Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Retail Therapy
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 21:48:00 -
[1]
Are differences in insurance payouts on test part of testing or an unintended test server anomaly? Any dev feedback appreciated.
|
McFly
Peanut Factory BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:17:00 -
[2]
looks like they want to reduce the net value of everything in eve, with this... DEV Reply would be nice.
|
Companion Trollin
You are going too fast
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:28:00 -
[3]
cue panic selling.
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 23:52:00 -
[4]
somebody plz save CCP from themselves...! (before we all head out for starcraft2) - putting the gist back into logistics |
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 23:54:00 -
[5]
[joke]EVE isn't cake now[/joke] ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 00:00:00 -
[6]
Can anyone tell whats the actual change ?
|
justin666
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 00:06:00 -
[7]
i think the current changes on sisi are just plain stupid.............
|
Matalino
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 00:34:00 -
[8]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Can anyone tell whats the actual change ?
Not yet. All that I can tell you is that each ship seems to be different. I haven't tested too many ships, but I have found atleast one Tech 2 ship that has had its insurance payout more than doubled.
|
Allen Ramses
Caldari Zombicidal Mania Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 00:37:00 -
[9]
In reference to another thread:
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Here is the difference for a Rifter. And Hurricane.
I ran the numbers on this, and I must say I am appalled. Instead of refining the insurance formula, they simply reduced the base price of the ships by 31.7%. The net insurance rates are identical.
Congratulations, CCP. Once again, you "fixed" an observed by-product of a problem and did absolutely nothing to remedy the real issue. I'd be surprised, but after 2 years of this short-sighted garbage, I would have been surprised if you had actually done something right (for once).
I give the "solution" 3 months before we're at the exact same place we are now.
____________ I'd make a forum signature that didn't suck, but I'm restricted by a character limit that does. |
Aera Aiana
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 01:35:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Allen Ramses I give the "solution" 3 months before we're at the exact same place we are now.
Maybe they plan on updating the baseprice on a regular basis. (Hope's a *****...)
|
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 02:40:00 -
[11]
so please enlighten me ... why is reducing the insurance payout bad?
finally suicide ganking will be less profitable and insurance fraud is dead. sounds good to me.
|
AdmiralJohn
The Unknown Bar and Pub
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 02:57:00 -
[12]
Originally by: darius mclever so please enlighten me ... why is reducing the insurance payout bad?
finally suicide ganking will be less profitable and insurance fraud is dead. sounds good to me.
Except prices will fall to match these levels, and miners will make even less money.
People will still suicide gank.
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:01:00 -
[13]
Originally by: AdmiralJohn
Originally by: darius mclever so please enlighten me ... why is reducing the insurance payout bad?
finally suicide ganking will be less profitable and insurance fraud is dead. sounds good to me.
Except prices will fall to match these levels, and miners will make even less money.
People will still suicide gank.
This. The solution to suicide ganking is to remove insurance payout on ships with concord on their killmail.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:09:00 -
[14]
well that doesnt solve the insurance fraud?
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:22:00 -
[15]
I'm calling idiot economist shenenigans on this one. When will CCP ever learn ?
They keep attacking symptoms, they never attack the actual problem. And the more they try to be "hands-off" (and claim to be as such), the more invasive they end up actually being.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:39:00 -
[16]
Seriously, what the bloodly hell is THIS supposed to solve anyway ?
Do you think it will solve suicide-ganking ? IT WON'T ! Do you think it will solve the highsec/lowsec/0.0 mining income issue ? IT WON'T ! In fact, it will make it even worse, MUCH worse. Do you think it will reduce the ISK inflow from the insurance faucet ? Ok, that it would do, to some degree.
If it's a flat adjustment, all you solved is getting the price of ships even lower than before, until the previous situation gets repeated, just with lower prices. Miners end up screwed, since ALL mining income will get reduced, but the worst effects will be felt by 0.0 miners, since the highends will be the first to drop heavily, while lowends should remain about the same, and they might actually start to go UP in price ! If it's a dynamic adjustment, you're delaying the return of the suicide-gank cost issues, but you're making the mining imbalances and mining revenue drops even more pronounced earlier on, and going to a lower overall level.
THIS CHANGE IS ONE OF THE MOST HORRIBLE POSSIBLE CHANGES YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE. Whoever had the idea to do this, and only this (if it's accompanied by a lot of other changes it might actually work, but I see none others) should be handled the same way the "boot.ini" guy was handled in your "funny vid".
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Sciencegeek deathdealer
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 04:21:00 -
[17]
/me points out that its the test server and a long ways away from release... then he covers his eyes asto not bleed from the ranting of a certain player that thinks they are more importaint then they are...
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 04:43:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Sciencegeek deathdealer /me points out that its the test server and a long ways away from release
Right, because CCP ever improves something based on faulty premises, now do they ?
Quote: ... then he covers his eyes asto not bleed from the ranting of a certain player that thinks they are more importaint then they are...
Right, because the guy on top of the mast screaming "iceberg" is just shouting that to feel important instead of, oh, I don't know, trying to avoid a freaking collision with an iceberg ?
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Aera Aiana
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 04:50:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Akita T Right, because the guy on top of the mast screaming "iceberg" is just shouting that to feel important instead of, oh, I don't know, trying to avoid a freaking collision with an iceberg ?
Exactly, like the boy who cryed "Wolf!".
|
Sciencegeek deathdealer
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 05:03:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Sciencegeek deathdealer on 13/03/2010 05:04:03
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Sciencegeek deathdealer /me points out that its the test server and a long ways away from release
Right, because CCP ever improves something based on faulty premises, now do they ?
Quote: ... then he covers his eyes asto not bleed from the ranting of a certain player that thinks they are more importaint then they are...
Right, because the guy on top of the mast screaming "iceberg" is just shouting that to feel important instead of, oh, I don't know, trying to avoid a freaking collision with an iceberg ?
lol Im not sure im even going to recognize your responces. first of, ever heard of testing???? or BUGS! who knows whats happening until we get a dev reply. secondly, im just guessing here, but i think the people who made the game, and know what they plan to do in the future, might know more then you. so dont get your panties in a bunch and show a bit of respect for the people that made the game. how would you like it if they just stopped?
edit-
Originally by: Aera Aiana
Originally by: Akita T Right, because the guy on top of the mast screaming "iceberg" is just shouting that to feel important instead of, oh, I don't know, trying to avoid a freaking collision with an iceberg ?
Exactly, like the boy who cryed "Wolf!".
couldnt have said it better.
|
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Legion
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 05:35:00 -
[21]
Hey remember how during dominion testing they had full pay outs on t2 insurance? My astarte died and i got 175 million back for it. Then when the release date came t2 insurance was no where to be seen?
anyway point is, just cause its on the test serer now doesnt mean its going to make the cut.
so all of you quit your whining and flaming and offer good feed back, instead of saying this sucks, ccp you are stupid when are you going to learn. say something more like
Ok so insurence is going to go down, now are prices going to go up or down? The best option would be for mineral prices to go up along with ship prices.
There is a way to do this. Nerf strip miners!.
|
Demolishar
G-Force Enterprises Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 05:36:00 -
[22]
Insurance needs to go, end of. Tech 1 ships should NOT be free.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 06:06:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 06:09:22
Originally by: Aera Aiana
Originally by: Akita T Right, because the guy on top of the mast screaming "iceberg" is just shouting that to feel important instead of, oh, I don't know, trying to avoid a freaking collision with an iceberg ?
Exactly, like the boy who cryed "Wolf!".
The key difference here being every time I "cried wolf", there actually WAS a wolf there.
Originally by: Sciencegeek deathdealer lol Im not sure im even going to recognize your responces. first of, ever heard of testing???? or BUGS! who knows whats happening until we get a dev reply.
I can recognize a disaster waiting to happen when I see one, especially the CCP variety of it. You apparently are unable to.
Quote: secondly, im just guessing here, but i think the people who made the game, and know what they plan to do in the future, might know more then you.
History has proven the exact opposite : I am usually right, they are usually wrong.
Quote: so dont get your panties in a bunch and show a bit of respect for the people that made the game.
Respect for making the game ? Sure as hell, they're awesome. Respect for doing something I can't or won't do ? Why not, yeah, of course. Respect for something wrong they do every now and then in spite of repeated warnings ? Why the hell would I show respect for any of that ?
Originally by: Obsidian Hawk anyway point is, just cause its on the test serer now doesnt mean its going to make the cut.
HOPEFULLY not. That's what all the screaming is about.
Quote: so all of you quit your whining and flaming and offer good feed back
This is as good as the feedback could possibly get for this inanity.
Quote: instead of saying this sucks, ccp you are stupid when are you going to learn. say something more like Ok so insurence is going to go down, now are prices going to go up or down? The best option would be for mineral prices to go up along with ship prices.
Granted, I haven't gone into such detail in here, but there are several other threads discussing the same thing all over the subforums. And I have "standing proposals" that go back 2++ years which were directed towards this general area of the gameplay. If they were willing to listen to alternatives, they had YEARS to listen. They didn't. They'll just keep going ahead with whatever brain-dead idea most likely their economist shoved into their heads.
Originally by: Demolishar Insurance needs to go, end of. Tech 1 ships should NOT be free.
If insurance goes, prices for T1 ships will drop so much, they will end up being almost free WITHOUT having to bother with insurance. Not quite as cheap to lose as they are now, but pretty damn close. Closer to "free" than they used to be, like, say, 3 years ago anyway.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Sciencegeek deathdealer
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 06:19:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 06:09:22
Originally by: Aera Aiana
Originally by: Akita T Right, because the guy on top of the mast screaming "iceberg" is just shouting that to feel important instead of, oh, I don't know, trying to avoid a freaking collision with an iceberg ?
Exactly, like the boy who cryed "Wolf!".
The key difference here being every time I "cried wolf", there actually WAS a wolf there.
Originally by: Sciencegeek deathdealer lol Im not sure im even going to recognize your responces. first of, ever heard of testing???? or BUGS! who knows whats happening until we get a dev reply.
I can recognize a disaster waiting to happen when I see one, especially the CCP variety of it. You apparently are unable to.
Quote: secondly, im just guessing here, but i think the people who made the game, and know what they plan to do in the future, might know more then you.
History has proven the exact opposite : I am usually right, they are usually wrong.
Quote: so dont get your panties in a bunch and show a bit of respect for the people that made the game.
Respect for making the game ? Sure as hell, they're awesome. Respect for doing something I can't or won't do ? Why not, yeah, of course. Respect for something wrong they do every now and then in spite of repeated warnings ? Why the hell would I show respect for any of that ?
Originally by: Obsidian Hawk anyway point is, just cause its on the test serer now doesnt mean its going to make the cut.
HOPEFULLY not. That's what all the screaming is about.
Quote: so all of you quit your whining and flaming and offer good feed back
This is as good as the feedback could possibly get for this inanity.
Quote: instead of saying this sucks, ccp you are stupid when are you going to learn. say something more like Ok so insurence is going to go down, now are prices going to go up or down? The best option would be for mineral prices to go up along with ship prices.
Granted, I haven't gone into such detail in here, but there are several other threads discussing the same thing all over the subforums. And I have "standing proposals" that go back 2++ years which were directed towards this general area of the gameplay. If they were willing to listen to alternatives, they had YEARS to listen. They didn't. They'll just keep going ahead with whatever brain-dead idea most likely their economist shoved into their heads.
Originally by: Demolishar Insurance needs to go, end of. Tech 1 ships should NOT be free.
If insurance goes, prices for T1 ships will drop so much, they will end up being almost free WITHOUT having to bother with insurance. Not quite as cheap to lose as they are now, but pretty damn close. Closer to "free" than they used to be, like, say, 3 years ago anyway.
wow not egotistical at all.... you might want to have that looked into.. anyway! this is looking great so far in overall concept (planet intraction) but yea it will be intresting to see what happens. and quite honestly i stoped listening to you a LONG time ago. but its fun to make you mad. :)
|
El'Niaga
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 07:10:00 -
[25]
What makes you think prices will fall?
Prices are set by supply and demand not by what the insurance pays out, if it was by insurance pay outs as some seem to claim then t2 ships today would be cheaper than they are.
I do agree though that it will not stop suicide gankers. They might be more selective of targets but it won't stop em.
It might slow down the insurance fraud folks.
|
Ikathis sihtaki
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 07:22:00 -
[26]
CCP is sittin back laughin at all you monkeys right now. |
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 07:45:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 07:50:33
Originally by: El'Niaga What makes you think prices will fall? Prices are set by supply and demand not by what the insurance pays out, if it was by insurance pay outs as some seem to claim then t2 ships today would be cheaper than they are.
Except that T1 manufacture and T2 manufacture doesn't work the same way supply-side. T2 supply is heavily limited to the number of available moons, there's a "hard cap" on maximum production capabilities of required resources. T1 supply right now is only limited by the number of people willing to mine, and that number keeps on growing.
Right now, the minerals needed for T1 ship building cost in between 65% and 68% of platinum payout for the corresponding ship - and you get 70% back after a platinum-insured death. There are areas of space where tier 3 battleships sell for 5 mil, even 10 mil below that 70% level, and that's at least how much somebody buying them could make via insurance exchange. The only thing keeping mineral prices up right now is NOT "natural supply and demand" (if that wouldn't be there minerals would quickly drop below 60%, and keep on dropping until they reach ridiculously low prices compared to now). What keeps mineral prices up is insurance prices and the willingness of people to keep on self-destructing ships "for profit" (it takes time//effort to do it, it's not like you can take 1000 ships, press a button and get the insurance money).
ONLY reducing the insurance payout of T1 ships (and nothing else) to roughly 70% of previous insurance value will simply lead to a(n eventual) drop in the mineral prices to roughly 65-70% of the NEW insurance payouts (or, in other words, roughly 30% below what we have now), and not much else. If you keep adjusting insurance payouts down as "insurance exchange" becomes profitable again, all you would solve is get ever decreasing mineral prices, up to the point where mining is so ridiculously underpaid that you actually manage to get the supply side grinding down enough to achieve a new equilibrium... and my gut tells me it will be below half of what we have now, probably even just a third of what we have now, OVERALL. But the "best" part about it is that it will hit 0.0 mining the most and highsec mining the least - you might even get to the point where mining in 0.0 is barely a bit more profitable than highsec mining then, and slightly less profitable than highsec mining is now (which is, not much).
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Retail Therapy
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 08:00:00 -
[28]
Politely waiting for further details, or a link to where the details will be found. If it's just buggy test, np. If it's major change to several different economies, much less playstyles, could we get details? It's not possible that this would just roll right onto live server with a footnote and "btw, we're changing how nearly everything works..."???
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 08:28:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Retail Therapy It's not possible that this would just roll right onto live server with a footnote and "btw, we're changing how nearly everything works..."???
Wanna' bet the only mention about it in patchnotes will be "changed the way insurance payout is calculated to reflect actual market price" or something insipid like that ? Maybe, just maybe, they'll link to a devblog saying exactly what they are doing in excruciating detail (which we already knew anyway, it's just a rehash for people that only read patchnotes but usually no forums/blogs and don't go on SiSi much, if at all).
This is "T2 build cost change" all over again. How do you think that one got in ?
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Allen Ramses
Caldari Zombicidal Mania Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 08:52:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Akita T
Wanna' bet the only mention about it in patchnotes will be "changed the way insurance payout is calculated to reflect actual market price" or something insipid like that ?
They wouldn't, because for that to happen they would actually have to "change the way insurance payout is calculated". This has not been done, so the likely patch note would have to be "We have decreased the API reference value of minerals by 31.7% to give the illusion of modifying insurance calculations."
So it's even worse than that. It'd be like them staining all of your windows yellow and then claiming that they made everything bluer.
____________ I'd make a forum signature that didn't suck, but I'm restricted by a character limit that does. |
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:13:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Roemy Schneider on 13/03/2010 09:13:36
Originally by: Allen Ramses It'd be like them staining all of your windows yellow and then claiming that they made everything bluer.
ah, so you do understood how CCP works - putting the gist back into logistics |
Hamaa Kazula
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:24:00 -
[32]
Maybe they are rolling the insurance changes out with the new mining systems they hinted at in fanfest. However, if this was the case id imagine we would have heard something since then as it would not be a small update.
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari Toy Factory Exalted.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 10:00:00 -
[33]
They should remove insurance payouts for good.
Or just allow insurances only for newbies, like less than 3 month old characters...
Or if insurance mechanics is here to stay insurance payouts should really be more realistic like payments should be related to amount of ships destroyed, and also how many ships character has lost recently etc. No insurance company is going to keep paying insurances to someone if they just lose money.
|
ISellThingz
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 10:26:00 -
[34]
If they want to lower the basic mineral costs, they have to supply us with something that will make it possible for miners to make money on, new manufacturing division agents or something, that will pay more then the insurance will. Otherwise miners are looking at 1/3 lower income.
And this won't stop suicide ganking.
|
Daiko Rei
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 10:30:00 -
[35]
Can I remind certain posters in this thread that this thread is located in the Test Server FEEDBACK forum with a reason? If anyone has a comment, or a complaint regarding a change that is currently live on the Test Server they have every right to leave their thoughts here.
Saying 'Your complaint is invalid because the patch is not even Live yet' is ******ed.
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 11:38:00 -
[36]
CCP buffing insurance for t2 ships. Wtf !?
I hope it wont last as it didnt before dominion.
|
Demolishar
G-Force Enterprises Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:04:00 -
[37]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 CCP buffing insurance for t2 ships. Wtf !?
I hope it wont last as it didnt before dominion.
Dominion increased the price of all T2 ships by a lot.
I'd see decent levels of T2 insurance being added as sort of a "rebate".
|
Orion GUardian
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 17:20:00 -
[38]
Demol: Yes prices increased because rig prices decreased so people make more profit now....eitehr live with it or dont ^^
|
Sciencegeek deathdealer
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 17:23:00 -
[39]
im just going to point out that yall are assuming that miners will keep mining once they make less money? its just supply and demand if prices go down, great less people will mine and prices will go up. now i dont know how modual mins will work into this but its not just going to collapse. im sorry but thats just stupid, its a supply and demand market.
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 17:30:00 -
[40]
Not sure why suicide ganking keeps getting brought up. Its not a problem in need of a solution, and will happen as long as the option to shoot people in the face exists. And it will be profitable too, as long as people carry obscenely expensive goods in paper ships.
Though I don't get the point of these changes, at best it means less isk being generated out of thin air, but its too little too late.
If I could make changes:
- no insurance on capitals of any sort, period - no basic 40% payouts in 0.0 - 3 policy options only, not based on coverage level but coverage duration (3 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks)
Perhaps if you wanted to refine it a bit more you can add extra rules for FW and wars, but this would be the bare minimum.
|
|
sue denim
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:42:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Sciencegeek deathdealer im just going to point out that yall are assuming that miners will keep mining once they make less money? its just supply and demand if prices go down, great less people will mine and prices will go up. now i dont know how modual mins will work into this but its not just going to collapse. im sorry but thats just stupid, its a supply and demand market.
that's not how it works.
First you'd be wrong in assuming that most minerals come from miners, cause they don't.
And second they will continue mining unless it hits true rock bottom. Sure some will go but the majority will continue, with no dent. If they want to switch to something else they have to get the skills and setup for it.
And again, miners don't supply most of the minerals in eve, and that's a damn shame really.
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 23:55:00 -
[42]
Indeed, if everyone stopped mining tomorow there would probably still be enough minerals entering the game (with a couple of exceptions) via missions and the drone regions to supply the population's non-suicide-business needs.
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
DDemon
Volatile Instability
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 00:40:00 -
[43]
Edited by: DDemon on 14/03/2010 00:41:15 Mails with concord on the loss mail? no payout. Self destruct? no payout.
Is it just me or would this be the perfect (simple) solution? Loophole would be to get an alt to kill you but... It will take more time that way so less profitable.
|
Planetary Genocide
Gallente White Talon Enterprises New Bastion
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 04:54:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Planetary Genocide on 14/03/2010 04:53:54
Originally by: DDemon Edited by: DDemon on 14/03/2010 00:41:15 Mails with concord on the loss mail? no payout. Self destruct? no payout.
Is it just me or would this be the perfect (simple) solution? Loophole would be to get an alt to kill you but... It will take more time that way so less profitable.
Well, you can get a corp member to do it too. no need for a second account then, though if you already have one then by all means go ahead.
Personally, I always thought that insurance payouts should be determined by mineral cost of the ship and the average price across the entire EVE universe of the minerals... and then that's what they pay out: enough money to buy the minerals to make the damn ship again. And since you still have to pay for the policy, insurance fraud becomes stupid unless you're mining the minerals yourself, in which case you have a lot better things to do, such as sell the minerals yourself. Suicide ganking will still profit, but it'll be a lot riskier since you don't know if that shuttle being flown by that idiot who's carrying a Titan BPO around will drop the goods or not.
/me waits for Sciencegeek deathdealer to flame me with egotism
EDIT: also, why are you buying insurance on SiSi anyways? It's SiSi... ______________
RAWRRR |
Lani Sun
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 07:11:00 -
[45]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Not sure why suicide ganking keeps getting brought up. Its not a problem in need of a solution, and will happen as long as the option to shoot people in the face exists. And it will be profitable too, as long as people carry obscenely expensive goods in paper ships.
Though I don't get the point of these changes, at best it means less isk being generated out of thin air, but its too little too late.
If I could make changes:
- no insurance on capitals of any sort, period - no basic 40% payouts in 0.0 - 3 policy options only, not based on coverage level but coverage duration (3 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks)
Perhaps if you wanted to refine it a bit more you can add extra rules for FW and wars, but this would be the bare minimum.
Youre a carebear right?
How about instead not allowing insurance in hisec at all or whilst the ship is in hisec.
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 11:29:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Demolishar
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 CCP buffing insurance for t2 ships. Wtf !?
I hope it wont last as it didnt before dominion.
Dominion increased the price of all T2 ships by a lot.
I'd see decent levels of T2 insurance being added as sort of a "rebate".
Of course you are happy becuase that will mean moon gold going up.
Increasing insurance over t2 ships will mean t2 prices higher ( much higher demand over limited supply ) and technetium reaching 150k.
CCP WAKE UP !
|
Bree'orta
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 12:53:00 -
[47]
forgive me, as i am not as self important as you lot but isnt SISI a test server? and as such its intents and purposes are for testing? i understand the need for constructive critisism but you lot are whining like an angry First wives club or something. Sure post your thoughts and opinions but unless its helpful dont bother a lot of us dont want to sift through multiple piles of pure s*** just to get a bit of info
|
something somethingdark
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 21:08:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Bree'orta forgive me, as i am not as self important as you lot but isnt SISI a test server? and as such its intents and purposes are for testing? i understand the need for constructive critisism but you lot are whining like an angry First wives club or something. Sure post your thoughts and opinions but unless its helpful dont bother a lot of us dont want to sift through multiple piles of pure s*** just to get a bit of info
You see this is what years of folowing releases on the testserver being translated down to tq show us. The earlyer there is mass whining about a subject that has been talked to death for years the earlyer they might actualy listen.
In this case there have been excellent proposals on what to do and how to handle insurance dating back years. Wichone did CCP go for ? The one that if standing alone is one of the worst possible ones ever. If it comes in conjuction with others it wont be "that" bad but its still only trying to cure symptoms rather than causes making the whole worse in the process.
After years of trying and trying and trying to be constructive about it most people simply give up, the others simply start whining early because they know what they are whining about. (some people just whine for the fun of it though ;) )
|
Widemouth Deepthroat
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 21:11:00 -
[49]
Can't wait for insurable t2 ships (CCP have talked enough about it that it is inevitable).
|
PeHD0M
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 23:01:00 -
[50]
I suggest detaching the insurance from minerals, but not remove it. How?
Pay insurance with minerals instead of isk, and place them to medical clone station (or to Jita 4-4).
|
|
ollopa amnihs
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 23:36:00 -
[51]
Originally by: PeHD0M I suggest detaching the insurance from minerals, but not remove it. How?
Pay insurance with minerals instead of isk, and place them to medical clone station (or to Jita 4-4).
Either this is a quality troll, or dr egghead alt posting.
Let's remove as much from the demand side of minerals as we can OK!
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 01:21:00 -
[52]
Gentlemen please, there are threads in GD and MD discussing the merits of this change, and other potential changes that could be made... THIS thread it to find out if it's working as intended, especially along with the blueprint weirdness.
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
cyclobs
Minmatar Honourable Templum of Alcedonia
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 09:31:00 -
[53]
how will lower insurence pay outs effect the cost of a ship.
ships cost isk to build. people build ships to make isk. why would they sell a ship thats worth less then the cost of the minerals they used to build it.
they'd be loosing isk, not making it
|
Jarnis McPieksu
Insidious Existence En Garde
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 10:06:00 -
[54]
Originally by: cyclobs how will lower insurence pay outs effect the cost of a ship.
ships cost isk to build. people build ships to make isk. why would they sell a ship thats worth less then the cost of the minerals they used to build it.
they'd be loosing isk, not making it
People constantly build and sell ships at a price point that is below the cost of minerals. Because "hey, if I mined the minerals myself, they are free, right?". Yes, people can be ******ed.
But that's not really the point. The point is that each ship has a soft price floor - about 70% of the platinum payout (so ship price + insurance fee ends up being cheaper than platinum insurance payout, making self-destructing of ships profitable). This "floor" is the only thing that is keeping mineral prices at the current levels - if insurance payout goes down, all the purchases made by self-destructing "insurance fraudsters" disappear. As there is massive oversupply of minerals, prices will go down until they hit the soft floor again - at the price point set by the new insurance levels - the point when "insurance fraudsters" start buying up ships/minerals that they can then turn into ISK and make a (small) profit out of the platinum insurance.
|
Marius Victor
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 19:50:00 -
[55]
I have a few thoughts on Insurance...
1) Maybe only offer Insurance to chars within a certain SP range. This way it helps the learning players, but can't be exploited by older players. 2) Absolutely take away insurance payouts to any criminal activities, period. 3) Remove insurance all together and let it only be player run. Because honestly, Eve's insurance does not emulate real economics in any way shape or form when it is just an endless supply of payouts. 4) Decrease insurance payouts per loss. If a char keeps losing ship after ship after ship, make each insurance payout less and less. Call it a "high risk" penalty.
Thoughts?
|
Larkonis Trassler
Genos Occidere Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 19:54:00 -
[56]
15-30 minute global cooldown on insurance payouts. I just solved the insurance fraud problem for you all.
I'm here all week. Try the veal.
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis |
Marius Victor
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 20:10:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler 15-30 minute global cooldown on insurance payouts. I just solved the insurance fraud problem for you all.
I'm here all week. Try the veal.
Nice. Seems like a pretty damn effective idea. Maybe make it 45 minutes to an hour?
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 20:32:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Marius Victor
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler 15-30 minute global cooldown on insurance payouts. I just solved the insurance fraud problem for you all.
I'm here all week. Try the veal.
Nice. Seems like a pretty damn effective idea. Maybe make it 45 minutes to an hour?
I believe to point is to stop the insurance fraud from being a profitable way to earn an income and not to take a dump on people who PvP a lot. Generally you want to encourage fighting and not force people to sit in a station to wait for an insurance timer to run out before they can get back to the fight. Any timer system should be as short as possible, so it just makes the fraud uncompetative against almost all other alternatives and doesn't interfere in normal gaming. Or you could actually fix the issue instead of focusing on the symptom and forget about timers.
|
Marius Victor
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 20:42:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Originally by: Marius Victor
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler 15-30 minute global cooldown on insurance payouts. I just solved the insurance fraud problem for you all.
I'm here all week. Try the veal.
Nice. Seems like a pretty damn effective idea. Maybe make it 45 minutes to an hour?
I believe to point is to stop the insurance fraud from being a profitable way to earn an income and not to take a dump on people who PvP a lot. Generally you want to encourage fighting and not force people to sit in a station to wait for an insurance timer to run out before they can get back to the fight. Any timer system should be as short as possible, so it just makes the fraud uncompetative against almost all other alternatives and doesn't interfere in normal gaming. Or you could actually fix the issue instead of focusing on the symptom and forget about timers.
Most pvpers I know don't insure their t2 ships as it is, and if they fly t1 they dont really care about the loss. Eve pvp is like poker in that respect. It's a gamble with your isk...
IMO they should just remove insurance completely and let it be player created. There's no point to it other than people whining when they lose ships.
|
RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 21:05:00 -
[60]
Ok, another thread, another attempt to explain how insurance affects Eve's economy. For those folks who see "insurance fraud" as a bad thing: there's nothing wrong with people using the insurance system for profit. The current profitability of insurance exchange (a more accurate term) is the result of CCP's three major adjustments to the mineral supply in the last year (veldspar buff following Unholy Rage, wormhole mineral supply, and Dominion sov changes). Here's a very simplistic explanation of insurance:
The theoretical system
Miners produce minerals industrialists produce ships PVP'ers consume ships
When the system is perfectly balanced, the output of carebears = the consumption of PVP'ers. Prices are stable and everyone is happy.
The actual system
Lots of miners produce minerals lots of industrialists produce ships a few PVP'ers consume ships
The output of the carebears is currently MUCH greater than the consumption of PVP'ers. Left unchecked, minerals and ships would accumulate on the market and prices would spiral downwards.
Where insurance exchange comes in
Lots of miners produce minerals lots of industrialists produce ships a few PVP'ers consume a few ships insurance exchangers consume the rest of the ships
Insurance exchange is the safety valve for the mineral economy - when supply hits a critical level, where prices fall below insurance levels, then insurance exchange kicks in to remove the excess minerals. Insurance exchange is a necessary balancing mechanism intentionally supported by CCP, not an exploit or a reward for gankers.
I hope and expect that the insurance changes on SISI are just a small part of CCP's overall plan to rebalance the mineral economy. Planetary interaction seems to be the perfect opportunity to introduce new mineral sinks and rebalance the overall system.
|
|
Setar Zi'lok
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 21:12:00 -
[61]
It'd be nice if it took into account CONCORD/POLICE intervention.
I'm not proud of it but I've started suicide ganking random people in high sec. (Super high sec status and boredom) Usually scan out decent loot in the cargo and then blow the target up with a battlecruiser.... and even though all the loot may blow up with it I still don't lose that much, while my victim who may be young is now as a consequence, poor. (I try not to look too hard at their age, makes me feel bad)
People have discussed it before : no insurance for illegal activity. It wouldn't stop suicide ganking but It could protect young players with only 20m+ in loot in their cargo from douches like me.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 21:36:00 -
[62]
The only change that is needed is stopping pay outs for Concird kills.
Lowering insurance payout will simply low the price of minerals at which point the minineral prices will still be set by insurance.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Zions Child
Caldari Carthage Industries Consortium.
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 21:55:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Zions Child on 15/03/2010 21:58:25 Reposting from the thread in GD...
Also, for those saying "It's just SiSi, so it's only a test." Realize that SiSi does not have an active market, and therefore does not accurately predict the market changes that would happen should the economy be altered. CCP Doesn't have a clue as to what's going to happen if they change the insurance rates on TQ if they only look at SiSi.
Something tells me that CCP listened to their economist, which was a terrible mistake.
/begin random analogy
EVE is essentially a free market model. It accurately models what would happen in the real world if there were unlimited resources available at all times. Let's take a look at a modern-day real life resource which is functionally unlimited - corn. Corn is pointless to grow. Farmers actually lose money purchasing the pesticides and fuel etc. needed to grow acres of corn. In other words, corn is so plentiful, and so cheap, because it is nearly unlimited in availability. There is so much corn being grown today, we have no clue what to do with it all. Brazil started using ethanol as fuel because they had too much corn. Corn would NEVER be grown, if it weren't HEAVILY subsidised by the government. So, what does corn have to do with EVE? Corn = Minerals.
/end random analogy
Minerals are functionally unlimited in EVE, belts respawn, rats respawn, missions are always available. No matter what, in the matter of a few seconds, you can produce minerals. EVE now has a large enough population, and the respawn rates on mineral sources are short enough, that mineral production is functionally unlimited. Insurance acts as a government (CCP) sanctioned subsidy. If minerals are so cheap that suiciding insured ships = profit, then the minerals start to get consumed by people willing to take the time to suicide the ships. By changing the insurance rates so that they are either dynamic, or are regularly changed based on the average mineral prices, you are essentially removing the subsidy.
Insurance isn't a soft price floor, it's hard as rock right now, because it doesn't go down. There are some people willing to lose money by selling minerals at rates that are cheaper than using them to suicide a ship, but they are not numerous enough to significantly alter the average price. Changing insurance in the way CCP seems to be planning, will destabilize the market over the course of a few weeks, possibly to the point that ships become pointlessly cheap. Removing the price floor, will reduce minerals to their actual price, which is next to zero. Supply currently exceeds demand by a HUGE margin. And, the worst part about this is that supply is still increasing at a rate far above that which demand is increasing. EVE is suffering, and flawed mineral balancing, not insurance, is to blame.
To re-iterate, EVE is a market simulation. It almost perfectly models a real-world situation. Unfortunately, there are very few real-world situations where there are unlimited resources. The EVE market is suffering from deflation, which is a known economic problem, but unusual. Reducing the price floor (insurance) in direct proportion to the unlimited resource (minerals) will result in a never before seen effect, hyperdeflation. Watch as your isk becomes so absurdly valuable, that it's meaningless, watch, as wealth in EVE becomes meaningless, and watch, in horror, as the EVE market quickly and effectively destroys itself. Although I'm fairly certain that if hyperdeflation did start to happen, CCP would think about pulling the plug on the market, and functionally reset it using npc buy orders and such...
TL;DR Version: Insurance rates are the only thing keeping the EVE economy from spiraling downwards into oblivion. _________________________________________________________________ You just lost the game, my friend... Wrong! - Cortes
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 22:15:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Cyclops43 on 15/03/2010 22:16:20
Originally by: Marius Victor
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler 15-30 minute global cooldown on insurance payouts. I just solved the insurance fraud problem for you all.
Nice. Seems like a pretty damn effective idea. Maybe make it 45 minutes to an hour?
It'll not work the way you intend it to....
Imagine what will happen.....
Today, the people who commit insurance fraud in EVE does it for a profit of maybe a few million per ship. They'll not be able to do that any more after a change like this, but the imbalance between supply and demand will not have gone away. So what will happen, is that since the market will be totally oversupplied, prices will start falling. That means the profit in insurance fraud will begin to increase, and more people will do it, not as a career, but as a side income.
In effect, what will happen is that the insurance floor is lowered a little bit, but that's about it. There'll be just as much insurance fraud going on, and the supply/demand imbalance in the economy will not have been solved.
Even worse, once a new player earns enough money for his first ship, there's no need for him to actually play any more. He can just suicide still bigger ships as his 'career'. Not a good thing for the game as such....
The fraudsters could also just move their activity to dreads and carriers... A bit more cumbersome, but still as bad...
From the looks of things, CCP is thinking about implementing a rolling dynamic insurance payout. This is about the only thing that will work....
|
Janita Salud
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 22:16:00 -
[65]
Interesting discussion à
I think several people have hit the issue on the head à insurance payouts for Concorded attacks.
Why would the same people who seem most vocal about nerfing insurance payouts be the same people that some point out that would be most adversely effected by the nerf à mining and industrial carebears à because these same people are sick of suicide ganking!
I agree with the argument that insurance both provides price support for minerals and makes PvP something more likely to occur in eve à BUT à
When the focus for a significant percentage of eveÆs gaming population is that they canÆt fly from point A to point B, with the entire route is in High Sec, and have other players blow them up, with basically no consequence to the attacking player because of insurance, then you enter the parallel universe where the players most likely to be adversely effected by an insurance nerf are the ones that argue the loudest for it.
