|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 21:02:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Tippia on 12/03/2010 21:03:04 Meh… all this does is slightly reduce the ISK volume coming through insurance fraud faucet – velocity won't be affected. It provides a nice relative buff for mission income though.
In other words, nothing to be up in arms about (unless you PvP a lot in T1 ships). ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 21:47:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Sig Sour Insurance 100% removed = less seeded isk. Less of an isk supply = mineral to isk value increases.
Or, more likely: insurance 100% removed = less reason to mine = more reason to run missions for your ISK = more ISK seeded = mineral value decreases even further = less reason to mine… ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:37:00 -
[3]
Originally by: DJWiggles In my view its a step in the right direction, all that needs to happen now is concord payouts dropped by at least half again and we will be in a workable state IMHO
No. An increase in ganks (especially against miners) when mineral prices drop below insurance rats is just another way for the market to find a balance – that mechanism should not be touched. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:44:00 -
[4]
Originally by: DJWiggles this is how it happens in real insurance cases.
Irrelevant. EVE insurance has nothing to do with real insurance. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:52:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Tippia on 12/03/2010 22:53:19
Originally by: DJWiggles Well I know this BUT we can also say the market has nothing to do with real life ... oh wait it does supply and demand.
Your point being?
Quote: All I know is that there will be MANY pirate tears over this.
Unlikely. Unless you see a lot of pirates in capships. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:55:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Abrazzar Now they only need to nerf mineral input from secondary sources and prices may even stabilize instead of dropping further.
…or they can just do that, and achieve the same effect without resorting to a risky gamble with the game's fundamental value-giving mechanism. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:08:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Adunh Slavy There is much greater supply than demand as it is right now.
…and the player driven market has already acted to get that back into balance. Now this comes along and completely fails to solve the problem – in fact, it makes the problem even worse by weakening one of the safeguards that lets the market determine its value.
Quote: Those most impacted by the removal of insurance are new players. A safety net for anyone under three months old could be created - Noob insurance.
No, those most impacted by the removal of insurance are miners, since their work is now inherently worthless, unlike before. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 10:15:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Chaos Incarnate please proceed with your regularly schedul-THE SKY IS FALLING
Meh. The sky is not falling. It's just that mining has gotten one hell of an unnecessary nerf while mission-running got a much-not-at-all-needed buff. The market will correct itself – only it wil be to a worse state than right now. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 11:17:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Turiel Demon
Originally by: Malcanis Currently POS are a huge ISK sink, but if the insurance ISK fountain is being scaled back, then the need for POS to sink that ISK reduces. CCP can maintain an ISK sink component by only selling BPCs
Well, I doubt CCP'll rework POS but we can hope that the new planet interaction structures would have to be player-built, but I doubt even that. I think that in any event a mineral-sink will be insufficient to deal with the oversupply.
By the (speculative) looks of it so far, what they're doing with PI is simply moving the ISK sink for POS:es one layer down – instead of paying NPC:s for POS consumables, we'll be paying NPC:s for planetary facilities that create POS consumables. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:54:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Cyclops43 EDIT: We also don't have one crucial piece of the puzzle, which is WHY CCP is doing this! My guess is they're seeing a massive ISK faucet that is unbalancing the game economy, and have decided to stop it...
…what, missions are getting nerfed? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:11:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Tippia on 13/03/2010 14:13:16
Originally by: Norsefire
Originally by: Zartrader Insurance sets the minimum price a ship costs to buy and therefore minimum mineral value
I thought I had it; ships are cheaper because insurance is lower, ships are built/refined into minerals = minerals are cheaper.
Except for the bit where the ships become cheaper. is everyone who makes ships going to think "I have to sell for this for less because insurance is lower"? Or is that exactly what will happen and CCP has made the same mistake I am?
