EVE Search - Tech 2 ship insurance

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Tech 2 ship insurance

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Impact	Posted - 2009.12.26 15:17:00 - [1] Hey I would like to see tech 2 ships get the proper insurance. All tech 1 ships can get insured. But when I wand to insure my Golem, or Broadsword I am only getting the tech 1 verson of the pay out. And lets face it you can do it the same as the tech 1 by a percentile of the cost of the ship. And also I think it would atleast help cover some loss to the parts. All tech 2 ships are on the market. So I dont see why they arent insurable at there own rates. ^_^
ark maphar	Posted - 2009.12.26 15:41:00 - [2] cause tech 2 is esentially just a modified tech 1 hull, why shouldnt it get t1 payout? now t3...
Impact	Posted - 2009.12.26 15:50:00 - [3] Originally by: ark maphar cause tech 2 is esentially just a modified tech 1 hull, why shouldnt it get t1 payout? now t3... Cause tech 2 ships are usally 10 times the cost of a tech 1. Golem is like 900 mill, raven is 90. Broadswords like 140 mil. The Rupture is 10 at most? So I think the ship should refect the cost and pay out of unsurance not the t1 verson of it. I am not paying 90 mill a golem. I am paying 900 mill. And lets face it the amount people have tryed to suicide gank it in high sec is staggering. Thankfully. Only one time successful. But that means I am out that extra billion of isk replace costs, ontop of mods Where as a raven pilot is only out his mod costs.
Triel Baenre	Posted - 2009.12.26 15:55:00 - [4] I agree. My Kronos gets shot at ALOT in high sec where I mission in Dodixie. And though never killed. I think it would be devastating. Especially where the market on the marauders flux's so much. I am lucky got mine at 850 mil. there alot more costly now. Only having to replace the mods would be fantastic should I ever happen to lose it. And I do find the ship is targeted more often due to what it is, and its price value.
Ogogov	Posted - 2009.12.26 16:11:00 - [5] I don't think there's anything wrong with the current insurance system. You want to fly a pimped out ship? That's great - just don't cry when you lose it. Allowing insurance on T2 and T3 hulls would just give a ridiculous advantage to older, wealthier players. As it is, the low insurance payout on these expensive hulls levels the playing field somewhat and prevents their use in suicide tactics.
Nika Dekaia	Posted - 2009.12.26 16:48:00 - [6] Don't fly what you can't afford to lose. T2 insurance is fine. It's the whole risk vs. reward thing.
Impact	Posted - 2009.12.26 16:55:00 - [7] Originally by: Ogogov I don't think there's anything wrong with the current insurance system. You want to fly a pimped out ship? That's great - just don't cry when you lose it. Allowing insurance on T2 and T3 hulls would just give a ridiculous advantage to older, wealthier players. As it is, the low insurance payout on these expensive hulls levels the playing field somewhat and prevents their use in suicide tactics. Why is it chat warriors like you always come out on topics. You being jelious my older char can aford the more expensive hulls is your problem not mine. I started this game when there was nothing but merlins. There was no such thing as mission. I ACTUALLY had to earn my isk. People like you undock with your hand out and get millions handed over. You new characters have all the luxurys. Y ou wouldnt survive in the origional eve. So go QQ some where else cause you started the game late and cant fly a expensive hull. I am allowed to ask for T2 insurance to protect my investments.
Pan Dora Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.12.26 17:24:00 - [8] Originally by: Impact Tears So the big bad rookie comes and posted something that you dislike? How unfair! I totaly suport your decision to call him a jealous chat warrior intead of explaining your point the view and why you think your ideia has merit. Everyone know flaming make much better discussion than focus in the issue at hand. Look, the OP play EVE since imemorial ages. Everyone bows to his imcomparable wisdon and do as he says. _ I like to play this game because it make my in-game actions and archievments to mean something in-game.