Get the issue of suicide ganking and insurance payouts balanced and this issue goes away à donÆt and the situation becomes more critical with an adverse effect on large numbers of players that have no interest or involvement in suicide ganking.
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 22:23:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Janita Salud I think several people have hit the issue on the head à insurance payouts for Concorded attacks.
It'll not make one bit of difference....
You can suicide a T1 hauler with a few catalysts....
The people who're stupid enough to carry 50+m in a wet paper bag (T1 hauler) will STILL be crying bitter tears on the forum about being suicided, and the intelligent players who actually think about what they do and don't AFK will still not be suicided at all....
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 22:58:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Zions Child EVE is dying...
And as the other 'EVE is dying' people, you blindly assume that the people mining now will continue to mine even when minerals reach 0.01 ISK
Prices will drop... Some people will stop mining... Prices will drop more... More people will stop mining... Demand now exceed supply... Prices will rise... More people will start mining...
Eventually a new equilibrium will be found where mining is paid what the effort is worth!
Your conclusion can only be as good as your assumptions, and your assumptions are completely laughable and not based in any kind of reality, real-life or in-game!
|
RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 23:24:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Cyclops43
Originally by: Zions Child EVE is dying...
And as the other 'EVE is dying' people, you blindly assume that the people mining now will continue to mine even when minerals reach 0.01 ISK
Prices will drop... Some people will stop mining... Prices will drop more... More people will stop mining... Demand now exceed supply... Prices will rise... More people will start mining...
Eventually a new equilibrium will be found where mining is paid what the effort is worth!
Your conclusion can only be as good as your assumptions, and your assumptions are completely laughable and not based in any kind of reality, real-life or in-game!
If mining were the sole source of minerals you would be correct. Mineral prices would eventually equalize at a very low, but manageable price point. Mining would exist as a low-income "side" profession, similar to hi-sec exploration.
However, mining is not the only source of minerals. Reprocessing of mission loot produces a significant source of minerals as a by-product of mission-running - an activity that is completely unaffected by mineral prices or changes to the insurance system. 0.0 alliances are also producing a significant mineral stream as they mine for sov. upgrades. These minerals will continue to flood the market even at 0.01 ISK/unit prices. End result? Mining for profit becomes a myth, the Eve economy goes through massive price deflation, and mineral prices become a volatile trailing indicator to mission-running/0.0 alliance activity.
Sound like fun? Not to anyone with any amount of economic sense.
|
Zions Child
Caldari Carthage Industries Consortium.
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 23:27:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Zions Child on 15/03/2010 23:30:07 Edited by: Zions Child on 15/03/2010 23:28:31
Originally by: Cyclops43
And as the other 'EVE is dying' people, you blindly assume that the people mining now will continue to mine even when minerals reach 0.01 ISK
Prices will drop... Some people will stop mining... Prices will drop more... More people will stop mining... Demand now exceed supply... Prices will rise... More people will start mining...
Eventually a new equilibrium will be found where mining is paid what the effort is worth!
Your conclusion can only be as good as your assumptions, and your assumptions are completely laughable and not based in any kind of reality, real-life or in-game!
Except that you fail to understand the majority of minerals in EVE do not come from mining. Mining should be producing over 50% of every mineral. As it stands now, mining only produces the majority of one mineral, and that is morphite. The people who have the most to lose are the ones influencing the mineral market the least. The combined effort of thousands of drone ratters and mission runners is what is influencing the market. The people who refine incredible amounts of minerals and then decide to undercut the lowest sell order by a few hundredths of an isk with their massive stores of recycled modules are driving the market. Ships should not be as cheap as they are now. Ships should not be nearly as easy to acquire as they are now.
As it stands, there is very little penalty to losing a ship, and considerable profit to be made suiciding ships. Imagine this - Rokh's are being sold at 5m isk below insurance payout value. You can suicide one ship about every 4 - 5 minutes. Let's get conservative, 5 minutes. That means, in one hour, you can suicide 12 Rokhs. 12 times 5m is equal to 60m isk. In other words, you can make 60m isk in profit doing nothing but purchasing and suiciding ships. Do you really think that's the way CCP intended the game to be played? And as for my assumptions not being based on reality, A CCP dev is quoted as saying that well over 50% of each mineral excepting morphite is produced through reprocessing loot, whther drone compounds or rat modules.What happens when you have massive growth of a resource (minerals) in a saturated market? That mineral's price will go down.
Will ship prices reach values of several isk or even several thousand isk? No, but they will go down, and they will go far below a level they should be at. And yes, I'm basing this on the belief that battleships should cost more than a 100m isk. Why? Because it makes the game harder. It makes you actually care about the ship you're flying. It means GoonSwarm tactics would be absurdly costly. Will people continue to mine? Some will, especially those alts of main accounts that have nothing better to do. But even if all the miners leave their profession, resources will still be streaming into EVE at a level that far outpaces demand.
And as for mining being paid the effort that it's worth, are you really willing to alienate an entire group of players for the sole purpose of cheaper ships? Miners don't make a whole lot as it is. If prices continue to drop (and they will, just look at the goddamn market history of the past few years) then miners will become marginalized players. I don't even mine for chrissake, I rat and pvp in nullsec, but I don't want to see an entire group of players leave EVE because their profession has been marginalized into nothingness.
Also, when did I say EVE was dying? I firmly believe CCP will prevent EVE from dying, no matter what that takes. EVE will survive whatever happens to it, and lowering insurance won't kill it. But it will make it less fun to play, and I don't want that.
TL;DR Version: You sir, are an idiot, read the goddamn post, and stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
Edited for typos _________________________________________________________________ You just lost the game, my friend... Wrong! - Cortes
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 23:34:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Cyclops43 on 15/03/2010 23:36:37
Originally by: Zions Child Except that you fail to understand the majority of minerals in EVE do not come from mining.
Have a little faith in CCP...
Don't you think they know that (since they post numbers about it, my guess is they do)? And don't you think they'll address it if they push through a change like this? Especially since it took them so long to come up with it?
My guess is they'll completely nerf mission generated T1 modules, meaning this will be a BOOST to mining, not a nerf... If they don't, then they really ARE completely clueless, and EVE will die anyway...
We only have a tiny bit of information yet about this change, and yet you post your 'EVE is dying' (yes, you did...) scare stories based JUST on that small bit of information...
If anyone here is an idiot running off half-cooked, you're it!
|
|
Zions Child
Caldari Carthage Industries Consortium.
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 23:50:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Cyclops43 Edited by: Cyclops43 on 15/03/2010 23:41:50
Originally by: Zions Child Except that you fail to understand the majority of minerals in EVE do not come from mining.
Have a little faith in CCP...
Don't you think they know that (since they post numbers about it, my guess is they do)? And don't you think they'll address it if they push through a change like this? Especially since it took them so long to come up with it?
My guess is they'll completely nerf mission generated T1 modules, meaning this will be a BOOST to mining, not a nerf... If they don't, then they really ARE completely clueless, and EVE will die anyway...
We only have a tiny bit of information yet about this change (no dev blog, not even a single dev or gm comment), and yet you post your 'EVE is dying' (yes, you did...) scare stories based JUST on that small bit of information...
If anyone here is an idiot running off half-cooked, you're it!
PS: This is also a reply to post 68, except for the last line containing the 'i' word
I did include an 'EVE is dying scare story', followed by a 'CCP wouldn't let that happen no matter what.' Apparently, you stopped reading after you got what you want. The fact that no one in SiSi is talking about how T1 loot got nerfed is what is frightening the populace, as the only thing CCP seems to be doing, is lowering the price floor in the EVE market. If CCP made a comment about this insurance reduction, or said, don't worry, we're lessening the influx of resources from mission running, then I would be happy, and would stop complaining about said insurance reduction. The EVE market would still destabilize for a short period, but it would eventually bounce back. As it stands now, with this new insurance change, the mineral market will end up crashing to a point at which suiciding ships stops being profitable. CCP has made absurdly bad decisions regarding the in-game economy in the past, what with the veld-respawn rate increase (Sorry Chribba) and the addition of the Drone Regions, so I'm worried that they will be introducing a new feature which will further drive the market downwards. _________________________________________________________________ You just lost the game, my friend... Wrong! - Cortes
|
AccesiViale
Gallente Vox de Lucis
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 10:11:00 -
[72]
I'm at work so I apologize if this was asked earlier. I didn't have time to comb this whole thread.
So the formula for insurance has not been revised but insurance(payouts/cost) just reduced across the board?
I was under the impression if they changed it it insurance cost and payouts would have something to do with costs of the ship (and possibly modules) to produce or/or average market price to aquire said insured ship.
I don't have a problem with reducing payouts and cost in this flat manner (if it is the case) per se...but it seems kind of lazy to go this route when it could be done better. Why bother messing with a system that is "broken" only to replace it with a system that is "broken" or will be after the markets equalize and put us right where we are now.
Again, my apologies for not having a chance to read the whole thread or take a look on sisi myself. The sky was blue but there was no god. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 13:11:00 -
[73]
Originally by: sue denim
First you'd be wrong in assuming that most minerals come from miners, cause they don't.
I can as easily say that yes they do. That table you are thinking about - it involves also on 'refinables' side all the stuff used in mineral compression. Mineral compression is standard practice in EVE. Ofc drone goo has also sizeable share of mineral generation but the amount of low ends is not that great.
So perhaps you would care to explain a bit where do you draw that conclusion from, that mining is not the biggest source of minerals in EVE ?
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 13:28:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat Can't wait for insurable t2 ships (CCP have talked enough about it that it is inevitable).
Protip: T2 ships already are insurable.
CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D |
Draco Argen
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:47:00 -
[75]
Er just a thought.
Why doen't they change the insurance to relfect RL insurance. If you crash your car while commiting a robbery/felony, i'm pretty sure you cant claim.
If CONCORD are the ones who blow away your ship, no payout. Simples.
If you are proved to have deliberately crashed your car for insurance, it is fraud and no payout. ie Self destruct.
In addition when someone else drives your car and then you get back in it you are still insured. If the other person crashes, you are not insured. In Eve you "loose" the coverage.
Also Insurance payout is based on "for new" current values. Complex as the mechanic may be shouldn't a market average be used as a basis for a payout. (in RL it's usually the cheapest of three quotes)
Perhaps CCP need an insurance adjuster on the payroll for advice.
|
Marius Victor
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 17:00:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Draco Argen
Why doen't they change the insurance to relfect RL insurance. If you crash your car while commiting a robbery/felony, i'm pretty sure you cant claim.
If CONCORD are the ones who blow away your ship, no payout. Simples.
If you are proved to have deliberately crashed your car for insurance, it is fraud and no payout. ie Self destruct.
In addition when someone else drives your car and then you get back in it you are still insured. If the other person crashes, you are not insured. In Eve you "loose" the coverage.
Also Insurance payout is based on "for new" current values. Complex as the mechanic may be shouldn't a market average be used as a basis for a payout. (in RL it's usually the cheapest of three quotes)
Perhaps CCP need an insurance adjuster on the payroll for advice.
Why don't they REALLY change insurance to reflect RL insurance and let it be player run?
I really don't see the point of insurance for ANY player over 3 months old. Profit is so easy to make in this game as it is.
Explain to me why we need insurance at all? If anything just let players have access to it up until say 4 million SPs or whatever amount is less than enough to fly a t1 BS unfit... That way they couldn't make "Self Destruct" alts...
|
RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 17:11:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Marius Victor
Why don't they REALLY change insurance to reflect RL insurance and let it be player run?
I really don't see the point of insurance for ANY player over 3 months old. Profit is so easy to make in this game as it is.
Explain to me why we need insurance at all? If anything just let players have access to it up until say 4 million SPs or whatever amount is less than enough to fly a t1 BS unfit... That way they couldn't make "Self Destruct" alts...
I explained why we need the current insurance system in post #60 of this very thread... If my explanation didn't make sense, please read any of the threads in Market Discussion, General Discussion, or Science & Industry. Each of the threads has at least one good explanation of the role insurance plays in stabilizing the economy.
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 17:27:00 -
[78]
Originally by: RJ Nobel
Originally by: Marius Victor
Why don't they REALLY change insurance to reflect RL insurance and let it be player run?
I really don't see the point of insurance for ANY player over 3 months old. Profit is so easy to make in this game as it is.
Explain to me why we need insurance at all? If anything just let players have access to it up until say 4 million SPs or whatever amount is less than enough to fly a t1 BS unfit... That way they couldn't make "Self Destruct" alts...
I explained why we need the current insurance system in post #60 of this very thread... If my explanation didn't make sense, please read any of the threads in Market Discussion, General Discussion, or Science & Industry. Each of the threads has at least one good explanation of the role insurance plays in stabilizing the economy.
I'm not sure whether insurance is as deliberate a mechanism as you postulate there.
CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D |
RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 17:48:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Sokratesz
I'm not sure whether insurance is as deliberate a mechanism as you postulate there.
I'm not sure either. Insurance may not have been intended to fill the role of safety-net mineral consumption, but it does meet the requirements quite well.
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 04:30:00 -
[80]
Originally by: RJ Nobel
Originally by: Sokratesz
I'm not sure whether insurance is as deliberate a mechanism as you postulate there.
I'm not sure either. Insurance may not have been intended to fill the role of safety-net mineral consumption, but it does meet the requirements quite well.
It fits the "requirement" HORRIBLY. Sure, it sets a floor for min prices, but it creates an infinite ISK faucet (limited only by supply of minerals) at the same time. The game mechanics should NOT (1) create infinite wealth systems based only on capital availability (as Insurance fraud permits) or (2) OVER encourage high-sec mining. The currrent insurance system does both.
If you want a mineral floor, then create one -- NPC buyers of minerals at pre-set (e.g. "floor") prices. Or I'm sure some genius will come up wiht an even better way to ensure miners can make a buck.
But using the insurance system as a backdoor economic support is seriously seriously stupid. Really really stupid.
|
|
LyghtCrye
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 05:16:00 -
[81]
I'm sorry but, NPC's buying minerals for a set floor price is exactly the same thing as self destructing ships for the insurance policy economically. The only difference is then there is no possibility of a manufacturing middle man to get a cut.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 08:17:00 -
[82]
They used to have NPC mineral buy orders at 50% of "baseprice". They have been all eliminated gradually many years ago. If they would be willing to revert anything, they should revert the things they did more recently to break it all so badly instead, not bring back an ancient bootstrapping mechanic.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
skotenok
Bad Robot Inc. Red Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 09:02:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Akita T They used to have NPC mineral buy orders at 50% of "baseprice". They have been all eliminated gradually many years ago. If they would be willing to revert anything, they should revert the things they did more recently to break it all so badly instead, not bring back an ancient bootstrapping mechanic.
50% base price ? what price ? price six month ago when megocite 3k or price now when meg 2k i thionk if CCP whant check price they need make worse mining and other thing where we can take minerals, but NOT INSURENCE! if insure go down CCP kill 4 region in game (im about drone region). why minerals so cheap becose 2 thing 1 burst empire belts 2 dominion with non stop resp anomaly
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 09:17:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler 15-30 minute global cooldown on insurance payouts. I just solved the insurance fraud problem for you all.
It does make sense. After all, what insurance company would insure someone who loses ships constantly, all day? If nothing else, they should have to pay for "high-risk" policies
There are plenty of ways to nerf insurance without cutting the amount paid out.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 10:13:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Akita T on 17/03/2010 10:14:59
Originally by: skotenok
Originally by: Akita T They used to have NPC mineral buy orders at 50% of "baseprice". They have been all eliminated gradually many years ago. If they would be willing to revert anything, they should revert the things they did more recently to break it all so badly instead, not bring back an ancient bootstrapping mechanic.
50% base price ? what price ? price six month ago[...]
What part of "many years ago" was unclear and made you think of "months ago" ? When I say that, I actually mean more than just 1 year (I would have said "about a year"), 2 years (that would be "a couple of years"), more like 3-4 years ago or maybe even a bit longer (since it can't be more than EVE was live, you know).
Also what price ? The BASE price. You know, the baseprices that were put in place ever since EVE started. As in, trit 2 (NPC buy at base 1, up to 1.10 with price adjust), pye 8 (base NPC buy 4, up to 4.40 after adjust) and so on. The price the insurance on TQ for T1 ships is still completely based on. Get it ?
Originally by: Kyra Felann
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler 15-30 minute global cooldown on insurance payouts. I just solved the insurance fraud problem for you all.
It does make sense.
No, it doesn't. It's a war, and your outpost is under attack, you need every pilot helping. But wait, what is that ? "Sorry, can't help anymore, in 30 minutes maybe again, when my insurance cooldown expires." Wouldn't you just love hearing that ?
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Sokratesz
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 10:34:00 -
[86]
Originally by: LyghtCrye I'm sorry but, NPC's buying minerals for a set floor price is exactly the same thing as self destructing ships for the insurance policy economically. The only difference is then there is no possibility of a manufacturing middle man to get a cut.
What would be the worst case consequences of no mineral floor?
CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D |
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 10:37:00 -
[87]
CCP i hope you are aware that rising t2 insurance is a straight path to hell.
Not only from balance and gameplay issues. But increasing t2 insurace = higher demnad for t2 ships with limited supply of moon minerals = t2 ships skyrocketing in price = technetium for 150k + terrible isk faceout that converts moon minerals to isk.
I hope your economist told you that.
In case he didnt( which is very likely ) i bought ****load of technetium. Thanks for free isk.
|
Zora'e
Amarr Midnight Escort Service
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 13:45:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Zora''e on 17/03/2010 13:57:22 As an individual looses ships, the cost of their insurance should rise. After a point they should be classed as 'un-insurable' and not be able to buy insurance. It should be an a dynamic sliding scale. If you are 'wreck free' for X amount of time, your insurance costs drops (or you become re-insurable), if you have many wrecks in a short time, it skyrockets or vanishes.
This keeps insurance, and also adds a need for risk assessment to the player. Suicide ganking etc would still be viable, new players would not be penalized, older players who 'take care of their ships' would not be penalized. More risk taking players would either need to monitor their risk value, or forego insurance for some activities.
---- Signature Begins ----
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 14:55:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Slade Hoo on 17/03/2010 14:55:53 higher T2 Insurance won't make any ships cheaper. It only produces more demand for t2 ships while the offer of moon minerals will be the same. In the end the price of t2 ships will increase with the same percentage and the insurance payout. So there is no difference in t2 ship prices at all but it will greatly improve the income of moon owners.
You have to compensate with more offer (more moons, planetary mining, sth else) in t2 minerals to actually make t2 stuff cheaper. ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 15:46:00 -
[90]
I still want to know where the PI mineral production will enter the production chain and how taht will affect the whole market. Because until now I saw no New products to have exclusive use of that troughput.
|
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 19:55:00 -
[91]
CCP Chronotis is working on a dev blog about insurance which should detail the how's and why's.
|
|
Jack bubu
Lyonesse. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 20:29:00 -
[92]
PAAANNIIICCCC!!!!
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 21:48:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Jack bubu PAAANNIIICCCC!!!!
LOLZ -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Jarnis McPieksu
Insidious Existence En Garde
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 21:52:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Jack bubu PAAANNIIICCCC!!!!
Confirming this. Lining up a stock of T1 hulls for (insured) self-destruction before patch, dumping mineral stockpiles to the market.
Unless CCP somehow magically constraints mineral supply by a huge amount, mineral prices will crash to the new soft floor set by the insurance payout of T1 ships. Yay, cheaper disposable T1 ships!
(Awaiting the devblog and the magical fix that will somehow prevent this. Not holding breath.)
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:21:00 -
[95]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave CCP Chronotis is working on a dev blog about insurance which should detail the how's and why's.
Looking forward to reading this. I hope you guys have taken the opportunity to do this properly and not just taken the easy route.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:28:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Akita T
THIS CHANGE IS ONE OF THE MOST HORRIBLE POSSIBLE CHANGES YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE. .
Unless of course you don't really care about artificially maintaining mineral producer income levels at the expense of people who want to use minerals, and you do care about stemming some of the unbelievably vast ISK inflows. Then it's a fine change.
Rather than rant unsubstantiated abuse, have you considered making suggestions to increase mineral sinks, tighten up mineral supply and generally calming down.
Or perhaps you have a mining alt or two lobbying your main's posts here...? A little stockpile of minerals, maybe? That might be more likely, as you've never been overly concerned with mining income in the past.
|
Quinn Tokimeki
Caldari NOVA TECH
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:29:00 -
[97]
OMGZ I just panicked... I soldz all my stockz for 1isk a item! ---- The 3 steps to success: Mining, ?, Profit. |
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife Discord.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:37:00 -
[98]
Edited by: Mahke on 17/03/2010 22:39:38
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Akita T
THIS CHANGE IS ONE OF THE MOST HORRIBLE POSSIBLE CHANGES YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE. .
Unless of course you don't really care about artificially maintaining mineral producer income levels at the expense of people who want to use minerals, and you do care about stemming some of the unbelievably vast ISK inflows. Then it's a fine change.
Rather than rant unsubstantiated abuse, have you considered making suggestions to increase mineral sinks, tighten up mineral supply and generally calming down.
Or perhaps you have a mining alt or two lobbying your main's posts here...? A little stockpile of minerals, maybe? That might be more likely, as you've never been overly concerned with mining income in the past.
Except the change is bad beyond FUBARing miners. t1 insurance is THE major equalizer between new and/or poor player and the old rich (in addition, it lets the old rich do even more pvp than otherwise if they want to go that route).
The change is bad for balance, its bad for new players, and its bad for pvp.
P.S. Not arguing for my own interest here: I've pretty much wrapped up destroying or selling all my spare fraud battleships and would be happy to have insurable t2 ships. I just don't think this is good for the game.
edit: if you're reading this CCP fix the technetium bottleneck FFS.
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 23:00:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Mahke
edit: if you're reading this CCP fix the technetium bottleneck FFS.
There is no bottleneck, it's just 30k/unit, no bottleneck in sight, requires no CCP attention what so ever... concentrate on minerals now
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 00:56:00 -
[100]
So right now we have too many minerals being produced, and too few being consumed naturally. The solution to this is to make T1 ships more expensive to lose(yes, cheaper in Jita price, but more expensive to lose with platinum insurance)? I really hope you're going to hit the supply of minerals in a way other than just destroying mining as a profession. I don't mine myself, but this offends my sense of economics. Off the top of my head, remove meta 0 item drops from rats, and consider switching to named item BPCs. I've long said that change needs to wait for a big enough corresponding change to make it not wreck the economy - well, I think you've found it.
|
|
Herr Wilkus
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 02:28:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Mahke Edited by: Mahke on 17/03/2010 22:39:38
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Akita T
THIS CHANGE IS ONE OF THE MOST HORRIBLE POSSIBLE CHANGES YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE. .
Unless of course you don't really care about artificially maintaining mineral producer income levels at the expense of people who want to use minerals, and you do care about stemming some of the unbelievably vast ISK inflows. Then it's a fine change.
Rather than rant unsubstantiated abuse, have you considered making suggestions to increase mineral sinks, tighten up mineral supply and generally calming down.
Or perhaps you have a mining alt or two lobbying your main's posts here...? A little stockpile of minerals, maybe? That might be more likely, as you've never been overly concerned with mining income in the past.
Except the change is bad beyond FUBARing miners. t1 insurance is THE major equalizer between new and/or poor player and the old rich (in addition, it lets the old rich do even more pvp than otherwise if they want to go that route).
The change is bad for balance, its bad for new players, and its bad for pvp.
P.S. Not arguing for my own interest here: I've pretty much wrapped up destroying or selling all my spare fraud battleships and would be happy to have insurable t2 ships. I just don't think this is good for the game.
edit: if you're reading this CCP fix the technetium bottleneck FFS.
Its clear you don't understand the underlying concepts here. PVP is not going to be affected. Prices are merely going to fall to the new insurance 'floor' - whatever the (Platinum payoff - platinum premium) ends up being. Which means that insurance fraud will continue to occur and PVP with T1 ships will continue to be nearly free and insurable.
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp Primary.
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 02:34:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto So right now we have too many minerals being produced, and too few being consumed naturally.
Yes, and the core of the problem, believe it or not, isn't mining. It's mission/rat loot reprocessing. I forget the exact percentage, but I recall reading in one of the QENs that the majority of minerals used throughout EVE come from reprocessed modules, not ore.
|
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife Discord.
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 02:56:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Herr Wilkus
Originally by: Mahke Edited by: Mahke on 17/03/2010 22:39:38
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Akita T quote pyramid goes here
Its clear you don't understand the underlying concepts here. PVP is not going to be affected. Prices are merely going to fall to the new insurance 'floor' - whatever the (Platinum payoff - platinum premium) ends up being. Which means that insurance fraud will continue to occur and PVP with T1 ships will continue to be nearly free and insurable.
See what you're doing here? you're making an assumption: that the price of the mineral basket will always be at the insurance fraud level if there is one.
Way back when, minerals were often significantly over insurance value (I hear it was even worse before I started playing. There is NO RULE stating that it will be so.
There are 3 scenarios:
a) natural prices above insurance "floor" -- supply/demand (+ the other factors that occasionally effect eve markets like manipulations, I-mined-it-its-free, etc.) results in prices above insurance value: insurance value does not impact prices except insofar as it stimulates or ******s pvp demand and willingness to lose ships in stupid/fun ways. b) natural prices at or slightly below the "floor" -- same as above c) natural prices significantly below the "floor" -- supply/demand/magic results in prices below the floor: prices rise towards, but not over,the floor (up to where its not worth builders bother to fraud.
Right now (since the trit change) we are in state (c) -- this is NOT a constant and there is NO guarentee we will still be in state (c) or even (b) if the floor is dropped. This is the fatal flaw in your statement; there is no way of knowing if we'll return to (c) or (b) just at the new level (unless you assume that most minerals in EVE are created by macros, in which case the problem is much bigger than simply insurance)
In fact, its really hard to predict accurately where we'll end up; but, as much as (c) is bad for the game for people not frauding BS (massively inflationary and people just don't like it), being too far in the (a) direction results in pvp becoming unsustainably expensive for new/casual/poor players.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 04:17:00 -
[104]
Yeah, we've been in (c) for about 6 months now (mostly thanks to the Veldspar respawn rate buff, but several other factors before and even the most recent sov system change "helped" along). We had been over in (b) for a little over 2 years before that, maybe even 3 years before (drone regions, w-space). The situation in (a) is more or less the situation we had at start of EVE until mining barges and then exhumers came around, transitioning us to (b) slowly but surely... let's call that situation (a1), because it was actually pretty damn good for miners back then.
Dropping the insurance level will very likely catapult us back into (b) before sliding slowly back towards (c) with just lower miner income, lower priced T1 ships (but similar PvP loss cost) and not much else, but if the insurance level keeps getting adjusted, we might end up with situation (a), but not the nice (a1) we had at the start, but with a (a2) version that's not bad, but completely horrible for miners.
Originally by: Malcanis Rather than rant unsubstantiated abuse, have you considered making suggestions to increase mineral sinks, tighten up mineral supply and generally calming down. Or perhaps you have a mining alt or two lobbying your main's posts here...? A little stockpile of minerals, maybe? That might be more likely, as you've never been overly concerned with mining income in the past.
Actually, I have been pretty concerned with mining-related activities, have been for the past 3 years or so. I've had multiple attempts of talking some sense into CCP, even tried via the CSM, nothing worked. I have merely let it go as "not worth bothering with anymore", until now.
I find mining boring as hell, and thoroughly unrewarding. I can totally see why people would stop caring and macro it up. The last time I actually bothered mining was well over 2 years ago, and even back then it was just for half an hour or so. I can fly a Hulk, never bought one on TQ though, my largest mining ship is a Retriever (not even a Covetor), and it's barely seen any use at all ever since I bought it.
I would be highly surprised if my total mineral "stockpile" value comes even close to half a percent of my total NAV.
So, no, absolutely no "hidden agenda" here, just thinking of the consequences people playing will end up suffering. It's _not_ unsubstantiated abuse just because you're not aware of the "substance" behind it I'm a bit past making suggestions and calming down, if 2-3 years of making suggestions and being (relatively) calm wasn't enough, hasn't helped one bit, quite the opposite... so, at "5 before midnight", they won't be helping either. Hence, the "abuse".
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Broderick Cahal
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 05:06:00 -
[105]
Just require players to make all the POS mods and sov stuff
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 05:26:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Jarnis McPieksu
Originally by: Jack bubu PAAANNIIICCCC!!!!
Unless CCP somehow magically constraints mineral supply by a huge amount, mineral prices will crash to the new soft floor set by the insurance payout of T1 ships. Yay, cheaper disposable T1 ships!
Or they could increase mineral consumption... Perhaps introduce mineral devouring space-whales in the winter expansion that you can raise from small baby whales into mega-rorquals; let's call it Whale Interaction.
|
Shoukei
Caldari Boobs Ahoy
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 06:32:00 -
[107]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave CCP Chronotis is working on a dev blog about insurance which should detail the how's and why's.
Dear CCP, WE SALUTE YOU!
|
Sunn Hunn
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 09:03:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
remove meta 0 item drops from rats, and consider switching to named item BPCs.
+100500 this :) bpcs, tags, named items with minerals in them near zero, etc.
|
Hentuku
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 10:39:00 -
[109]
Edited by: Hentuku on 18/03/2010 10:41:05 Finally a response from CCP on this!
So everything gets cheaper? Miners get less isk for minerals?
Ultimately is this deflationary?
Or will it counter act the inflationary aspects of the removal of the NPC isk sink. Once those NPC items are manufactured by players post the next expansion.
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente S0utherN Comfort Enforcers of Serenity
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 10:55:00 -
[110]
Edited by: Zey Nadar on 18/03/2010 10:56:41
Originally by: RJ Nobel
I hope and expect that the insurance changes on SISI are just a small part of CCP's overall plan to rebalance the mineral economy. Planetary interaction seems to be the perfect opportunity to introduce new mineral sinks and rebalance the overall system.
Isnt planetary interaction more of a mineral faucet? I remember seeing this nocxium mentioned in the planet scans even though the system is a mess currently and you cant really tell whats it going to be like in the end. Maybe CCP feels they need to lower the prices of minerals because planets will maybe allow a more afk way of getting minerals..
Personally I see the biggest losers in any of these changes to be the starting players who wont be able to make income by mining..
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 11:03:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Akita T Yeah, we've been in (c) for about 6 months now (mostly thanks to the Veldspar respawn rate buff, but several other factors before and even the most recent sov system change "helped" along). We had been over in (b) for a little over 2 years before that, maybe even 3 years before (drone regions, w-space). The situation in (a) is more or less the situation we had at start of EVE until mining barges and then exhumers came around, transitioning us to (b) slowly but surely... let's call that situation (a1), because it was actually pretty damn good for miners back then.
Dropping the insurance level will very likely catapult us back into (b) before sliding slowly back towards (c) with just lower miner income, lower priced T1 ships (but similar PvP loss cost) and not much else, but if the insurance level keeps getting adjusted, we might end up with situation (a), but not the nice (a1) we had at the start, but with a (a2) version that's not bad, but completely horrible for miners.
Originally by: Malcanis Rather than rant unsubstantiated abuse, have you considered making suggestions to increase mineral sinks, tighten up mineral supply and generally calming down. Or perhaps you have a mining alt or two lobbying your main's posts here...? A little stockpile of minerals, maybe? That might be more likely, as you've never been overly concerned with mining income in the past.
Actually, I have been pretty concerned with mining-related activities, have been for the past 3 years or so. I've had multiple attempts of talking some sense into CCP, even tried via the CSM, nothing worked. I have merely let it go as "not worth bothering with anymore", until now.
I find mining boring as hell, and thoroughly unrewarding. I can totally see why people would stop caring and macro it up. The last time I actually bothered mining was well over 2 years ago, and even back then it was just for half an hour or so. I can fly a Hulk, never bought one on TQ though, my largest mining ship is a Retriever (not even a Covetor), and it's barely seen any use at all ever since I bought it.
I would be highly surprised if my total mineral "stockpile" value comes even close to half a percent of my total NAV.
So, no, absolutely no "hidden agenda" here, just thinking of the consequences people playing will end up suffering. It's _not_ unsubstantiated abuse just because you're not aware of the "substance" behind it I'm a bit past making suggestions and calming down, if 2-3 years of making suggestions and being (relatively) calm wasn't enough, hasn't helped one bit, quite the opposite... so, at "5 before midnight", they won't be helping either. Hence, the "abuse".
*sigh*
We have the situation we do now because it is insanely easy and (in hi-sec and to a certain extent w-space) safe. All the mining "buffs" of the last 3 years have all been to the same effect: ENCOURAGING MACROS
If you want to help miners, make mining difficult and dangerous.
It sounds like a paradox as first glance, but it's really not. It's the only way to make mining worthwhile as income or gameplay.
Well, apart from instituting ever-increasing NPC buy orders for players to compete against, of course - but that really does kick new PvPers in the shorts.
|
rubico1337
Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 11:12:00 -
[112]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave CCP Chronotis is working on a dev blog about insurance which should detail the how's and why's.
LET THE MINERAL-GEDDON COMMENCE! Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. |
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 12:24:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Malcanis We have the situation we do now because it is insanely easy and (in hi-sec and to a certain extent w-space) safe. All the mining "buffs" of the last 3 years have all been to the same effect: ENCOURAGING MACROS
You're not saying anything to contradict anything I ever said On this part, we completely agree.
As for the rest... well, to a degree, true, that would be one of the possible solutions, or at least part of a better, larger, more complex solution. I am totally down with differentiating between easily AFKable mining (bad) and more dangerous but higher yield (not just higher income) mining that would encourage people to actually want to pay attention... but you can do that in several different ways. For instance, you could change the mining system itself (some ways to increase yield by doing something that can't easily be macroed) or changing the ore respawn quantities/qualities (even as going so far as to move ALL asteroid belts into the exploration system, but giving at least barges a way to explore without probes for the lower-quality ones). You know, stuff like that.
Other parts of the solution would be encouraging more combat (so that mineral demand goes up heavily), so that would translate into making 0.0 much more attractive to be in (ISK-wise), and spreading the attractive parts around as much as possible, instead of concentrating them too much in some spots (which just encourages blobbing, which actually leads to less combat in the long run on average)... but not spread them too far so that every area is almost the same, then again you have no incentive to take any space, since, well, just about any space would do fine.
And that's just mentioning a few of the ideas that I had been tossing around for a good while now... because there are more.
You could duplicate the entire NPC production chain over into blueprints too - get BPCs for POS structures (and any other space-borne structures we have or will have) from LP shops at very low LP costs but high ISK costs, and include quite a bit of minerals into their build process. Heck, if you want, you could make it so they can only be manufactured "on-planet" and with the help of some planet-only resources, but it doesn't need to be that way, regular station manufacture will do just fine too (and you still keep some of the ISK sink part in the BPC ISK cost). Alternatively, something completely novel as far as the ISK sink part goes - heavily ramp up station manufacture slot fees (I'm actually thinking orders of magnitude here, say 200k to start a build job and 30k per hour) and tweak build times a little bit to compensate for the upcoming price changes (especially on ammo). This will also have the side-effect of promoting highsec POS use. In turn, you could have highsec POS anchoring be ISK-fee-based instead of charter based - or, instead, just ramp up charter ISK cost in LP shops for the same end effect. Last but not least, you could make it so corps could actually donate ISK to empires to raise "effective" player corp standings with the NPC empire so that highsec POS anchoring becomes easier. Make it even so that you can put POSes in 1.0 systems, but at much higher ISK costs (be it in actual rental fees or in heavily increased charter cost if you also buffed charter ISK cost from 0 to something noticeable).
And I could go on and on on what you COULD do. But so far, CCP has only even hinted at one thing, and one thing alone they want to do. And that thing, alone by itself, if changed while nothing else changes, that could be a disaster. Just because it's a "stopgap measure" it's not an excuse. I'd LOVE to see that promised devblog, and I would love it even more if in there they will say WHAT ELSE are they doing alongside this insurance change, but I'm pretty certain it will only be the insurance change and nothing else. And hence, the "rage".
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 12:55:00 -
[114]
That idea of making meta 1-4 items made into BPC's has some merit, hadn't even thought of anything like that - good thinking
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
Herr Wilkus
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 14:25:00 -
[115]
Yes, its an assumption, but I believe that 'true' mineral value is far below the current 'supported' price. How much, I'm sure that someone at CCP has it figured it out, but I don't have that kind of information at my fingertips.
If CCP simply reset their static insurance payouts, my guess is that T1 mineral values are FAR below the 'insurance fraud' value, and they don't have a 'fix' for the oversupply problem yet.
If CCP installs a dynamic insurance system which adjusts to market conditions - I reckon the actual equalibrium isn't too far off - or they have something up their sleeves to spur demand.
I still think that increasing incentive for suicide ganking would help out a lot, by damaging supply and increasing carnage (demand.) ISK for sec-status exchange, to allow -10s to freely roam hisec again for a price. Or maybe even double insurance payout for Concord kills.
|
Dylan Chan
Gallente The Maverick Navy IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 15:46:00 -
[116]
I always thought that the insurance system made no sense and was only there to artificially set the mineral prices.
For Insurance to be more fun/realistic.. base it on sec status. the lower your sec status the higher the price you pay until you can only get Insurance from 0.0 rat stations. The Higher it is, the lower your premium maybe even a larger pay out for "Good Drivers". |
Mono Loco
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 17:02:00 -
[117]
make it player run |
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 21:11:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Mono Loco make it player run
that might be to a bridge to far at the moment |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 21:53:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Mono Loco make it player run
Uh yeah, since it's inherently loss-making, that's not ever going to work. |
Kyra Felann
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 21:54:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Turiel Demon That idea of making meta 1-4 items made into BPC's has some merit, hadn't even thought of anything like that - good thinking
It makes so much sense, I have to wonder why it hasn't been implemented. The mission-runners (of which I am one when I have the patience) might complain, but they have it far too easy as it is.
The other option I've heard is that NPCs would drop damaged modules that can be repaired into named modules, using minerals or something in the process.
I think if nothing else, NPCs should stop dropping T1 meta-level 0 items. |
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 22:56:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Kyra Felann
Originally by: Turiel Demon That idea of making meta 1-4 items made into BPC's has some merit, hadn't even thought of anything like that - good thinking
It makes so much sense, I have to wonder why it hasn't been implemented. The mission-runners (of which I am one when I have the patience) might complain, but they have it far too easy as it is.
The other option I've heard is that NPCs would drop damaged modules that can be repaired into named modules, using minerals or something in the process.
I think if nothing else, NPCs should stop dropping T1 meta-level 0 items.
The main problem with the BPC suggestion is that it breaks the 'story' behind the wreck/loot mechanic. 'Loot' is modules surviving from a wreck that was mounted in it before it blew up. Why should pirates or freedom fighters run around with BPC's in their ships, and why would they be the only things surviving?
Meta-0 items are the big part of the problem as the higher meta levels refine for much less minerals. Just removing M-0's will probably be enough while not completely breaking the fiction behind the game. The 'story' could simply be that the NPC's didn't go for using basic stuff as the Meta-1+ are more efficient...
|
Illectroculus Defined
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 23:14:00 -
[122]
Actually if you stop and think about what would be involved in replacing all drops with 'broken meta' drops you'd realise it's a whole lot of work for the devs. Basicly new items need to be added to the DB for every existing meta item, all the loot tables need adjusted and then we need a new type of manufacturing path added to the blueprint system, and of course facilities that work with this manufacturing path. |
Deyionu
The Maverick Navy
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 00:49:00 -
[123]
I really like the idea that meta 1-4 items being BPC's. For your RP aspect make each faction/race drop parts that are needed to make race specify meta items. For instance Amarr you have a chance to get this new salvage that helps focus crystals with the needed bpc and parts you have a meta 4 Mega Beam (tech 1 parts, salvage and npc goods). On how you get the bpc either have the "boss" from missions drop them or as random mission reward from the agent. I think this would strongly put the mineral market into the hands of the miners and get rid of the whole reprocess issue we have from mission runners. |
NoNah
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 00:53:00 -
[124]
Gasp, I entirely missed this change. And all I can think is "finally".
Of course it's not the solution I'd want to see, but hey, evolution!
Just seeing how everyone else are doing it, I figured I'll share my idea of how it 'should' be.
1. Drastic nerf to missions. This is pretty much done in two ways. Remove meta 1 loot. Remove highsec level 4's. 2. Remove insurance, period. 3. Segregate minerals between sec status. Make sure you need minerals from, high, low and 0.0 space to build a ship. Wormholes would most likely be in a similiar spread. 4. Gradually remove static belts. Multiply the number gravimetric sites by a large number. Preferably with more random effects, such as spawns, gas clouds, such.
Most of the steps on their own are somewhat useless. But as a package, I can't really see why it wouldn't work. Problem is how massive the change is, and there's no real way of testing it out, other than through speculation and theories. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 01:11:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Jack bubu PAAANNIIICCCC!!!!
This.
Also, isn't CCP Chronotis the guy who said he was creating a mining revamp over 2 years ago? This should be good. |
Cid Mutation
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 02:50:00 -
[126]
One of the thing they should do also is to make module looted from wreck damaged. So you got to repair it before you sell or reprocess. It would be a pain in the ass to keep in your hangar but it would minimized a little bit the reprocess mineral coming from loot |
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 03:59:00 -
[127]
Insurance Exchange Rate (IER) is a symptom of a broken game mechanics. The root of the problem is behind the mining mechanics which has caused an oversupply of minerals that will continue to outpace demand. I suggest CCP puts some effort in developing ways to properly address supply and demand issues. The changes I've seen in sisi suggests they are simply altering the IER rate. This alone will not solve the real problem the game is facing.
|
Ave Volta
Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 05:32:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Block Ukx
Insurance Exchange Rate (IER) is a symptom of a broken game mechanics.
This is really the key point in all of this. A change to insurance payout simply effects a symtom of a larger issue of oversupply. I would assume though that CCP understands this, so this change may be part of a larger set of upcoming changes that we don't fully understand yet.
|
Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 06:37:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Block Ukx
Insurance Exchange Rate (IER) is a symptom of a broken game mechanics. The root of the problem is behind the mining mechanics which has caused an oversupply of minerals that will continue to outpace demand. I suggest CCP puts some effort in developing ways to properly address supply and demand issues. The changes I've seen in sisi suggests they are simply altering the IER rate. This alone will not solve the real problem the game is facing.
It isn't mining mechanics that are broken. It is mineral supply, somewhere around half of all minerals come from other sources than mining. So the problem is more likely the fact that reprocessing mission or ratting loot yields FAR FAR FAR to high amounts of minerals. Mining should be the primary source of all minerals. Make it so first then start tweeking the other things. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 06:44:00 -
[130]
Originally by: RJ Nobel
If mining were the sole source of minerals you would be correct. Mineral prices would eventually equalize at a very low, but manageable price point. Mining would exist as a low-income "side" profession, similar to hi-sec exploration.
However, mining is not the only source of minerals. Reprocessing of mission loot produces a significant source of minerals as a by-product of mission-running - an activity that is completely unaffected by mineral prices or changes to the insurance system. 0.0 alliances are also producing a significant mineral stream as they mine for sov. upgrades. These minerals will continue to flood the market even at 0.01 ISK/unit prices. End result? Mining for profit becomes a myth, the Eve economy goes through massive price deflation, and mineral prices become a volatile trailing indicator to mission-running/0.0 alliance activity.
You assume that mission runners would keep looting if loot prices would crash. I mean if you can take next mission and get let's say 25 mil / h why would you loot if looting would net you only 8 mil / h ?
And 0.0 alliances would lose isk moving minerals to market if mineral prices drop below certain value so no you would not see minerals on market at 0.01 isk. You do not do afk freighter runs to jita from 0.0. |
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Primary.
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 07:09:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Sunn Hunn
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
remove meta 0 item drops from rats, and consider switching to named item BPCs.
+100500 this :) bpcs, tags, named items with minerals in them near zero, etc.
I support this idea. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 07:30:00 -
[132]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave CCP Chronotis is working on a dev blog about insurance which should detail the how's and why's.
How's it coming along? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 07:37:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Akita T
I'd LOVE to see that promised devblog, and I would love it even more if in there they will say WHAT ELSE are they doing alongside this insurance change, but I'm pretty certain it will only be the insurance change and nothing else. And hence, the "rage".
And on this we also agree. But the "RAGE" is not constructive or useful. All it does is promote the "well screw those guys, everything we do just makes them mad" attitude. Especially when it comes from someone as influential as yourself.
I REALLY hope that CCP aren't just going to put in a flat reduction in the nominal IER mineral values unless it's a very temporary place-holder for a more sophisticated system.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 09:47:00 -
[134]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 19/03/2010 10:11:21
Quote:
If you want to help miners, make mining difficult and dangerous.
It sounds like a paradox as first glance, but it's really not. It's the only way to make mining worthwhile as income or gameplay.
The same should also be applied to missioning (unlike mining, it floods EvE with minerals AND ISK), you were less supportive about that, though.
Quote:
I find mining boring as hell, and thoroughly unrewarding. I can totally see why people would stop caring and macro it up.
Mining needs an heavy apparent nerf.
Make it and ice mining hard to macro. I still see at least 2 x 23/7 MEGA macros in a system I sometimes go to get some ice. It's like 5-10 ships with the same name, playing like the open source macro does.
I estimate about upwards of 2M of undue isotopes pushed "in the system" *per ship*, *per week*. And this just by one macro runner.
Then make the causes of oversupply reduced:
- perma respawns have to go away again. - exhumers and barges have to yield 1/3 of today and the other ships also in a proportional way to that.
This because the 30k EvE players are still 30k players. Plus 270k of hi sec dwellers who bring in production but NO 270k PvPers to consume what's produced and gathered.
This brings in an innatural and deadly proportion of overflow in everything.
So, the 270k "bears" have to produce below or equal to what the 30k "active" (as in consuming stuff, ie via PvP) need. Only below that thresold the "nerf" becomes a buff, as minerals become valuable enough to be worth gathering, even at reduced volumes.
Any other solution that is not an eye opener and causing drastic changes is going to be just a band aid.
Edit:
another important issue is scalability.
The elder kind of players is a dying breed, it's vastly easier that a new player is a carebear than in the past.
This means that we have to expect a scenario like:
Today: 30k players, 270k bears Tomorrow: 40k players, 400k bears Past tomorrow: 100k players, 1.2M bears (!)
with an upward divergence of heavy materials users vs heavy materials producers, the latter increasing at a quicker pace than the former.
The new system has to deal and scale with this. Otherwise it's doomed to fail. - Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 09:56:00 -
[135]
leave mining as is bring insurance back in line with mineral prices - or perhaps a weekly adjustment based on say average mineral prices across the board make it more dynamic Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
Esk Esme
Caldari DEATHFUNK
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 11:15:00 -
[136]
why change insurance at all tbh??
becouse a few whineing bear's cry over ganking and insurance scam well these same bear's will cry alot harder and more with the base price droped on insurance cousing a knock effect to price of minrials also most t1 non named items due to build cost beeing lowerd
mins already hit hard with dronelands/ihubs/wh's working as intended probly lol
why not concentrate on something that needs fixing hmm maybe lag
my english sux sue m8
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 11:18:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 19/03/2010 10:11:21
Quote:
If you want to help miners, make mining difficult and dangerous.
It sounds like a paradox as first glance, but it's really not. It's the only way to make mining worthwhile as income or gameplay.
The same should also be applied to missioning (unlike mining, it floods EvE with minerals AND ISK), you were less supportive about that, though.
What?
Did you mean to reply to someone else? You're seriously trying to assert that I, Malcanis, dont want to see missioning made more difficult and dangerous?
PS the rest of your post was pretty bad too.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 11:25:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Esk Esme why change insurance at all tbh??
becouse a few whineing bear's cry over ganking and insurance scam well these same bear's will cry alot harder and more with the base price droped on insurance cousing a knock effect to price of minrials also most t1 non named items due to build cost beeing lowerd
mins already hit hard with dronelands/ihubs/wh's working as intended probly lol
why not concentrate on something that needs fixing hmm maybe lag
my english sux sue m8
Because I want cheaper fighter bombers for my Nyx.
FakeEdit: And a cheaper Nyx.
|
Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 11:59:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Lani Sun
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
If I could make changes:
- no insurance on capitals of any sort, period - no basic 40% payouts in 0.0 - 3 policy options only, not based on coverage level but coverage duration (3 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks)
Youre a carebear right?
How about instead not allowing insurance in hisec at all or whilst the ship is in hisec.
I don't support his suggestion at all, but it at least makes sense - in opposite of yours.
Where would an insurance insure your ship? In a save place (high sec) or a place where your ship will most likely been blown up?
Try insuring a house against bad weather in a hurricane zone. Or against water in a flood zone ... -- EVEWalletAware - an offline wallet manager |
Snorre Sturlasson
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 13:25:00 -
[140]
Each ship is constructed with a minimum of minerals. So why not making a price index of the minerals, so that the insurance payout and the insurance price depending on the index?
|
|
Afra Raven
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 13:35:00 -
[141]
Edited by: Afra Raven on 19/03/2010 13:36:05 As i see it the main problem was and is Players and Goldsellers using macros. Some mentioned it already, the macroing will move to where the ISK gain to risk is minimum. Mining was the way for some time, now macroing is moving to Belt ratting, Mission running. And if you check out lowsec system with LvL 4 Courier Agents, don¦t be surprised to see Indus floating around in heavy numbers and acting like robots. You can shot them all day long (and i did that) no one cares, there is too much ISK in it. A mate wrote a Petition immediatly when we recognized the macroing, nothing happened. It maybe that CCP had problems to proof what was obvious, but to prevent that you need proof, CCP has to stop macroing at all. There are a lot of suggestion out there to stop macroing or at least make it very difficult, i would love to see CCP implementing that and my guess is we will see prizes going up to the roof.
|
Hentuku
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 14:27:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Afra Raven Edited by: Afra Raven on 19/03/2010 13:36:05 As i see it the main problem was and is Players and Goldsellers using macros. Some mentioned it already, the macroing will move to where the ISK gain to risk is minimum. Mining was the way for some time, now macroing is moving to Belt ratting, Mission running. And if you check out lowsec system with LvL 4 Courier Agents, don¦t be surprised to see Indus floating around in heavy numbers and acting like robots. You can shot them all day long (and i did that) no one cares, there is too much ISK in it. A mate wrote a Petition immediatly when we recognized the macroing, nothing happened. It maybe that CCP had problems to proof what was obvious, but to prevent that you need proof, CCP has to stop macroing at all. There are a lot of suggestion out there to stop macroing or at least make it very difficult, i would love to see CCP implementing that and my guess is we will see prizes going up to the roof.
Agreed.... instead of fixing the real issue, we are trying to fix symptoms caused by the botters.
CCP should try to intelligently solve this problem.
Develop a Turing test for eve.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 15:24:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Snorre Sturlasson Each ship is constructed with a minimum of minerals. So why not making a price index of the minerals, so that the insurance payout and the insurance price depending on the index?
Rumour has it that that's exactly what they're doing. The reason that people are getting excited about such a change is that it remove the price floor that's been propping up mineral prices. Thus, in the absence of other changes, the income of the individual mineral producer is likely to fall considerably.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 16:30:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal
Originally by: Block Ukx
Insurance Exchange Rate (IER) is a symptom of a broken game mechanics. The root of the problem is behind the mining mechanics which has caused an oversupply of minerals that will continue to outpace demand. I suggest CCP puts some effort in developing ways to properly address supply and demand issues. The changes I've seen in sisi suggests they are simply altering the IER rate. This alone will not solve the real problem the game is facing.
It isn't mining mechanics that are broken. It is mineral supply, somewhere around half of all minerals come from other sources than mining. So the problem is more likely the fact that reprocessing mission or ratting loot yields FAR FAR FAR to high amounts of minerals. Mining should be the primary source of all minerals. Make it so first then start tweeking the other things.
One of the problem is that you are founding your opinion over data that are 18 months old and with 3 big mining buff in between: WH space, increase respawn rate of tritanium and the new belts in 0.0 spawned by the industrial index.
That is a shaky foundation.
We need up to date information before passing judgment. I hope the new Dev blog will have them. if not, support this: [Request of informations] Sources of minerals.
If we get 40 or so supporters there is a chance the CSM will ask CCP to give the informations.
|
Ariane VoxDei
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 17:37:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Venkul Mul One of the problem is that you are founding your opinion over data that are 18 months old and with 3 big mining buff in between: WH space, increase respawn rate of tritanium and the new belts in 0.0 spawned by the industrial index.
That is a shaky foundation.
That and as I recall, we never got to to bottom of how much of the alleged 40% was purely modules sources from loot or in fact any refining result that was not: 1) drone compounds 2) ore / compressed ore. And this again comes from the fact that there is/was no reliable way to track whether something is purposebuilt for compression (passive targetter I's, 100MN AB I, for example). There might be data about how much loot is spawned into wrecks, but far from every L4 runner loot their missions, so that is not a very reliable stat, other than to say it is less than the spawned potential.
Quite another thing, sometimes ships get melted down as well - the gray area between the price not being high enough to ensure, but still lower than the mineral cost, making it worthwhile to melt and sell or use the minerals. (btw that gap is something the insurance change has the potential to close).
If those kind of refines were lumped in with the "loot" category, that would skew the number even further in favour of inflating the boogeyman image - which is essentially just drawing attention away from other things and various wailing fairies who are free to do missions but refuse and want welfare (and failing that, they want missions nerfed in pay, moved to low/wspace and made impossibly hard). You know, along the lines of "nothing to see here, look at the paper tiger missions instead".
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 17:56:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
We need up to date information before passing judgment. I hope the new Dev blog will have them. if not, support this: [Request of informations] Sources of minerals.
If we get 40 or so supporters there is a chance the CSM will ask CCP to give the informations.
This tbh. Everyone who is remotely interested in mining, industry or the EVE economy should support Venkul's proposal. We desperately need up to date data if this is to be discussed in any meaningful way.
|
ISellThingz
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 18:54:00 -
[147]
Where's that dev blog
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 19:16:00 -
[148]
Originally by: ISellThingz Where's that dev blog
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 19:26:00 -
[149]
It's pretty simple here... The market is over supplied, Stop using buy orders as a determinative factor for demand!
It it NOT demand for usage. Buy orders for 2.1B units in Jita is NOT a good representation of demand for minerals that are used to make finished goods. Too many people trading in Minerals along with the massive supply ability has broken this aspect of. Traders gobble up hundreds of millions of units of Trit and Pyerite just so they can resell them at cost + broker fee + Tax + 4% profit. The issue is that those hundreds of millions of units purchased and sold don't make finished goods.
I would like CCP to ignore the purchased and sold amounts of minerals and look at minerals that are USED for manufacturing items. That is the real demand. Then look at how much minerals are being supplied.. If Supply is much greater then real demand, that needs to be fixed, not what is on SISI at the moment.
Amarr for Life |
RootEmerger
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 20:38:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Illectroculus Defined Actually if you stop and think about what would be involved in replacing all drops with 'broken meta' drops you'd realise it's a whole lot of work for the devs. Basicly new items need to be added to the DB for every existing meta item, all the loot tables need adjusted and then we need a new type of manufacturing path added to the blueprint system, and of course facilities that work with this manufacturing path.
actually that's just a few db queries, a couple of man-work days at most - the major work would be the flavor text, not the db work...
|
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 21:17:00 -
[151]
Edited by: Thrasymachus TheSophist on 19/03/2010 21:24:58
Originally by: LyghtCrye I'm sorry but, NPC's buying minerals for a set floor price is exactly the same thing as self destructing ships for the insurance policy economically. The only difference is then there is no possibility of a manufacturing middle man to get a cut.
Absolutely true that from an economic point of view they are the same - they both provide a mineral floor. That was of course the whole reason for the suggestion - to eliminate people's worry about what would happen to the mineral market if you removed the price floor provided by insurance. NPC buyers restores the floor.
That said, I think you underestimate the effect that eliminating the manufacturing middle man would have on the mineral AND manufacturing markets. (Alliteration ftw.)
EDIT: To be clear - I don't want to see any floor at all. Let the market set the price for minerals. My point was only that there are far better ways to create a mineral floor if that is the goal, that don't involve insurance at all.
|
RootEmerger
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 22:19:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
EDIT: To be clear - I don't want to see any floor at all. Let the market set the price for minerals. My point was only that there are far better ways to create a mineral floor if that is the goal, that don't involve insurance at all.
"let the market set the price" dont mean a thing, the market will always set prices as mechanics decided by CCP will make it set prices, see disprosium prices before and after Dominion.
So the question is: how much CCP want the minerals be worth and how change mechanics to make them worth so much...
|
TheSlaveMaster
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 13:44:00 -
[153]
to those who say suicide will die, i lol. This is only good. Many will think no one suicide now. starting to carry 300-1bill isk in a hauler. and bang 1400'tempest will suicide it. auch the suicide guy lost whole 30mill now instead of 10mill but earned 150-500mill isk....
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 13:54:00 -
[154]
Originally by: TheSlaveMaster to those who say suicide will die, i lol. This is only good. Many will think no one suicide now. starting to carry 300-1bill isk in a hauler. and bang 1400'tempest will suicide it. auch the suicide guy lost whole 30mill now instead of 10mill but earned 150-500mill isk....
I don't think there's anyone who thinks that suicide-ganking will stop, we think suicide for insurance-fraud suicide will stop holding the prices from dropping, thats all.
Now then, roll on that dev blog
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 16:25:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Turiel Demon
Originally by: TheSlaveMaster to those who say suicide will die, i lol. This is only good. Many will think no one suicide now. starting to carry 300-1bill isk in a hauler. and bang 1400'tempest will suicide it. auch the suicide guy lost whole 30mill now instead of 10mill but earned 150-500mill isk....
I don't think there's anyone who thinks that suicide-ganking will stop, we think suicide for insurance-fraud suicide will stop holding the prices from dropping, thats all.
Now then, roll on that dev blog
For a while, then it will just continue.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 18:31:00 -
[156]
On second thought... maybe it's all for the best. Think about it.
First off, I always kinda' loathed mining. Before, I could tell people mining was boring and whatnot, but it was eventually a matter of taste. After the change, I could just tell people they're stupid if they want to become miners.
Second, sure, T1 ship prices will drop, and the "barrier to entry" into larger-craft PvP will be set lower... but the cost of a PvP loss will actually go higher. So, in a way, that's actually a good thing too.
So, to hell with it, I changed my mind, let the change roll... ...give all the people exactly what they ASKED for, as opposed to what they would actually need.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Sciencegeek deathdealer
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 19:36:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Akita T On second thought... maybe it's all for the best. Think about it.
First off, I always kinda' loathed mining. Before, I could tell people mining was boring and whatnot, but it was eventually a matter of taste. After the change, I could just tell people they're stupid if they want to become miners.
Second, sure, T1 ship prices will drop, and the "barrier to entry" into larger-craft PvP will be set lower... but the cost of a PvP loss will actually go higher. So, in a way, that's actually a good thing too.
So, to hell with it, I changed my mind, let the change roll... ...give all the people exactly what they ASKED for, as opposed to what they would actually need.
Could you please go into a bit more detail asto why pvp losses will go higher? I actually im quite curious... (/me is a nerd :P)
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 21:38:00 -
[158]
Right now, ships sell for barely a bit above 70% of platinum payout, and you can find deals that sell for below platinum payout (as much as 10 mil under, actually, in some isolated areas of the game). So, basically, PvPing in a platinum-insured unrigged hull with cheap weapons and losing it might actually bring you some money in instead of making you lose some money. If they keep adjusting insurance payouts down to build costs, even if overall the cost of purchasing a ship goes down, the overall ISK loss when you lose it will go up.
Practical example : you can buy a Rokh for as little as 105 mil ISK in some areas of the game, and for around 115 mil ISK just about anywhere. It costs 49.5 mil ISK to platinum-insure, and pays out 165 mil when destroyed, for a grand total of 115.5 ISK "paid out". If you don't rig it at all and fly with cheap meta-gear, you could actually gain money when you lose the ship if you got the cheap one, or barely lose about 10 mil ISK or so with the regular prices. Now, say that insurance settles somewhere around 50 mil ISK for a Rokh or thereabouts (the eventual mineral cost) - about a third of what they "supposedly" should have costed, or less than half of what they cost now (a scenario which might seem a bit extreme, but not quite unlikely). Since manufacturers expect a certain income/slot/day too (otherwise why bother manufacturing), you can expect Rokhs to cost anywhere between 70 and 75 mil ISK a piece on the market. Insurance cost would be 21 mil ISK, with a 70 mil payout, so only 49 mil ISK back... so overall, you stand to lose between 21 and 26 mil ISK just for losing the hull, plus the gear which will probably still cost (the cheapest ones) around 10 mil or so, for a grand total of 31-36 mil ISK loss per ship... as opposed to almost no loss at all or barely 10 mil or so.
The story is more or less the same even if you use better gear or rigs, the absolute ISK amount lost extra is still the same... just the percentage our of the entire loss is different. So, yeah, it's cheaper to get a brand new first ship, but it's also more expensive to lose it (then replace it), in this scenario.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 23:35:00 -
[159]
And tbh it should cost some ISK to lose a ship. Free T1 ships are not, overall, a good thing.
|
SpiderWebMayhem
YSS Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.03.21 02:17:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Akita T
Right now, ships sell for barely a bit above 70% of platinum payout, and you can find deals that sell for below platinum payout (as much as 10 mil under, actually, in some isolated areas of the game). So, basically, PvPing in a platinum-insured unrigged hull with cheap weapons and losing it might actually bring you some money in instead of making you lose some money. If they keep adjusting insurance payouts down to build costs, even if overall the cost of purchasing a ship goes down, the overall ISK loss when you lose it will go up.
Practical example : you can buy a Rokh for as little as 105 mil ISK in some areas of the game, and for around 115 mil ISK just about anywhere. It costs 49.5 mil ISK to platinum-insure, and pays out 165 mil when destroyed, for a grand total of 115.5 ISK "paid out". If you don't rig it at all and fly with cheap meta-gear, you could actually gain money when you lose the ship if you got the cheap one, or barely lose about 10 mil ISK or so with the regular prices. Now, say that insurance settles somewhere around 50 mil ISK for a Rokh or thereabouts (the eventual mineral cost) - about a third of what they "supposedly" should have costed, or less than half of what they cost now (a scenario which might seem a bit extreme, but not quite unlikely). Since manufacturers expect a certain income/slot/day too (otherwise why bother manufacturing), you can expect Rokhs to cost anywhere between 70 and 75 mil ISK a piece on the market. Insurance cost would be 21 mil ISK, with a 70 mil payout, so only 49 mil ISK back... so overall, you stand to lose between 21 and 26 mil ISK just for losing the hull, plus the gear which will probably still cost (the cheapest ones) around 10 mil or so, for a grand total of 31-36 mil ISK loss per ship... as opposed to almost no loss at all or barely 10 mil or so.
The story is more or less the same even if you use better gear or rigs, the absolute ISK amount lost extra is still the same... just the percentage our of the entire loss is different. So, yeah, it's cheaper to get a brand new first ship, but it's also more expensive to lose it (then replace it), in this scenario.
This is a fallacious argument. Manufacturers in empire have long since proven that they will produce modules and hulls at barely above mineral cost. "Time is free" crowd, etc etc.
Minerals are so oversupplied right now that battleship prices will plummet to meet the new insurance floor. After a month or two of market instability what we will see is a new price floor where T1 hulls are once again basically free to lose. There will not be a big gap between insurance payout and price to fly a BS. We will see, as we do now, hulls that are essentially free to fly.
Unless the underlying problem of mineral oversupply is addressed nothing will change. The supply needs to significantly decrease or the demand needs to suddenly rise - two scenarios which will not happen from merely changing the insurance payouts.
|
|
Sith LordX
|
Posted - 2010.03.21 03:23:00 -
[161]
T2 prices fell too much during dominion. Totally messed up the market. Hopefully this will rise their prices again and to a stable level.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.21 07:28:00 -
[162]
Edited by: Akita T on 21/03/2010 07:31:21
Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem This is a fallacious argument.
No, it's just a typo, or better said, a change of mind without proper/complete overhaul of the previous post section. The "5" in the "say that insurance settles somewhere around 50 mil ISK for a Rokh" part was supposed to become a "7", and the text around it was supposed to change, but somehow it slipped my mind. Also, remember the "If they keep adjusting insurance payouts down to build costs" part of it too. Give it a re-read with that correction
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.21 13:28:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist Edited by: Thrasymachus TheSophist on 19/03/2010 21:24:58
Originally by: LyghtCrye I'm sorry but, NPC's buying minerals for a set floor price is exactly the same thing as self destructing ships for the insurance policy economically. The only difference is then there is no possibility of a manufacturing middle man to get a cut.
Absolutely true that from an economic point of view they are the same - they both provide a mineral floor. That was of course the whole reason for the suggestion - to eliminate people's worry about what would happen to the mineral market if you removed the price floor provided by insurance. NPC buyers restores the floor.
That said, I think you underestimate the effect that eliminating the manufacturing middle man would have on the mineral AND manufacturing markets. (Alliteration ftw.)
EDIT: To be clear - I don't want to see any floor at all. Let the market set the price for minerals. My point was only that there are far better ways to create a mineral floor if that is the goal, that don't involve insurance at all.
NPC buy orders create a hard floor for each mineral, with a specific rapport between the different minerals values.
The insurance generate mineral floor is a soft floor where minerals relative (minimal) value can shift depending on market forces.
|
SpiderWebMayhem
YSS Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.03.21 16:15:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 21/03/2010 07:31:21
Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem This is a fallacious argument.
No, it's just a typo, or better said, a change of mind without proper/complete overhaul of the previous post section. The "5" in the "say that insurance settles somewhere around 50 mil ISK for a Rokh" part was supposed to become a "7", and the text around it was supposed to change, but somehow it slipped my mind. Also, remember the "If they keep adjusting insurance payouts down to build costs" part of it too. Give it a re-read with that correction
My point stands. You are assuming that manufacturers won't continue dropping hull prices down to meet the new insurance floor. In the short term (1-3 months) you are correct, PvP will cost more because the gap between price and payout will be larger than today. But in the long haul, manufacturers will once again cave to the "my time is free" crowd and drop their prices to just barely above insurance floor, leaving us in the same situation.
All the insurance change does is decrease the value of minerals, since the supply of minerals vastly outstrips the demand. If CCP wants this to be a real player-driven market, insurance needs to go away completely. Or a massive mineral sink needs to be added. Or both.
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.21 16:49:00 -
[165]
Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem My point stands. You are assuming that manufacturers won't continue dropping hull prices down to meet the new insurance floor. In the short term (1-3 months) you are correct, PvP will cost more because the gap between price and payout will be larger than today. But in the long haul, manufacturers will once again cave to the "my time is free" crowd and drop their prices to just barely above insurance floor, leaving us in the same situation.
You're basing your argument on the ASSUMPTION that what CCP is implementing is a new STATIC insurance floor. If they're completely incompetent, that's what they'll do.... If they're even marginally competent, the insurance floor will be dynamic, rising and falling with mineral prices. In the last case, mineral prices will drop until they find their 'natural' level, meaning the point where EVE market dynamics has set the value of the effort spent in acquiring those minerals so supply equals demand.
|
SpiderWebMayhem
YSS Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.03.21 17:00:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Cyclops43
Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem My point stands. You are assuming that manufacturers won't continue dropping hull prices down to meet the new insurance floor. In the short term (1-3 months) you are correct, PvP will cost more because the gap between price and payout will be larger than today. But in the long haul, manufacturers will once again cave to the "my time is free" crowd and drop their prices to just barely above insurance floor, leaving us in the same situation.
You're basing your argument on the ASSUMPTION that what CCP is implementing is a new STATIC insurance floor. If they're completely incompetent, that's what they'll do.... If they're even marginally competent, the insurance floor will be dynamic, rising and falling with mineral prices. In the last case, mineral prices will drop until they find their 'natural' level, meaning the point where EVE market dynamics has set the value of the effort spent in acquiring those minerals so supply equals demand.
"Competent" isn't generally an attribute I associate with CCP.
Regardless, I don't think a dynamic insurance value will help the situation. Where are mineral values averaged at? Jita? Amarr? Nullsec? All of them together? Second, how often does it update? Daily? Weekly? When and where you take the average will have drastic effects on insurance rates and mineral price. I imagine it would also encourage insurance frauding. The BS that you bought a week ago at XX price has increased in value 10m because of mineral fluctuations, making it profitable to insure and destroy the ship.
In fact, this might create a whole new market of speculating on mineral changes by buying up hulls when cheap and blowing them up when insurance rises. Individuals or organizations with lots of money could even directly manipulate mineral prices to affect a change in insurance.
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.03.21 17:18:00 -
[167]
CCP we are waiting for a DEVBLOG so we finnaly can have some constructive debate instead of theorycrafting.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.21 22:16:00 -
[168]
I sure am looking forward to reading that devblog.
|
Nemesis Factor
Caldari RennTech BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 00:29:00 -
[169]
Originally by: Sunn Hunn
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
remove meta 0 item drops from rats, and consider switching to named item BPCs.
+100500 this :) bpcs, tags, named items with minerals in them near zero, etc.
I'm down with this as long as they replace the lost revenue with higher bounties / salvage. I know currently mission running is too profitable, so maybe replace the mod drops with about 70% of their value on top of bounties / salvage. ==================== ~/~ Sultan of Buruni |
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 08:49:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Nemesis Factor I know currently mission running is too profitable, so maybe replace the mod drops with about 70% of their value on top of bounties / salvage.
NO compensation is needed or warranted!
L4 mission running is about 3 times as profitable as it should be! The mineral value of loot is making up ~20% of the total. Removing basic T1 loot completely WITHOUT any compensation, plus a few other nerfs (I prefer a 25% increase in NPC tank and DPS) is what is needed!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 11:03:00 -
[171]
Hope we'll be seeing that blog soon!
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar Spikes Chop Shop
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 15:24:00 -
[172]
before expansion, at least. ________________________________ : Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel |
1OfMany
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 15:46:00 -
[173]
Well.
To be honest a real world insurance would be that when a certain type of product (read ship X in this manner) is claimed more then other products, the cost to insure that goes up while the payout stays the same, this would solve partially the insurance fraud and associated suicide ganking as the cost for insuring the product goes up each time. On the other hand one could think of it being unfair for those that need to insure the product and have to pay more because of other players mischief's. But i guess such a system would never be implemented.
i've never looked into mineral costs associated with the insurance payout and such, but i just sell my products for a competitive price and do not care what the customers do with it ;)
One could also petition for a new kind of branch in game play, and those are the private insurance corps in EVE, when we do it right we could even create the first Virtual Financial crisis in history where a lot of corps go bankrupt and their CEO's took a run with a lot of it's assets under the motto of 'bonuses' ... but that would be wishful thinking...
|
Hentuku
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 16:01:00 -
[174]
Originally by: 1OfMany when we do it right we could even create the first Virtual Financial crisis in history where a lot of corps go bankrupt and their CEO's took a run with a lot of it's assets under the motto of 'bonuses' ... but that would be wishful thinking...
You mean like what happened with EBANK? Already happened.
They are still trying to figure out who should get what now, months later.
Awaiting the dev blog with interest.
|
Kalia Masaer
Rosa Castellum
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 04:17:00 -
[175]
Insurance fraud should not be possible, but sadly there is no way to actually stop it. One could make it slightly more difficult by not allowing a ship that self-destructs to claim insurance, but there are ways to get around that of course. Stopping payouts for ships destroyed by concord makes a great deal of sense.
The current insurance prices are based on the past, at one time they paid out significantly less than a ship was worth the price did not drop because of the insurance but because more miners became active and began to glut the market and as the population increases the value of minerals will continue to fall. If you are truly concerned about the value of insurance drop its value and correspondingly increase the quantity of minerals needed to build everything. This would cause a shortage of supply and hence push the prices up despite the fact insurance will pay of significantly less in proportion.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 13:57:00 -
[176]
It would be really helpful to see that promised devblog IMO
|
Skippermonkey
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:33:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Akita T stuff...
please run for CSM
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:13:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Malcanis It would be really helpful to see that promised devblog IMO
Click your heels and repeat trice, and a dev blog you will have.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:52:00 -
[179]
Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem This is a fallacious argument.
Also, remember the "If they keep adjusting insurance payouts down to build costs" part of it too.
My point stands. You are assuming that manufacturers won't continue dropping hull prices down to meet the new insurance floor.
The prices ONLY fall to the insurance flood when the "natural" supply-and-demand curves meet at a price-point below the price floor. Right now however, thanks to all the changes in the way minerals are obtained (making it easier to obtain them, and in larger quantities), the "natural" mineral basket price lies noticeably below. This has only been the case globally and constantly in the recent past (the coup-de-grace was the veldspar respawn rate adjustment) - before then, prices were happily hovering above the insurance floor in most areas, with them only dropping below in some remote areas and/or only occasionally.
So, no, if a periodic//continuous insurance value adjustment system would be put in place, after enough "iterations", minerals would eventually settle at a certain price point, with ship prices a bit above. And the reached equilibrium point, by definition HAS to be the new value of the insurance payout (not 70% of the payout, the full payout), since that's the only way insurance payout would remain stable.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 22:27:00 -
[180]
It's difficult to remember a time when T1 ship prices were significantly above the net insurance value.
|
|
Cang Zar
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:32:00 -
[181]
Originally by: Malcanis And tbh it should cost some ISK to lose a ship. Free T1 ships are not, overall, a good thing.
It's a great idea if you want less people out in low/null pvping.
As it is now, the cost of a loss of a tech 1 ship is mostly associated with the mods (and for battleships, especially the rigs) and the difference between the rich and the poor is mainly in the stuff they fit (generally faction>tech 2>meta 3) and especially whether they fly tech 1 or tech 2 ships. Imo that's not a bad situation, as it means you dont have to fly a useless ship just because you're only 3 months old and havent gotten a nice phat passive isk-generation going yet. You can still drool/dream over the more expensive ships (hacs, recons, commands, faction and so on) and occasionally pay the big bucks and spring for the juice ship you've been wanting. As I see it, this change will likely screw over the newbs even more and remove alot of the easy/fun prey from the combat zones.. Both bad imo. I guess overall, I think that free t1 hulls is a good thing :)
Anyway, it's all conjecture at this point, but that's my 2 cents.
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:53:00 -
[182]
the idea is to boost mining. Perhaps they could raise the refine of loot in 00 to offset or something or give us tech 3 barges with higher veld intakes Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
Nekopyat
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 02:52:00 -
[183]
Actually, I wonder if this could potentially be a 'solution' to the 'problem' of too many minerals coming from mission loot.
There seems to be an assumption that only miners will watch the bottom line and care about how much they are getting for their time, but mission runners have another floor, the rewards/bounties. They currently loot/salvage because to do so yields more profit then going on to another mission.
If the prices of minerals bottoms out, I am guessing many mission runners will not bother looting at all.
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 08:52:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Cang Zar It's a great idea if you want less people out in low/null pvping.
Try going back in time to when tier 2 battleships were 120m, T2 guns were 15m a pop, and a T2 cap recharger was 20m!
Surprise, surprise! People still PvP'd as much!
What simply happened was that the people who couldn't afford absolute top-of-the-line equipment simply downgraded a little bit, and fought on. In fleet battles it doesn't matter much as 1 person in ANY ship is better than 0 persons in perfect ships!
Besides, according to your 'theory', nobody flies T2 ships in battle then, because they're 'expensive'
Your '2 cents' is simple scaremongering or ignorance, and is not in any way based in how things actually happen in EVE.
|
Costomojin
Snakes and Arrows
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 10:10:00 -
[185]
This is all a clear cut example as to why government shouldn't be involved in messing with insurance.....
|
Cang Zar
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 10:27:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Cyclops43
Originally by: Cang Zar It's a great idea if you want less people out in low/null pvping.
Try going back in time to when tier 2 battleships were 120m, T2 guns were 15m a pop, and a T2 cap recharger was 20m!
Surprise, surprise! People still PvP'd as much!
What simply happened was that the people who couldn't afford absolute top-of-the-line equipment simply downgraded a little bit, and fought on. In fleet battles it doesn't matter much as 1 person in ANY ship is better than 0 persons in perfect ships!
Besides, according to your 'theory', nobody flies T2 ships in battle then, because they're 'expensive'
Reading comprehension for teh fail.
Let me guess, the rest of the post (specifically where I talk about about t2 ships) was too hard to read, the words were too long, sentences too complex? Or you were so foaming at the mouth angry at my 'ignorance' that you simply couldnt help yourself and had to post IMMIEDIATHLY! and didnt get that far?
Originally by: Cyclops43 Your '2 cents' is simple scaremongering or ignorance, and is not in any way based in how things actually happen in EVE.
I'm sorry if my terrible opinion scares you, dont worry.. safer, better, warmer opinions, which you agree with, will come along and make the bad ones go away.
Cang out
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 13:56:00 -
[187]
Edited by: Cyclops43 on 24/03/2010 13:57:16
Originally by: Cang Zar Butthurt reply
Your postulate was that higher prices would lead to less people PvP'ing.
Originally by: Cang Zar It's a great idea if you want less people out in low/null pvping.
Nothing you say supports that, nor does the history of the game
Your claim translates to: "People will not PvP if ships are expensive!", which again is equivalent to you claiming that people will not use T2 ships (because they're expensive).
That you confuse your own argument (on T2) later in the post is your problem, not mine
Either higher prices will mean less people PvP'ing and not using T2, or it'll not mean anything for numbers and people still using T2. PvP'ers fight in the ships they can afford... Simple as that.
So yes, scaremongering or ignorance on your part!
Have a nice day
|
ISellThingz
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 16:00:00 -
[188]
Still waiting for that dev blog
|
Jarnis McPieksu
Insidious Existence En Garde
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 17:27:00 -
[189]
Edited by: Jarnis McPieksu on 24/03/2010 17:28:06
Originally by: ISellThingz Still waiting for that dev blog
Wild guess: Someone actually read some player feedback and it, slowly, dawned to him that this may not be the best idea ever unless one wants to crash the mineral market...
I mean, in theory that economist of theirs should be able to say as much in a heartbeat, having access to all the logs and datamining and stuff. It may be that nobody asked him. Or it may be that CCP didn't think of it until players kinda brought it up.
So my guess is that they are hastily reworking those plans and that devblog is on hold until they have figured out what they want to do.
Still, if the only change is to insurance as it stands on SISI right now, the massive oversupply of minerals will crash the prices to the new soft floor set by insurance - a tad unhappy situation for anyone who gets his (small) income of ISK by mining.
|
Kharamete
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 18:14:00 -
[190]
I sure hope we get that promised devblog soon about a change that would - probably - have greater impact on the game than the nano-nerf... ---
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 18:17:00 -
[191]
You know what would improve this thread a whole lot?
A link to Chronitis' dev blog!
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 19:17:00 -
[192]
This may sound bad, but I, for one, welcome the idea of a crashed mineral market. On the consumer side, the loss in insurance will be offset by the drop in prices for commodities. On the production side, there will be fewer competitors allowing for increases in new trade opportunities.
Eve has had a huge problem lately with overprinted ISK. Back in the days when you had a few million ISK and you felt like a rich person, now you feel like a pauper. Furthermore, since most production tasks are a passive affair and have near-zero overhead, it becomes relatively simple and non-time consuming to min-max. Skills are practically moot (given enough time). If, at the very least, killing insurance kills off removes a large portion of new ISK into the system, it will be good for the EVE economy long term.
Fake Edit: What if insurance, in addition to being market based, were changed to time based and replacement based? For insurance companies, when you insure a car you get a maturity date, car replacement, and cost covered agreements. So if Eve's Insurance system were to be similar you would have: 1) Maturity date: Prevents a player from insuring a ship and instantly undocking and self-destructing for payment. Restriction of a few days/downtimes before payment is possible? 2) Ship Replacement: Instead of ISK, a new ship (sans modules) gets placed at a station of your choice. This prevents whole-sale ISK printing and insurance fraud. 3) Market Volatility: Insure a ship for the current market price. Regardless of whether the market goes up or down, you get a payout on the original agreed price rather than the current market average. This can lead to interesting investment opportunities where you can bet against downward market trends. You can, however, lose big if the price of the ship goes up. 4) Fraud Prevention: Self Destructs and Concord intervention negate insurance payouts. ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 21:20:00 -
[193]
Edited by: Cyclops43 on 24/03/2010 21:20:35
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker 1) Maturity date: Prevents a player from insuring a ship and instantly undocking and self-destructing for payment. Restriction of a few days/downtimes before payment is possible?
Insure.... Wait a few days... Blow up ship... Proceed to next one in hangar...
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker 2) Ship Replacement: Instead of ISK, a new ship (sans modules) gets placed at a station of your choice. This prevents whole-sale ISK printing and insurance fraud.
And you essentially make minerals worthless as they're largely not needed any more.
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker 3) Market Volatility: Insure a ship for the current market price. Regardless of whether the market goes up or down, you get a payout on the original agreed price rather than the current market average. This can lead to interesting investment opportunities where you can bet against downward market trends. You can, however, lose big if the price of the ship goes up.
This MAY be what CCP is intending (if they are in any way intelligent).
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker 4) Fraud Prevention: Self Destructs and Concord intervention negate insurance payouts.
Shoot random POS (or player)... Job done!
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 23:08:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Malcanis You know what would improve this thread a whole lot?
A link to Chronitis' dev blog!
to save you the effort of the daily bump, it will be out early next week.
|
|
RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 23:40:00 -
[195]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Malcanis You know what would improve this thread a whole lot?
A link to Chronitis' dev blog!
to save you the effort of the daily bump, it will be out early next week.
Thank you very much. We'll continue to rumormonger and speculate wildly until then!
|
Tiger's Spirit
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 08:52:00 -
[196]
Edited by: Tiger''s Spirit on 25/03/2010 08:54:29 Simple making insurance rules, but CCP dont want real ISK pay back for players, this is the truth. They using hull basis repayment, which is a joke. Why not using value basis repayment ?
When someone lost his ship in pvp or pve lost a value which implies it the destroyed ship,rigs and modules values.
Just use this or something same:
Without insure pay back 20% of lost value.
Basic: Pay back, 30% of lost value. Standard: Pay back, 40% of lost value. Bronze: Pay back, 50% of lost value. Silver: Pay back, 60% of lost value. Gold: Pay back, 70% of lost value. Platina: Pay back, 80% of lost value.
It's simple like a piece of cake. Or that's normal when they repaid for 200 millions value T2 ship, simple 10 million ISK ?
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 11:02:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Tiger's Spirit Edited by: Tiger''s Spirit on 25/03/2010 09:03:57 Simple making insurance rules, but CCP dont want real ISK pay back for players, this is the truth.
They using hull basis repayment, which is a joke. Why not using value basis repayment ? That's needed more code programing which watch the mediocre prices on market, and they are too lazy for work. Interesting all killboard can checking the lost value.
When someone lost his ship in pvp or pve lost a value which implies it the destroyed ship,rigs and modules values.
Just use this or something same:
Without insure repaid 20% of lost value. (or nothing, or just ship value)
Basic: RePay, 30% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value ) Standard: RePay, 40% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value ) Bronze: RePay, 50% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value ) Silver: RePay, 60% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value ) Gold: Repay, 70% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value ) Platina: RePay, 80% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value )
It's simple like a piece of cake. Or that's normal when they repaid for 200 millions value T2 ship, simple 10 million ISK ? The hull basis repay need change, this is a crap.
this is yoda speaking more tech 2 supply and quicker production are required, Bring on comets and moon goo which were promised but ccp has been play mum quite on it Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 15:37:00 -
[198]
Edited by: Cyclops43 on 24/03/2010 21:20:35 1) Insure.... Wait a few days... Blow up ship... Proceed to next one in hangar...
The hope is that the temporary dip in ship prices below the mineral/insurance cost/profit point is negated because players cannot move quick enough to self destruct their ships for ISK. By the time the insurance matures, the prices will have gone up and it is no longer profitable. In that case the insurance cost would be a loss. Furthermore, for those players dealing in high volumes, they would have to keep track of the individual insurance policies which hopefully would make it too much hassle.
Originally by: Cyclops43
2) And you essentially make minerals worthless as they're largely not needed any more.
A good counter question is what is the percentage of players that use insurance for combat loss rather than insurance fraud? If the latter outweighs, it instantly negates the ISK sink. Furthermore, restrict the replacement to a platinum plan. I can conceed that this might lowering the isk floor to the gold plan instead.
Originally by: Cyclops43
3) This MAY be what CCP is intending (if they are in any way intelligent).
It also only really works if you include maturity. I wonder if the redefinition of the problem is that players react seamlessly and instantly to the market price or if it takes them a while. For instance, a look at how long it took players to react to the 4+ ISK trit buy orders back when that was the balance point for reprocessing shuttles.
Originally by: Cyclops43
4) Shoot random POS (or player)... Job done!
Shooting players in highsec is concordokken. Need to add clause for corp members causing your death. Shooting a deathstar in highsec without a wardec is a concordokken as well if I remember. The industrialist would have to fly into lowsec to do it, and hopefully it would be a time-consuming deterrant to accomplish with multiple battleships. ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Ariane VoxDei
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 17:28:00 -
[199]
Originally by: RJ Nobel
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
to save you the effort of the daily bump, it will be out early next week.
Thank you very much. We'll continue to rumormonger and speculate wildly until then!
I second that.
Next time, please don't take a week to tell us that we have to wait a long time for it. It's such hot topic that it is what nearly all of us check this part of the forum for at least daily.
And here is a toast to more speculation and everyone forgetting the obvious mistake I made in my last post in this thread
|
Ariane VoxDei
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 18:20:00 -
[200]
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker the industrialist would have to fly into lowsec to do it, and hopefully it would be a time-consuming deterrant to accomplish with multiple battleships.
Who need lowsec?
Wasn't there something about FW being awarded LP for blowing up enemy faction ships? I seem to remember a Devblog about it.
I smell a cheesy doublepay system. Insurance for ship loss, and your partner in crime in the opposing FW corp landing the LP. Double win. 500LP for a battleship, scaled with rank (1.0 to 2.0), combined with a vastly cheaper LP store than the regular ones. Or do it with cruisers. Better LP/shipcost ratio.
Add that to the insurance payout and subtract a bit for the inconvenience of the shooting... and you have a new even lower floor before it becomes unprofitable to destroy the ship.
It is profitable? Yes. Perverted but profitable.
Read the blog.
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 19:54:00 -
[201]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Malcanis You know what would improve this thread a whole lot?
A link to Chronitis' dev blog!
to save you the effort of the daily bump, it will be out early next week.
My daily bumping backbone!
|
Zhang Lingkei
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 01:09:00 -
[202]
I really do hope CCP can introduce something that can tackle the current market problems. Just lowering insurance without doing anything else accomplishes nothing. In the short run, maybe, but in the long run, prices will just drop to the new levels, and we'll have the same old problems again.
As a number of people have pointed out, the problem isn't the insurance payout, it is the over supply of minerals that doesn't come from mining, but rather other activities. As much as we like EVE to behave like a real free market, it isn't. Reduce the amount of minerals that is in game and a lot of the current problems can be solved without huge price fluctuations which can lead to other negative side effects.
Mining already isn't a great profession, don't kill it even further and drive everyone to run missions. We need more options, not less.
|
Sargon I
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 08:25:00 -
[203]
CCP should
a) remove insurance altogether; b) add SP loss on ship destruction.
Because eve isn't designed to look like a cold, harsh place, it's designed to *be* a cold, harsh place right? .
Stop pandering to these weak pansies. I want to know my victim is suffering when I kill them. SP protecting clones and more-than-100% insurance takes all the joy out of trying to ruin someone's day :(.
|
Widemouth Deepthroat
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 08:49:00 -
[204]
Remove insurance lol must be but hurt after getting suicide ganked. If you pvp then you wouldn't support insurance removal which means you must be a but hurt carebear whiner who doesn't need insurance anyway (unless you are ******ed and lose your ship to npcs lol).
|
Javajunky
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 15:05:00 -
[205]
1. If Blizzard and WoW Developers can develop software that has virtually eliminated Macro/Botting in the game, there's not reason CCP can't pull it off either. When I played WoW I used to run into bots all the time, before I quit the game they were barely notice-able. I had a buddy coder that used to write bots all the time just to try and beat the WoW developers, the WoW developers would also catch up kill the account and he'd try again. It can be done, it just needs to be an accepted cost to CCP for growth in the game. 2. Everyone *****es about miners, it's not the miners its the amount of minerals from items looted and reprocessed. I'm not sure where I read it, but I've heard repeatedly that more minerals are generated from meta 1 salvaged items than from actual mining. Remove Meta 1 salvage and you greatly balance supply and demand. CCP interferes with market prices with this secondary source of mineral production.
|
LHA Tarawa
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 17:48:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Sargon I CCP should
a) remove insurance altogether; b) add SP loss on ship destruction.
Because eve isn't designed to look like a cold, harsh place, it's designed to *be* a cold, harsh place right? .
Stop pandering to these weak pansies. I want to know my victim is suffering when I kill them. SP protecting clones and more-than-100% insurance takes all the joy out of trying to ruin someone's day :(.
Yes. What this game needs is even more reasons for people to avoid fights unless they are 100% sure they have 2-1 advantage.
|
Forge Trader
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 18:15:00 -
[207]
A big word of caution about changing Eve game mechanics:
Eve has the success it has, and has the player base it does, because current players find something interesting in the way Eve is currently played.
Thus, changing in any way how the game is currently played risks alienating some of the current players. Making a major change risks alienating a lot of the current players.
CCP has to take this into account.
I enjoy mining at times, (as well as most of the other mini-games in Eve). As Eve is a sandbox, there are actually a lot of ways to play the mining game. Different strokes for different folks. Those reading this thread know of these, so will not list them.
The only minigame I do not play is "aggressive" pvp. I do not like destroying other player's ships, and I do not want mine destroyed.
But, I do play "defensive" pvp. I have characters well trained in all aspects of pvp, and have spent a lot of isk on good ships and mods that will help me protect my ships: cloaks, nanostructures, ECM, rigs, faction hardeners, bait ships, etc. I learn and practice good tactics. However, when I lose a ship, I do not sweat it - it is just a game.
Frankly, I am happy with the mining minigame just as it is. But, I would not change my game play in any major way if the price of minerals went up, or down.
So, I repeat the caution - make changes very carefully. Too many contributors have a favorite way they play this game, and want changes to make their way more "fun" (for them). This is not necessarily good for Eve as a whole, however.
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 04:56:00 -
[208]
just add t3 materials for ship building watch proces move Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 07:58:00 -
[209]
Originally by: HeliosGal just add t3 materials for ship building watch proces move
CCP Chronotis should totally release his blog on April 1st with just the above.
Originally by: Jim Raynor EVE needs danger, EVE needs risks, EVE needs combat, even piracy, without these things, the game stagnates to a trivial game centering around bloating your wallet with no purpose. |
xOmGx
Gallente 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 12:38:00 -
[210]
CCP gonna kill mining.
do NOT neft inshurance it's fine, go do somesing what's metters and fix lag, imnpowe speed and give OLD capital jump effect!!! No Pain - No Gain |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.28 11:16:00 -
[211]
Originally by: xOmGx CCP gonna kill mining.
do NOT neft inshurance it's fine, go do somesing what's metters and fix lag, imnpowe speed and give OLD capital jump effect!!!
Insurance is not fine. It's horribly broken and massively exploited.
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.28 11:24:00 -
[212]
Originally by: xOmGx CCP gonna kill mining.
do NOT neft inshurance it's fine, go do somesing what's metters and fix lag, imnpowe speed and give OLD capital jump effect!!!
just encourage more pew, remove insurance in high sec for concord. Should adjsut it either that or boost mining yields Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.28 17:36:00 -
[213]
You realise that boosting mining yields is what has gotten us in to this position in the first place?
Making mining easier and ore more common does NOT boost mining income. It severely reduces it. The only way for miners to make more ISK is for mining to become more difficult and dangerous, and for minerals to be less easily available.
Now as for encouraging pewpew... I'm all for that, but if people wont fight with free ships then what more can we do? The fact is that there are too many people who only want to increase their wealth and and are emotionally opposed to risking losing a ship of even trivial value to another player. They only want to do stuff they can definitely "win", even if that is mining veldspar in empire.
|
Nareg Maxence
Gallente JotunHeim Hird
|
Posted - 2010.03.28 19:12:00 -
[214]
Edited by: Nareg Maxence on 28/03/2010 19:13:00 1. No loot drops, except for stuff in cargo bays.
2. You need a salvager to loot modules from ships along with regular salvage.
3. Modules can drop in four ways after salvaging. It can either not drop (destroyed) or it can be Intact, Malfunctioning or Wrecked (like sleeper loot).
3.1. Intact modules are just as what it says. Working modules like we have now.
3.2. Malfunctioning modules will not work and can't be repaired. If reprocessed, they convert to 2/3 of the materials an intact module would convert into. They can however be reverse engineered to produce a bpc. See 4.
3.3. Wrecked modules like malfunctioning won't work and can't be repaired. They produce 1/3 materials when reprocessed, but can be reverse engineered instead.
4. Malfunctioning and wrecked modules can be reverse engineered to produce a bpc for the working module. This however destroys the item and there is only a chance it will work. You can reverse engineer a collection of the same type of modules to improve the chance of a bpc.
In summary, module drops are nerfed by only being accessable via a salvager and the amount of raw materials fed into manufacturing are reduced in two additional ways. Firstly from reduced reprocessing value of malfunctioning and wrecked modules, secondly from completely destroying the module when it is reverse engineered.
Note about drone loot. I assume minerals that drones drop are kept in their cargo bay, thus it will still be accessible as before.
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.03.28 21:57:00 -
[215]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
to save you the effort of the daily bump, it will be out early next week.
It is now early next week. Blog please?
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.28 22:17:00 -
[216]
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist It is now early next week. Blog please?
Actually, in many Euro countries (don't know about Iceland), the week starts on Monday
...but I second the motion...
|
Kharamete
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 05:47:00 -
[217]
Edited by: Kharamete on 29/03/2010 05:48:09 The week does indeed start on Monday in the Nordic countries, of which Iceland is one.
However, it is now Monday in the Nordic countries, so it is the beginning of the week...
---
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 05:59:00 -
[218]
"Early next week" doesn't mean "at the beginning of next week".
It doesn't even mean "in the first half of next week", since if there was an implied comma: "it will be released early, next week"; you'd have to realise that the blog was going to be released next week, which is earlier than originally intendedà
[Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES] |
Dopekitten
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 06:13:00 -
[219]
Insurance isn't the problem.
The problem is that there is a disproportionate amount of miners/industrialists to people losing ships. There isn't enough demand for ships--so they're falling to the insurance price floor. The economy is thus working as intended.
However, this obviously isn't what most people want. Frankly there is a really easy way to do this--just make low-sec a LOT more profitable than high sec. And I don't mean marginally more profitable like 0.0 vs high sec. I mean where even if you lose a mission ship/exploration ship/mining ship a week it doesn't matter because the money you make out weighs your losses. Obviously some people won't buy into this (like hardcore carebears doing L4's in afk domis) but most people will do it.
I would even daresay that it should be made more profitable 0.0, (at least 0.0 that has player sovereignity, the reason being that doing missions in your alliance's 0.0 system is basically almost as safe as high sec. Keep 0.0 with some exclusive minerals and items so that if the market stablizes, you can still make money by selling those resources).
You could do this in a couple ways.
Create a new form of missions that's only available in low-sec, for example a "Blackmarket Agent," which would have no LP rewards, instead the mission ISK rewards would be increased to compensate. These missions would be a combination of courier and kill missions where you are forced to go into multiple systems and kill at multiple deadspace sites, then turn in specific items in another system. You're rewarded as well as running L5's, or even better. Obviously it requires balancing so you can't fit a certain ship so that these can be farmed super easily because the point of these are to force players to not only come into low-sec but also move around, encouraging pvp. They can be left at L4 difficulty so players can fit their ships for partial pvp as well as doing the mission. I.e. fit a warp scram/prop mod, but also an active tank.
Add a component that's required for all ships/modules (not in large quantities though), that's only dropped by NPCs in low sec. So this mean NPCs in anoms, belts, etc... Make this component take only a little cargo space because fighting ships will be the ones getting them. Plus we want to encourage more pvp fighting and less ganking. (i.e a hauler)
Add a component (similar to the idea above), that's only in low sec, but doesn't require killing. For example, make all low sec sec systems populated with asteroid belts that contain normal ores, but also something new, for example "radioactive ores" which (if you want lore/whatever here, are used to create the capacitor rechargers in the ship, and provide the energy for the ion thrusters). Make these extractable by any ship, as long as you have the skill, "Radioactive Ore Extraction" or whatever. You need that and an Radioisotope Extractor. The thing is, this can be fit to any slot on the ship (with the exception of rig/subsystem slots), and how much it extracts is based the slot. If it's a low slot, it extracts x amount, in a mid slot, 2x, and in a high slot, 3x. That way you could either bring a pure extractor ship into low sec, but you'll probably get ganked, or you could bring a pvp ship with a couple extractors, so that you can extract the isotopes and then also fight anybody that comes at you. This is why there is no slot restriction. The extractors can also have their own cargohold of like 1000m3 base, and then that's increased by the extractor skill (so pvp ships don't have to make billions of trips while extracting).
And I'm sure that other people could think of others.
Ultimately the idea here is to encourage more pvp so that there are more people buying ships, and thus ore, and thus raising ore prices/ship prices and fixing the insurance problem. I think that low-sec is the best way to do it as FW and 0.0 are pretty much blobfests, and lowsec is really the only viable place for solo work.
|
Kharamete
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 06:44:00 -
[220]
I honestly can't understand this hot desire to get mining barges and exhumers into lowsec. Why not ask CCP to remove jump drive capability that would force the lowsec fleets to move through lowsec instead? Imagine the capital fleets using stargates to get from one region to another. Talk about getting ships blown up... ---
|
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 07:07:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Mara Rinn "Early next week" doesn't mean "at the beginning of next week".
It doesn't even mean "in the first half of next week", since if there was an implied comma: "it will be released early, next week"; you'd have to realise that the blog was going to be released next week, which is earlier than originally intendedà
Stop foiling our chance to whinge with your logic...
'Early next week' means Monday morning at 00:01, and by the laws of the internet we have the right to complain if it isn't there
Basically it's just our way of showing our interest in this issue!
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 07:28:00 -
[222]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Malcanis You know what would improve this thread a whole lot?
A link to Chronitis' dev blog!
to save you the effort of the daily bump, it will be out early next week.
It's pretty early!
(Stupid clock change )
|
Kharamete
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 09:10:00 -
[223]
Originally by: Mara Rinn "Early next week" doesn't mean "at the beginning of next week".
It doesn't even mean "in the first half of next week", since if there was an implied comma: "it will be released early, next week"; you'd have to realise that the blog was going to be released next week, which is earlier than originally intendedà
That's sematics getting in the way of our Kremlinology. "Early next week" is "early next week" since I'm a simple guy in these matters, and I only rely on tea leaves in this discussion. Comma positions, implied or otherwise, would confuse it all. ---
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 10:17:00 -
[224]
with ccp early which week its like at the moment they dont want any mroe feedback, so all this alpha testing rapid development has been a waste of time as nothing is doing, insurance changes are fine btw
I think even planet graphics have had a mild buff as well Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 18:04:00 -
[225]
The day after tommorow is a middle of the week so you should hurry :>
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp Primary.
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 18:37:00 -
[226]
So I have this crazy ****ing theory that CCP completed the tests they needed mass feedback from with regards to the Sisi implementation of PI, have continued to develop it more in-house, and are waiting to patch the public test server until they reach another milestone that requires mass testing (as in, more than their current in-house QA, which is probably sufficient for most testing).
But that's not realistic, is it?
|
Imweasel09
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:08:00 -
[227]
hooray, the blog is up.
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:20:00 -
[228]
Edited by: Zartrader on 30/03/2010 15:26:20 I have not read it yet but in case it's not mentioned Meta 0 drops are being nerfed too. There is a blog for that.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:25:00 -
[229]
Well, they either heard all the bickering and adapted, or they were already planning to do it all just didn't say a word. Just glad I was wrong about insurance changes being the ONLY change they might make, and seems like they ended up thinking about most of the things that could go wrong and tackled them all as a single whole.
Looks like this might just work... how well, we'll have to wait for the cold hard numbers, and then give it time.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
ISellThingz
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 22:00:00 -
[230]
Mining just got shafted imo. Now there's nothing stopping the prices from going down.
|
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 22:34:00 -
[231]
Edited by: Zartrader on 30/03/2010 22:36:49
Originally by: ISellThingz Mining just got shafted imo. Now there's nothing stopping the prices from going down.
Have you read the blog? It all depends on how much excess minerals there is now and the actual changes they do but if they have their numbers right miners may well get a boost. The fear was they would simply nerf insurance and that's that. But thankfully they went a lot further and addressed several areas at once.
If you think miners got shafted please state why. The current false price was never acceptable in a game where players should set the price. Protectionism is for politicians not games.
|
Blood Recuse
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 00:39:00 -
[232]
Here is the problem, and part of the reason why miners will still take a hit.
I can't remember the exact numbers but it would be appreciated from CCP to fill in those blanks.
T1 loot from missioning does not constitute a large portion of the minerals going into the system. Eliminating them is a step in the right direction but does not solve the problem. I would not put this at a value higher then 20 % of the minerals after taking the reprocessed items for transportation.
Drone Loot, this rebalance has been needed for a coons age. If you look at the number of people in the drone region and it will be self evident. If it is profitable people will do it. I would not contirbute more then 20 % of the minerals on the market to this.
that still leaves 60 % to the miners. I would assume that miners are going to gain 10 % of control of the market since they are re-balancing the drone loot. this will likely change the minerals to 70% miners and 30 % drones. They only removed 20 % of the pie and are redistributing it.
They have not changed the manner in which the exchange of minerals to isk is done. There is no mechanic in the game other then insurence that converts the raw resource into isk. With that in mind there is nothing that is going to maintain the prices of minerals untill it becomes unprofitable that miners are going to stop mining. There is no contingency to maintain the over abundant customer base that chooses to mine. If you take away the profitability of mining there is no reason for those miners to maintain there 3 or more accounts.
With the change to the IER(insurence exchange rate) release valve of excess minerals. There could be some interesting changes as the IER value will be dynamic to the price of the minerals going in. There is nothing that garrentee's the price of them going in other then the williness of people to mine for less isk/H. With the over supply of minerals that there is today the price will fall untill it either meets the new low defined by people willingness to work for less since the price is now Dynamic there is nothing to stop it falling.
This is not the end of the world by anymeans but it is taking away the release valve for minerals or moving it from battleships to battlecruisers and cruisers...
Either way it doesn't fix the core issue of the excess in minerals on the market.
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 03:43:00 -
[233]
Edited by: Zartrader on 31/03/2010 03:47:02
'Only 20%' is a massive change. Also it ignores market size and mineral distribution (less dumping) which will also affect it.
Anyway it does address the issue although being sufficient is another matter. Only CCP will know that. Minerals will crash anyway, any fix to Insurance would cause that. Only CCP know if the reduced flow of minerals into EVE as a result of the drone and drop changes will eventually increase prices to a level which correctly relates to activity (at the moment it does not which is a major issue of course) Once this activity is correctly established further adjustments can be made or, if they have done it right, prices will be at an acceptable level. The intent is to stop Insurance affecting prices so much the market becomes a joke and efficiently a highly subsidised economy.
I would much prefer they had introduced a new mineral sink or ISK tap though. As it stands now Mission runners have got a massive buff as deflation will occur. I think a lot of the problems is the lack of diversity in EVE.
|
ISellThingz
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 10:26:00 -
[234]
Edited by: ISellThingz on 31/03/2010 10:35:40
Originally by: Zartrader Have you read the blog? It all depends on how much excess minerals there is now and the actual changes they do but if they have their numbers right miners may well get a boost. The fear was they would simply nerf insurance and that's that. But thankfully they went a lot further and addressed several areas at once.
If you think miners got shafted please state why. The current false price was never acceptable in a game where players should set the price. Protectionism is for politicians not games.
You seem to be blind to the amount of insurance fraud that is happening, which was consuming a hell of a lot minerals. I have no data as to how big of a % of the minerals was actually used just for that but I'm pretty sure it was a nice cut.
Now that insurance will no longer convert minerals into ISK there's nothing to do with those minerals which would otherwise be stockpiling on the market, so now they will be stockpiling on the market.
So the mineral prices go down (the changes have no effect on the amount of minerals that we have acquired so far, which I'm sure would sustain the EVE economy for months to come if everyone stopped mining) and the manufacturers produce less as the demand on ships is nowhere near what was being simply blown up for insurance, or they don't produce less, and learn the hard way as ship prices go down.
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 12:03:00 -
[235]
Edited by: Zartrader on 31/03/2010 12:05:55
Originally by: ISellThingz Edited by: ISellThingz on 31/03/2010 10:35:40
Originally by: Zartrader Have you read the blog? It all depends on how much excess minerals there is now and the actual changes they do but if they have their numbers right miners may well get a boost. The fear was they would simply nerf insurance and that's that. But thankfully they went a lot further and addressed several areas at once.
If you think miners got shafted please state why. The current false price was never acceptable in a game where players should set the price. Protectionism is for politicians not games.
You seem to be blind to the amount of insurance fraud that is happening, which was consuming a hell of a lot minerals. I have no data as to how big of a % of the minerals was actually used just for that but I'm pretty sure it was a nice cut.
Now that insurance will no longer convert minerals into ISK there's nothing to do with those minerals which would otherwise be stockpiling on the market, so now they will be stockpiling on the market.
So the mineral prices go down (the changes have no effect on the amount of minerals that we have acquired so far, which I'm sure would sustain the EVE economy for months to come if everyone stopped mining) and the manufacturers produce less as the demand on ships is nowhere near what was being simply blown up for insurance, or they don't produce less, and learn the hard way as ship prices go down.
I know all that, it's been known for weeks and I've been posting about it for just as long. Many of us have (in general too, not just here) But we do not know the figures and CCP should. CCP originality had Insurance only going down=massive deflation, miners screwed. Now they have made further adjustments which changes the picture entirely. Deflation will still occur but if CCP have done it right the ore price will start to rise after the initial crash. Until we know the effects, and we can only guess now, what CCP have done can work. Whether it works to the extent required is another matter. This depends on current stock levels and macro miners increasing. CCP have this information so for now I have to assume they have worked to them. If not then they will have to do more.
Miners were concerned CCP would simply reduce Insurance. Thankfully they have gone a lot further than that. Far enough that no accurate assumptions can be made without further data, which we do not have.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |