rid of insurance except for the first 12 weeks of an account, and apply the "if you attacked you get nothing" clause.
|
Anvalor
Gallente
Germania Inc.
D0GMA
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 13:22:00 -
[70]
Originally by: SupaKudoRio
Edited by: SupaKudoRio on 23/12/2009 12:09:10
Just remove insurance and get it over with. Isn't one of the core rules of EVE to not fly what you can't replace?
Edit: On second thoughts, keep the basic payout for accounts under a month old for ships cruiser and lower.
Yes lets remove insurance so that even more players are afraid to fly their ships. So you want them to fly only cheap ships? Let me guess, you have alot of money and would like to fly around in your big ship killing smaller ships and laughing at the people who can not afford them anymore because there is no insurance.
I still could afford expensive ships but i want more targets and not even more empty space !
|
|
|
Tippia
Reikoku
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 13:28:00 -
[71]
Originally by: SupaKudoRio
Isn't one of the core rules of EVE to not fly what you can't replace?
Yes. Insurance is one of the things that lets you replace it. Keeping or removing insurance makes no difference in view of that concept.
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 |
Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 13:52:00 -
[72]
In RL, insurance companies are not central banks printing money. In EvE they are.
They are not insurance companies, they are big automated factories - feed it coal and lumber, it spits banknotes. Net effect is fixed price on lumber based on the amount of banknote paper you can make out of it. Doh.
|
Elena Laskova
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 13:58:00 -
[73]
EvE may have a problem with losses (ship plus fittings plus implants plus clone) being too expensive.
If so, is insurance a good or a bad solution?
EvE may have a problem with the market value of (some) minerals.
If so, is insurance a good or a bad solution?
I think it's a very poor solution to both of these problems.
|
Hegbard
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 13:59:00 -
[74]
What particular problem are the insurance whiners trying to solve?
No abstracts, just plain facts.
What concrete gameplay problem do you have because of insurance? Why does that problem need solving? How has this become a problem right now?
|
Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 14:11:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Hegbard
What particular problem are the insurance whiners trying to solve?
No abstracts, just plain facts.
What concrete gameplay problem do you have because of insurance? Why does that problem need solving? How has this become a problem right now?
Ships and modules are too expensive for initial purchase for new player.
Ships loses do not matter, leading to blobbing.
It became problem after asteroid respawn was adjusted, it lasts for many months, just now the abusers are bored and fat and decided to came out.
On related note, there is no big issue with icelandic economic crash and the related wordlwide events. Still there are some people that would rather have it not happen. You may chose to be blind, after all, most people responsible for this RL event chose to be blind and keep abusing the faulty system as long as possible because else they would be outcast as whiners.
|
Hegbard
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 14:46:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Forge Lag
Ships and modules are too expensive for initial purchase for new player.
Which gives them a sense of accomplishment when they finally get that ship they worked so hard for. No instant gratification seems to be one of the selling points of EVE. So far, this is something positive.
Where would the sense of accomplishment be if you had to repeat the same grind over and over again?
Quote:
Ships loses do not matter, leading to blobbing, suiciding, pointless PvP griefing.
suiciding is good as is, this will be a pointless argument, so let's drop it.
"pointless PvP griefing" doesn't make any sense to use as an argument against insurance, since the griefer doesn't lose his ship and the victim gains from insurance.
"blobbing" is a meaningless word. It means you didn't have as many people as your opponent.
"ship losses do not matter", bull****. Fittings are often as expensive as the ship.
Basically, your argument is that there should be less PvP. Which is intereseting in a game where PvP is a big selling point. Insurance means that you have to grind that many hours less before you get into a fight. Look at it this way, for every battleship loss in large fleet fights, insurance saved 2-5 hours of grinding for ISK. Do you suggest that every time you go out to a fight, you should first spend 5-10 hours grinding ISK? How fun would the game be then? The only solution to that problem would be to make people lose less ships, which is already a problem in pvp, people are already too risk averse. Increasing cost of losses makes the problem even worse.
Insurance reduces the price of pvp for those who want to participate in it, while increasing the income for those who don't. Where's the problem?
Quote:
Single modules are order magnitude more expensive than ship hull.
Wait what? You're contradicting yourself with "ship losses don't matter". Unless you believe fights happen in unfit ships.
Quote:
It became problem after asteroid respawn was adjusted, it lasts for many months, just now the abusers are bored and fat and decided to came out.
Insurance fraud happened all the time and have been setting the price of the mineral basket for ages. It's just that some more vocal people came out with it now. Battleships have been steady at the edge of the magical insurance fraud limit for ages. The only big thing right now is that so much trit is being produced which drops the price so much that the normal insurance frauders can't keep up anymore. Anyone can do it.