Ogogov	Posted - 2009.12.26 18:15:00 - [9] Originally by: Impact Originally by: Ogogov I don't think there's anything wrong with the current insurance system. You want to fly a pimped out ship? That's great - just don't cry when you lose it. Allowing insurance on T2 and T3 hulls would just give a ridiculous advantage to older, wealthier players. As it is, the low insurance payout on these expensive hulls levels the playing field somewhat and prevents their use in suicide tactics. Why is it chat warriors like you always come out on topics. You being jelious my older char can aford the more expensive hulls is your problem not mine. I started this game when there was nothing but merlins. There was no such thing as mission. I ACTUALLY had to earn my isk. People like you undock with your hand out and get millions handed over. You new characters have all the luxurys. Y ou wouldnt survive in the origional eve. So go QQ some where else cause you started the game late and cant fly a expensive hull. I am allowed to ask for T2 insurance to protect my investments. Yes yes, whatever.. I had to barefoot over frozen broken glass in a snowstorm to get to school as a child, both ways The fact still remains that just because someone recently made a decision to try the game out shouldn't mean they're automatically at a huge disadvantage. If you think it does then I guess you want to hop into a time machine and go back to the original eve - complete with CCP struggling to meet its real life overheads because I doubt anyone would want to play a game like that, much less pay a monthly sub just to get crapped over. Time has moved on, there are more ship types available and it still takes a good while to get to the point where you can get "handed out millions" as you so condescendingly put it. You're still able to pilot a better ship purely by virtue of the high SP on your character, regardless of what hull you decide to use - so why are you so upset about it? I always thought the point of an MMO was to encourage more people to join as it makes the game and community a richer and more interesting experience - if you disagree with that assumption then why don't you quit, contract me all your stuff and go and play a single player game?
Czert ElPrezidente	Posted - 2009.12.26 18:21:00 - [10] I think having nicely insured T2 is fine. Preventing suicide gangs is very simple - disable paing of insurance if you destroyed by CONCORD.

Serge Bastana Gallente GWA Corp	Posted - 2009.12.26 18:29:00 - [11] Edited by: Serge Bastana on 26/12/2009 18:29:27 Isn't insurance based on the mineral cost to build the ship and not the actual cost of the thing? T2 insurance makes perfect sense as it is, due to the cost of the materials used to build T2. ------------------------------------------------ You either need a punch up the throat or a good shag. Nobody round here is offering the second one therefore your choices are limited!
d3vo The Missionaries	Posted - 2009.12.26 21:45:00 - [12] Originally by: Ogogov I don't think there's anything wrong with the current insurance system. You want to fly a pimped out ship? That's great - just don't cry when you lose it. Allowing insurance on T2 and T3 hulls would just give a ridiculous advantage to older, wealthier players. As it is, the low insurance payout on these expensive hulls levels the playing field somewhat and prevents their use in suicide tactics. How does it give advantage to older players? How old is old? What about new players with T2 ships? New players are not wealthy but have spent a lot of time to train skills and save up isk to buy that T2 ship. __________ \(^.^)/
Reggie Stoneloader JAFA Trade and Manufacturing Cooperative	Posted - 2009.12.26 21:46:00 - [13] I think Serge's got it right, the database tracks the cost of each component material based on standards set by CCP, and then the cost of a manufactured item is the base price of all involved resources. Unfortunately for T2 pilots, the base price does not include the cost of procuring the materials, so reactions and POS fuel and other expenses that the manufacturers and middlemen have to incorporate into their prices are not taken into account for insurance. I suspect that moon mineral base prices could stand a little tweaking, but there's no good way to assign a value to a built T2 ship. As many others have ovserved, ship prices can easily fluctuate by more than 100% in any given month. Full insurance coverage would either set a rock bottom minimum price for them or make it worthwhile to buy and blow up every Cerberus in a region a couple times a year The penalty for flying faction and high-tech ships is that insurance isn't always there for you. You still make a profit over the premium, of course, so go nuts with the insurance, but it won't buy you a new marauder, and it shouldn't. Fly a T1 ship with no rigs if you want security. ====================== Crusades: Security Status
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Undivided	Posted - 2009.12.26 21:57:00 - [14] Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 26/12/2009 21:56:56 **** insurance is the cost of flying t2. If anything, insurance needs a nerf.
d3vo The Missionaries	Posted - 2009.12.26 22:10:00 - [15] Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader I think Serge's got it right, the database tracks the cost of each component material based on standards set by CCP, and then the cost of a manufactured item is the base price of all involved resources. Unfortunately for T2 pilots, the base price does not include the cost of procuring the materials, so reactions and POS fuel and other expenses that the manufacturers and middlemen have to incorporate into their prices are not taken into account for insurance. I suspect that moon mineral base prices could stand a little tweaking, but there's no good way to assign a value to a built T2 ship. As many others have ovserved, ship prices can easily fluctuate by more than 100% in any given month. Full insurance coverage would either set a rock bottom minimum price for them or make it worthwhile to buy and blow up every Cerberus in a region a couple times a year The penalty for flying faction and high-tech ships is that insurance isn't always there for you. You still make a profit over the premium, of course, so go nuts with the insurance, but it won't buy you a new marauder, and it shouldn't. Fly a T1 ship with no rigs if you want security. Interesting...maybe insurance should variate according to the ships manufacturing price and not just for T2, but for all ships. As to how much insurance will cover for T1 or T2 ship, I don't know. But I think it should be reasonable. __________ \(^.^)/
Aqriue	Posted - 2009.12.26 23:15:00 - [16] Insurance payout for T2 ships could be twice the payout of the T1 hull and you still loose some isk. It would be nice just to get more then the value of a T1 hull when you invest so heavily towards a T2 ship with the price tag and time invested toward it
Sokratesz	Posted - 2009.12.26 23:42:00 - [17] ITT: people fail to see that insurance is determined by base price, not market value When will TQ hit the 100K PCU mark? Place a bet!
All iskies Caldari Isks R Us	Posted - 2009.12.26 23:46:00 - [18] Just remove in game insurance altogether and after 3 months of market settling everyone will be happy.
Valandril Caldari Silver Snake Enterprise Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.12.26 23:47:00 - [19] And that was me
Aloriana Jacques Amarr Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2009.12.27 01:20:00 - [20] The devs actually answered a question on this at the last fanfest and stated the T2 insurance payouts are where they want them to be. - - - Aloriana Jacques - Skill Sheet

Crewman Jenkins Caldari Malicious Demi-Lancers	Posted - 2009.12.27 04:15:00 - [21] Just get rid of insurance
d3vo The Missionaries	Posted - 2009.12.27 04:45:00 - [22] Originally by: Sokratesz ITT: people fail to see that insurance is determined by base price, not market value I believe that should be changed. Originally by: All iskies Just remove in game insurance altogether and after 3 months of market settling everyone will be happy. How so? Demand will go down because people may not have the isk to replace the ships that are lost. __________ \(^.^)/
riverini Gallente MOTHER-CORP Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.12.27 09:19:00 - [23] Originally by: Sokratesz ITT: people fail to see that insurance is determined by base price, not market value +1
Sokratesz	Posted - 2009.12.27 09:42:00 - [24] Originally by: d3vo Originally by: Sokratesz ITT: people fail to see that insurance is determined by base price, not market value I believe that should be changed. Oh d3vo, in all your wisdom as god of the eve economy, please grant me a vision about how you would implement that without increasing the insurance isk faucet even more and without creating numerous opportunities for exploits? A HAC is worth about 15 mil ISK in raw materials, and that's what you will get if you insure it. The fact that you paid a hundred for it because of the way supply/demand works, is totally irrelevant. Want cheaper HACs? Do something useful and make a proposal to improve T2 production, invention, moon mining or whatever. When will TQ hit the 100K PCU mark? Place a bet!
Reggie Stoneloader JAFA Trade and Manufacturing Cooperative	Posted - 2009.12.27 09:44:00 - [25] I'd like to see a player-run insurance, with in-game contracts that the client signs. Getting killed less frequently would lead to lower premiums, and vice versa. Work it like standings. That way, dirtbags who get their ships concorded or are losing twelve battleships a wonth would be rendered uninsurable, and would have to take their licks, while mission runners who fly the same T2-rigged, faction-fitted marauder for years would pay a low monthly rate for their coverage. ====================== Crusades: Security Status
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Undivided	Posted - 2009.12.27 09:57:00 - [26] Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader I'd like to see a player-run insurance, with in-game contracts that the client signs. Getting killed less frequently would lead to lower premiums, and vice versa. Work it like standings. That way, dirtbags who get their ships concorded or are losing twelve battleships a wonth would be rendered uninsurable, and would have to take their licks, while mission runners who fly the same T2-rigged, faction-fitted marauder for years would pay a low monthly rate for their coverage. Because EVE needs more mechanics to discourage PVP and not taking risks.
Sharon Anne	Posted - 2009.12.27 10:42:00 - [27] allow 3rd party insurance to be sold in game as a player run trade. how it would works I'll leave that to greater minds.
Slimy Chicky	Posted - 2009.12.27 10:45:00 - [28] No, No insurance for Tech 2 and Tech 3 ships. You all do dangerous stuff with those ships and they should not be insured at all. I only wise they (CCP) removed insurance when entering Low-sec and WH-Space.
Valandril Caldari Silver Snake Enterprise Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.12.27 11:06:00 - [29] Originally by: d3vo Originally by: Sokratesz ITT: people fail to see that insurance is determined by base price, not market value I believe that should be changed. Originally by: All iskies Just remove in game insurance altogether and after 3 months of market settling everyone will be happy. How so? Demand will go down because people may not have the isk to replace the ships that are lost. Wrong, currently price for ships is "so high" because insurance is artificaly boostin it. Without insurance battleships may cost as low as 5-10m
Impact	Posted - 2009.12.27 11:27:00 - [30] Originally by: Slimy Chicky No, No insurance for Tech 2 and Tech 3 ships. You all do dangerous stuff with those ships and they should not be insured at all. I only wise they (CCP) removed insurance when entering Low-sec and WH-Space. Listen the bottom line is no matter what people will buy ships to suicide gank in. The golem I lost was taken down my BS's 7 ships in high sec. SO your worried about dangerious look at insurance to begin with. You buy the ship 1 billion isk. You insure the ship 400 mill isk. And then you wanna go suicide gank in it your out 400 mill isk. Plus your mod costs. So it would not permote people to go out and go silly squirrel in them. And I agree with the comment that being concorded should void your insurance. CCP is playing with every other aspect of the game. They dont have some little number bug in the back room who can work on insurance cost and development? As for who ever said insurance was based on mineral cost I have to call bull****. I priced out Cerbs, and Golems from jita prices on the minerals. If your telling me that the programming is based on the price of those minerals I think you need to update it. I think last time I went to build a cerb the mineral costs alone were around 110 million if I was to park in jita and buy all the raw mats. My golem builder says he cant get them any cheeper then 820 million. So your insurance on a golem right now is a 90 mill isk pay out. On a ship that basic mineral costs is 820 million. Insurance should be based on the ship cost. To build a raven isnt 90 mill in minerals, which is the insurance pay out. If they were then you wouldnt see them selling for 92 million. Cause factory cost would put them over. More and more people are running TT2 ships now and days. CCP says this game is suppose to be developing as if a real life thing. Well T2 ships been out a while. My insurance company in real life will insure my Porsche as much as they will a VW Jetta I will just have to pay more.

Impact	Posted - 2009.12.27 11:40:00 - [31] Originally by: Sokratesz Originally by: d3vo Originally by: Sokratesz ITT: people fail to see that insurance is determined by base price, not market value I believe that should be changed. Oh d3vo, in all your wisdom as god of the eve economy, please grant me a vision about how you would implement that without increasing the insurance isk faucet even more and without creating numerous opportunities for exploits? A HAC is worth about 15 mil ISK in raw materials, and that's what you will get if you insure it. The fact that you paid a hundred for it because of the way supply/demand works, is totally irrelevant. Want cheaper HACs? Do something useful and make a proposal to improve T2 production, invention, moon mining or whatever. You want a suggestion? Well I was part of a 0.0 corp a while. And I know for a fact those people out there arent going broke over costs to build and POS fuels. The profit they made form Moon Mineral sales in Empire, and the for some corps the massive tax they impose more then lines there pockets. Actually I know a corp in Tribute where there CEO had so much isk he went out and built him self a personal OutPost. Thats right he went out on his birthday and decided "Hey, my own outpost would be nice lets toss out the 50 bill for one with all the bells and whistles" I think there costs are low enough. Each POS only after the inital investment is only costing them what? like 100 mill a month in Fuels? Oh How are those poor souls making it out there. When they sell there moon minerals collected for that month for billions. As much as this hurts me to say this... And trust me it dose. When BoB was around atleast the moon minerals were cheap. 70 mil hacs, 500 mill marauders. So heres my Suggestion now that I ranted. Allow those moon minerals to be in Empire moons. Not only can I garentee you the prices will drop. There will be a mass increase in Empire wars. And also put those what? Say 8 allainces that own 90% of of 0.0 and that are all allies at this time in check.
Jophiel Gabriel	Posted - 2009.12.27 11:58:00 - [32] Well I am new to the game. And I would hate to lose an uninsured ship. I just got my dominix I dont think I could replace it if lost. But fair is fair. I think all ships should be able to be insured, or not insured. Its that fine line of you can aford to buy it, can you aford to lose it? But in the end I know my ship is covered. I and I beleive all people and ships should have the opertunity to insure there ships. We all have to work hard to get into them. ^_^
Triel Baenre	Posted - 2009.12.27 12:00:00 - [33] I am for removing insurance all together. And/Or null an void insurance if concord kills you. Its kind of biast to give it to one and not the other. Honestly yes it helps newer players who race into that BS with out getting the support skills and then get them selves blown up for there stupidity. But in the end its unfair for the T2 pilots to be out massive costs due to the lack of insurance. And with Empire ganking on the rise, the insurance is much needed. I was watching yesterday I think the Injurnen system ended off at 50 some odd ganks of mission ships. And well no one can forget the roaming gank that killed hulks that went on for about a month. So I say either offer insurance to everyone, or as some pointed out. Get ride of it all together. Let the new players fend for them selves. Older players may have a nice pocket of isk to sit on. But that dosent mean any of us deserve to lose our money any more then the newer players. One thing I am noticing though is a hate towards older players. Honestly thats like hating some one who got in on a market before you did. Its a weird kind of jelious nature to hate some one cause they have been in the game and successful. I have been in empire since I started in 2004, I dont hate 0.0 corps cause they have opertunities to be rich I made my choice of where I want to be. As for Impact his/her 1 billion isk ship got ganked by I dunno lets say 450 mil isk in battle ships since he, or she said it was 7 of them. Which I am almost garenteeing were insured. Which means those players took almost no loss's. They were probally typical gank boats with all t1 parts. So who is it fair to? The player losing 100% of his/her invested isk? Or the suicide gankers sitting in a system going threw 5 - 10 insured ships that concord kills off, and there neutral alts race in and loot there wrecks to minamize costs? And good luck Jopheil on your new Dominix. Its a fantastic mission ship
Litel Gril Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.12.27 12:49:00 - [34] tech 2 ships insurance = NO! carebears go play other games ccp should remove insurance from all ships anyway!
Impact	Posted - 2009.12.27 20:06:00 - [35] Originally by: Litel Gril tech 2 ships insurance = NO! carebears go play other games ccp should remove insurance from all ships anyway! You know how stupid your comment is? Lets lay this out. With out carebears no one would be building the ships, no one would be mineing the minerals. So the combat pilots require carebears more, then they do us. You would be running around in an ibis cursing cause there wasnt anything bigger to use. Not to mention the mission runner corperations are the ones with the high sec POS's that reduce builders costs, to bring down ship costs with ME reseach. Which for anyone who is in empire knows ME research is usually a 20-50 day Q. I should have as much right to insure my tech 2 ships as any person who can only fly tech 1 in the game. And yeh I say CCP should remove the insurance, or void it if concord tags ya. Or equal rights. Give me insurance on my tech 2 ship. And Lastly LOL who are you to think you have the right to call some one a care bear? Since your posting with that character which hasnt even made 1 single kill. And I dont care if thats an alt, thats the one your choose to post with. Start screaming care bear when you break youe cherry. Or Go back to Warcraft.
Pod Amarr	Posted - 2009.12.27 20:23:00 - [36] Originally by: Crewman Jenkins Just get rid of insurance THIS PLS Fly what you can afford right ? So let's treat everyone equal shall we?
d3vo The Missionaries	Posted - 2009.12.27 20:57:00 - [37] Edited by: d3vo on 27/12/2009 20:58:52 Originally by: Sokratesz Originally by: d3vo Originally by: Sokratesz ITT: people fail to see that insurance is determined by base price, not market value I believe that should be changed. Oh d3vo, in all your wisdom as god of the eve economy, please grant me a vision about how you would implement that without increasing the insurance isk faucet even more and without creating numerous opportunities for exploits? A HAC is worth about 15 mil ISK in raw materials, and that's what you will get if you insure it. The fact that you paid a hundred for it because of the way supply/demand works, is totally irrelevant. Want cheaper HACs? Do something useful and make a proposal to improve T2 production, invention, moon mining or whatever. I'm sorry...but wth are you manners. I basically said that it should be changed to match the market value. I know there are potential exploits...which is why I didn't say any specifics. But it is obvious that the current insurance payout of T2 ships is VERY low compared price of the T2 ships. You aren't paying insurance on the raw materials, your paying insurance on the ship! Also, I am not asking for cheaper HACs, I am asking that the T2 insurance payout be more reasonably priced relative to the market value. To answer the ISK faucet problem, insurance should NEVER bring a net gain, but either 0 gain or a loss. Therefore, there shouldn't be an ISK faucet problem. Originally by: Valandril Originally by: d3vo Originally by: Sokratesz ITT: people fail to see that insurance is determined by base price, not market value I believe that should be changed. Originally by: All iskies Just remove in game insurance altogether and after 3 months of market settling everyone will be happy. How so? Demand will go down because people may not have the isk to replace the ships that are lost. Wrong, currently price for ships is "so high" because insurance is artificaly boostin it. Without insurance battleships may cost as low as 5-10m So after that the production price will go down because the mineral prices drop? I fear it would take a very long time for that to happen. During that time, PVP activity will drop drastically because people will lose isk at the expense of PVP or being ganked. __________ \(^.^)/
Pan Dora Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.12.27 21:15:00 - [38] Impact, the insurance payout its defined by the base price of materials, that is nothing else than a hard-coded 'intended value' no one but pend insurance company cares about. All your explanation about greed CEOs in 0.0 only show why market prices of moon mineral are so different than base price. And if moon mineral its so high because the greed of 0.0 CEOs/corps its a reason to not boost tech 2 insurance. A boost for 0.0 ISK printers its not needed or desirable. _ I like to play this game because it make my in-game actions and archievments to mean something in-game.
Callista Sincera Amarr	Posted - 2009.12.27 21:45:00 - [39] Edited by: Callista Sincera on 27/12/2009 21:46:07 Originally by: Ogogov The fact still remains that just because someone recently made a decision to try the game out shouldn't mean they're automatically at a huge disadvantage. Can I have your stuff? I mean the stuff you seem to be smokin... How did you get from "t2 insurance" to "mah mah, me want ma free ship, mah mah" ? In fact, not having an insurance for t2 hulls means those will stay limited to wealthier player. The training time for a marauder isn't the problem. Neither is the first billion if you really want that thing. Losing it is the problem. Insurance would alleviate this and make it easier for new people like you to actually fly one and not just station-spin it. Besides, no other MMO gives new players chances half as big as in EVE. Sure, we all know the learning curve for EVE, but you really can't say that new players don't stand a chance. Specialization is the keyword. That's not to say that I'm for T2 insurance though. Just pointing out that your attempt at logic really went the wrong way. -
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Undivided	Posted - 2009.12.27 21:49:00 - [40] Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 27/12/2009 21:49:39 Quote: In fact, not having an insurance for t2 hulls means those will stay limited to wealthier player. The training time for a marauder isn't the problem. Neither is the first billion if you really want that thing. Losing it is the problem. Insurance would alleviate this and make it easier for new people like you to actually fly one and not just station-spin it. T2 insurance would obsolete t1 ships. Why fly a Stabber when I can fully insure a Vagabond? Why should I fly a Merlin when I can fully insure a Harpy?

Robert Caldera	Posted - 2009.12.27 22:12:00 - [41] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 27/12/2009 22:12:08 Originally by: Impact Hey I would like to see tech 2 ships get the proper insurance. All tech 1 ships can get insured. But when I wand to insure my Golem, or Broadsword I am only getting the tech 1 verson of the pay out. And lets face it you can do it the same as the tech 1 by a percentile of the cost of the ship. And also I think it would atleast help cover some loss to the parts. All tech 2 ships are on the market. So I dont see why they arent insurable at there own rates. ^_^ insurance should be removed entirely. People should pay for their stuff.
Litel Gril Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.12.27 23:28:00 - [42] impact... you're a carebear
Valandril Caldari Silver Snake Enterprise Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.12.27 23:29:00 - [43] Originally by: d3vo Edited by: d3vo on 27/12/2009 21:38:34 Originally by: Sokratesz Originally by: d3vo Originally by: Sokratesz ITT: people fail to see that insurance is determined by base price, not market value I believe that should be changed. Oh d3vo, in all your wisdom as god of the eve economy, please grant me a vision about how you would implement that without increasing the insurance isk faucet even more and without creating numerous opportunities for exploits? A HAC is worth about 15 mil ISK in raw materials, and that's what you will get if you insure it. The fact that you paid a hundred for it because of the way supply/demand works, is totally irrelevant. Want cheaper HACs? Do something useful and make a proposal to improve T2 production, invention, moon mining or whatever. I'm sorry...but wth are you manners. I basically said that it should be changed to match the market value. I know there are potential exploits...which is why I didn't say any specifics. But it is obvious that the current insurance payout of T2 ships is VERY low compared price of the T2 ships. You aren't paying insurance on the raw materials, your paying insurance on the ship! Also, I am not asking for cheaper HACs, I am asking that the T2 insurance payout be more reasonably priced relative to the market value. Originally by: Valandril Originally by: d3vo Originally by: Sokratesz ITT: people fail to see that insurance is determined by base price, not market value I believe that should be changed. Originally by: All iskies Just remove in game insurance altogether and after 3 months of market settling everyone will be happy. How so? Demand will go down because people may not have the isk to replace the ships that are lost. Wrong, currently price for ships is "so high" because insurance is artificaly boostin it. Without insurance battleships may cost as low as 5-10m So after that the production price will go down because the mineral prices drop? I fear it would take a very long time for that to happen. During that time, PVP activity will drop drastically because people will lose isk at the expense of PVP or being ganked. It was talked multiple times in MD and this "settling" period would take about 3 months. And the pvp problem is only reason why this should not be implemented.
d3vo The Missionaries	Posted - 2009.12.28 00:47:00 - [44] Originally by: Valandril Without insurance battleships may cost as low as 5-10m If prices would drop that much, that means everything else would downsize in price to keep the ratio the same. I.e. mission profits, exploration, trading, mining, etc? Amirite? __________ \(^.^)/


Pages: 1 2 :: [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.