What happens is that, if people are selling the minerals (or entire ships) at less than mineral values, others will instantly pick them up and have them blown up for ISK at a profit. This means that only minerals (and ships) that sit at or slightly above the insurance-mandated minimum value remains at the market for any period of time, and as others come along and try to get their stuff sold, they'll use this value as a hint of what they should sell it at as well. As they'll want their wares sold, they'll put in a price just below what the market seems to say – if it's below insurance value, it gets snapped up, if not it stays. On the one hand, we have traders pushing the price down to get their stuff sold; on the other we have the insurance determining how low they can push it, which is maintained by long-running buy orders.
If insurance payout is lowered, the threshold at which minerals will get insta-bought is lowered as well. As people push to get their minerals sold, same as they always have, they'll constantly undercut each other until we once again hit the lower value that the new insurance rates dictate.
In short, they don't have to think "I need to sell for less because insurance says so" – they just have to think "I want to sell at all some time before the game shuts down", and then the market takes care of the rest. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:20:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Cyclops43
Originally by: Akita T ...it turns mining into something that's increasingly attractive more and more just for macroers and botters as opposed to legitimate players.
How is smaller returns attractive to macro'ers??
Returns matter less than AFK:ability. Bots don't particularly care about the boredom:income ratio – players do. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:29:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Cyclops43 The same economic reality that Akita claims will drive players from mining will also drive macro'ers from mining.
True enough, but that will happen much later for macros than for players, leading to his claim: that this kind of change only pushes us closer to where only macros will be able to provide us with minerals and still remain sane. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 17:53:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Marko Riva I like it, more people will pay ransoms then.
Unlikely. Ship loss cost will be the same. In fact, it's likely to be less if you're using player-built modules. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:11:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Marko Riva If the difference between payout and actual worth of a ship becomes more, then the willigness to pay a ransom increases
But that's just it: the difference won't increase, because the ship will have been cheaper as well.
And if they haven't insured the ship at all, your logic turns on its head: they'll instead be more inclined to think "meh, it's not like I paid a lot for it" and have it blow up. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:16:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Stephente What this game needs is a mass-scale war where tons of minerals are taken out of the game.
Yes. And yet, people are adamant on wanting to make it harder to lose ships, and to remove incentives for people to get their ships blown up. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 21:54:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Baillif I for one welcome our new dirt cheap t1 ships
Again: the end cost will remain the same. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 22:08:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Forum Mcforum can someone explain whats going on,
Read the thread – it's all there.
Quote: i gather insurance has been fixed? so if i lose a hulk i get paid for a hulk?
Nope. And that wouldn't really be a "fix" either. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 14:04:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Malakai Draevyn 3. Self Destructed Ships should get zero insurance payout. "You have voided the terms of your insurance contract by detonating it in space." After all, you don't get insurance if you recycle / trash your ship hull, do you ?
…and with that, you remove the whole reason we have insurance to begin with. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 14:20:00 -
[20]
Originally by: DJWiggles well if you do that in real life (yes i know im talking about real life again) you have broken the terms of the contract there for its invalid ... insurance should be there BUT have limits, that is just my view.
…and that's why RL is irrelevant: it doesn't serve the same purpose and the two have nearly nothing in common apart from the name.
If you add those kinds of limits, you might as well remove insurance entirely because it no longer serves any purpose in the game. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 14:38:00 -
[21]
Originally by: DJWiggles why remove it ... it WILL serve a purpose, just to the rules you have to ad-hear to.
…and those rules are the equivalent of removing it. The purpose it would serve with those rules in place is something completely different than the purpose it has now. What you're doing is removing one game mechanic and adding something unrelated – you're not even replacing what was there before. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 13:25:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Might this create an environment where the most ZERO risk of all profession in EVE (mining in empire) would be forced to move out into a null space alliance where they could set their own cost for minerals?
No. It might move miners, but the most zero-risk of all EVE professions (highsec mission running) will still remain largely untouched – in fact, it would receive a fairly decent boost in relative value should the mineral market collapse. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
|
|
|