Quote:
On related note, there is no big issue with icelandic economic crash and the related wordlwide events. Still there are some people that would rather have it not happen. You may chose to be blind, after all, most people responsible for this RL event chose to be blind and keep abusing the faulty system as long as possible because else they would be outcast as whiners.
What?
Does the economic crisis affect your game play? I don't get it.
|
SweetHoney
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 16:36:00 -
[77]
Originally by: SupaKudoRio
Edited by: SupaKudoRio on 23/12/2009 12:09:10
Just remove insurance and get it over with. Isn't one of the core rules of EVE to not fly what you can't replace?
Edit: On second thoughts, keep the basic payout for accounts under a month old for ships cruiser and lower.
wow... Then welcome to 0.01 isk Tritanium 0.02 isk pyerite and the others...
also that 20-50k ppl who trained half year for hulk will be very happy to make 100k/h.
Right now supply>demand only thing stops falling mineral prices is insurance.
hmm maybe we will reach the point then where a megathron will cost 1mill 
|
Elena Laskova
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 17:00:00 -
[78]
Denying the basic principles of economics never leads anywhere sensible. Price *should* be decided by the relationship between supply and demand.
Any effects this had would be good for EvE. Some might be a little disturbing: no more trash modules dropping from NPCs, no more stupidly high meta level drops from NPCs, fix the T2 blueprint mess (by full replacement with T3 BPs I hope), a period of tuning the mineral costs for manufactured items, etc.
But anything that moves the basis of the economy away from from subsidies and towards "player-hours" has to be good.
|
Cory Sopapilla
Minmatar
Kiroshi Group
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 17:17:00 -
[79]
Where are the people getting info that this is only just now becoming an issue? I did a quick eve-search for 'insurance fraud' and found threads back to Feb 2004.
Personally I think the first step should be to remove Concord & self-destruct related insurance payouts. If someone wants to gank a bunch of miners, they still can. It falls under the 'don't fly what you can't afford to lose' category.
|
Lieff
Over Dosed
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 17:28:00 -
[80]
Making flagged ships un-insureable is not that fair tbh, it would create a VERY safe high sec, instead of just safe.
I'd just add extra policies, IE, basic cover up to plat, covers you from NPC kills, you being ganked, you losing ship in a typical pvp encounter.
Concord cover, this covers your ship should you be concorded, the premium would pay out the same as basic, but would cost you extra on top.
Self destruct cover, this would cover your ship should you self destruct, again you would pay a higher premium for this.
Let them be combined in any fashion you like.
Aside from making it that complicated, a simpler (in theory) way to do it would just base insurance payout on the current universal average ship prices, this could be calculated at downtime and ensure nobody can de-fraud the insurance.
~
Woke up, got myself a gun. |
|
|
Aphoticus
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 17:47:00 -
[81]
Remove Concord related Insurance/Insurance (period) payouts for Non-NPC corps.
Only NPC corps (with their 11% fees) should have insurance to satisfy the newer players and should be tiered in either case; Non-combat versus combat related ships having different payouts and premiums.
Player corporations should provide their own means; Eve is harsh, act like it. If you feel so bold to start a one man corporation, be prepared. Why would anyone insure an ill-prepared corporate plan?
If the corporation is well established, and their net worth (in ISK) is right, and their "business plan" is sound, they can gain a small percentage premium and basic ship replacement payout for corporate members under a specific time frame in that corp.
After so long, and individual net worth is established, why would insurance be required?
Insurance should be a means to help the new player, not give seasoned players a means to not struggle and learn from their mistakes.
That's my take;
PS: I never insure anything.
You do the math, if you can make the price of the ship within a given period of time, insurance is a waste of money unless you are conducting fraud, or do not want to learn from your mistakes, or you want to play WOW.
|
Cory Sopapilla
Minmatar
Kiroshi Group
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 17:49:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Lieff
Making flagged ships un-insureable is not that fair tbh, it would create a VERY safe high sec, instead of just safe.
It's incredibly cheap to fit a suicide frigate or cruiser. A couple million or less and you're set in most cases. As it is now, it's actually a net gain from insurance when you suicide gank in some cases. The ganker gets to choose the gear and the target for maximum profit. The target, however, loses named/T2 gear or whatever and loses $$. No change would be made to safety of the gankee unless the majority of gankers are flat broke and have become too dependant on insurance fraud to make a living.
|
SweetHoney
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 18:16:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Aphoticus
PS: I never insure anything.
You do the math, if you can make the price of the ship within a given period of time, insurance is a waste of money unless you are conducting fraud, or do not want to learn from your mistakes, or you want to play WOW.
Because you are a care bear ...
Now go out and pvp a bit and lose couple of battleships a day, come back later and tell us will you consider insuring your ship next time ?
PVE ships can go that theory but eve not 100% pve, thats why this game still alive because the pvp aspect of the game.
|
Aphoticus
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 22:40:00 -
[84]
Originally by: SweetHoney
Originally by: Aphoticus
PS: I never insure anything.
You do the math, if you can make the price of the ship within a given period of time, insurance is a waste of money unless you are conducting fraud, or do not want to learn from your mistakes, or you want to play WOW.
Because you are a care bear ...
Now go out and pvp a bit and lose couple of battleships a day, come back later and tell us will you consider insuring your ship next time ?
PVE ships can go that theory but eve not 100% pve, thats why this game still alive because the pvp aspect of the game.
Very funny... Oh, wait, you do not research the people you quote? Nevermind. Carry on with your delusions.
|
Junko Togawa
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 23:17:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Junko Togawa on 23/12/2009 23:17:47
ITT supernerds jerk their gherkins over being able to defraud spacepixel insurance companies for spacepixel money. 
|
SweetHoney
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 23:18:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Aphoticus
Very funny... Oh, wait, you do not research the people you quote? Nevermind. Carry on with your delusions.
Statistics: Sweethoney ranked 86,827; me, nothing to brag about, in the 30k range. What do you know about the subject?
sorry I didn't want to hurt your feelings i fix it.
I meant you talkin about care bearing and not you are.
Also sweethoney is a forum alt of mine. so no ranks here, maybe you found some info when I take her out scout something. |
Smabs
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 23:27:00 -
[87]
I'm amazed that people think ship destruction doesn't impact a player just because of insurance.
Your typical battlecruiser costs about 25 - 45 million in modules if it's mostly t2 fit. A battleship tends to cost upwards of 70 million in modules. If there's no insurance the cost of a pvp battlecruiser/battleship pretty much doubles. Not to mention dreads and carriers. BCs and BSs tend to be the the most common hulls a pvp'er uses for damage dealing.
Removing insurance will just make players even more risk averse. Whereas once a player might've undocked their drake knowing they'd lose it, they would probably think twice if they were looking at a 60 mil loss instead of 30. Losing 200 mil for every battleship would make a lot of players extremely reluctant to take them out regularly in risky situations (unless they had an alliance replacement program). So you'd end up with more frigs, dessies and cruisers floating about, and probably less pvp overall. In other words it'd make eve more boring.
Of course suicide ganking is a whole different thing altogether.
|
Wet Ferret
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 23:57:00 -
[88]
If you're trying to remove insurance fraud the only way to do it is to remove insurance altogether. At best you can reduce large scale fraud by limiting how often you are paid out or something else, but as long as insurance exists it will be abused to some extent.
If you're trying to prevent behavior encouraged by insurance, do it directly. Like removing insurance for criminal acts. This has only one minor drawback, in that idiots who disable or ignore their CONCORD warning will be occasionally killed without compensation. I'm certainly not losing any sleep over that.
Removal of insurance for self destruct would be a pointless waste of dev time. Use your brain for 2 whole seconds to figure out why.
But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started.
|
Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 00:54:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Smabs
Your typical battlecruiser costs about 25 - 45 million in modules if it's mostly t2 fit.
...
So you'd end up with more frigs, dessies and cruisers floating about, and probably less pvp overall. In other words it'd make eve more boring.
For that module price you can field uninsured Ferox, or a few Blackbirds. And they are still cheaper than T2 frigates.
Why is more cruisers in PvP bad? (More T1 frigs? Oh please, when we started to talk T2 prices all of sudden?) Why do you insist that propper PvP must be done in BSs? If they start to cost close to HACs, you will actually have more options. Also PvP will become more accessible to low SP players.
Also, ships and T1 modules will become cheaper because insurance will stop inflating the price and because there will oversupply of minerals. So, less mining overall, not more.
|
Allen Ramses
Caldari
Typo Corp
|
Posted - 2009.12.24 02:38:00 -
[90]
What about simply removing the unconditional 40% base value portion of the equation and leaving the 1:2 payout alone? That would mean the rates would remain the same, but the maximum payout would be significantly decreased.
For example, a plantinum insurance policy for a Drake would still cost 11.4 mil (30% base value). However, the payout for this policy would go from 38 mil (100%) to 22.8 mil (60%). For insurance to break equal as it does now, the drake would have to cost 11.4 mil. I don't see this happening in the near future.
I always thought the unconditional 40% loss compensation was a bit absurd.
____________
I'd make a forum signature that didn't suck, but I'm restricted by a character limit that does. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |