EVE Search - Why does everyone want an insurance nerf?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why does everyone want an insurance nerf?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Aerilis Gallente Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.03.14 21:53:00 - [1] I just don't get it. Who would benefit? Not miners - no mineral floor = mineral prices drop further Not combat pilots - higher cost for ships This isn't a thread about why we SHOULD have a nerf, there are plenty of those already. I'm asking for personal reasons as to why YOU want an insurance nerf.
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2010.03.14 21:55:00 - [2] Knowing that i actually destroyed more than free ship.
Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2010.03.14 21:58:00 - [3] I dont want an insurance nerf. People dont risk enough as it is. OHGODS BELOW THIS LINE IS MY SIG !!!! SRSLY! Blane Xero > Lance is at -0.9 sec status with a 1 million bounty. Lance is also amarrian. Thats 3 evil points
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.14 22:00:00 - [4] Because they don't understand how the EVE economy works and their own role in it. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Turiel Demon Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L	Posted - 2010.03.14 22:02:00 - [5] I would be happy with an insurance nerf with some specific qualifiers... not a blanket nerf that we're seeing from the sisi numbers. An insurance nerf, on its own, will do nothing good for the game or players. Only in combination with other changes like mineral sourcing is it a good step to take. If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2010.03.14 22:11:00 - [6] Insurance nerf won't change anything for the 'insurance fraud'. Mineral prices will drop because demand will drop drastically while the supply with minerals will stay - for whatever reason - still very high. The prices will drop until the floor of the new insurance payout is met. Nothing gained this way. The only thing which changes is that miners will get hurt a lot with those new lower prices. Doesn't make sense to me at all.
DJ Obsidian New Eden Technical Institutes	Posted - 2010.03.14 22:16:00 - [7] 0/10 posting in another wild speculation thread. would people quit posting about insurance until it is 100% official like the day it hits tq. Seriously, I remember this when they added insurance for t2 ships during the dominion testing. seriously everyone just stop. please. Wait till april then start complaining, by then the release content will be more official.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2010.03.14 22:21:00 - [8] Originally by: Aerilis I just don't get it. Who would benefit? Not miners - no mineral floor = mineral prices drop further Not combat pilots - higher cost for ships so ships would become cheaper AND more expensive? HOLY CRAP!
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.14 22:27:00 - [9] Originally by: Aerilis I just don't get it. Who would benefit? Not miners - no mineral floor = mineral prices drop further Not combat pilots - higher cost for ships This isn't a thread about why we SHOULD have a nerf, there are plenty of those already. I'm asking for personal reasons as to why YOU want an insurance nerf. Combat ships will be cheaper, not more expensive.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.14 22:54:00 - [10] Originally by: chrisss0r Originally by: Aerilis I just don't get it. Who would benefit? Not miners - no mineral floor = mineral prices drop further Not combat pilots - higher cost for ships so ships would become cheaper AND more expensive? HOLY CRAP! Buying ships will become cheaper, after a adjustment losing T1 ship will be the same, you will get a full refund of the new price from the insurance unless it is continually adjusted.
Dodgy Past Amarr Debitum Naturae BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2010.03.14 22:54:00 - [11] Ships can be cheaper to buy while being more expensive to lose at the same time if the buy price + insurance cost is more than the insurance payout as is likely to happen for at least a while. Also since many players build their own ships from melted loot it will be much more expensive for them to lose ships. As it stands I have no idea what CCP's intentions are with this, so nobody knows if it's a change in isolation or will be balanced out by other factors. Right now I'd say I'm quite heavily against because it will mean more grind to pay for the same amount of PvP so will be a further disincentive for people to risk their ships. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- you seem determined to turn it into ******* Hollyoaks for neckbeards.
Kharamete	Posted - 2010.03.14 23:10:00 - [12] Edited by: Kharamete on 14/03/2010 23:11:39 Well, speculation time again because I've not made up my mind about it. I can only talk about why in a general sense. Blanket insurance drops won't be good for the game, for many reasons already mentioned by others here and elsewhere. So, maybe CCP wants to make ships cheaper in order to get more people to PVP? If they think that - again speculation - then they've lost all contact with the game and doesn't know how the game works. I don't really believe that. Or it could be the observable effect of a bigger change that will be coming with Tyrannis. Remember, industrialists have been promised an industrial expansion forever. The one before Apocrypha was supposed to be that, but all industrialists got in that one was the Orca. CCP decided to push the industrial expansion ahead. Now we're getting Tyrannis, and the focus seems - again - to be on industry. We'll see. CCP never launch ONE new thing. Apocrypha was wormholes AND a new scanning system, and other stuff. Dominion had several changes too. Tyrannis will, most likely, be the same. We can only wait for CCP to release the news about it. All we've got so far is rudimentary PI on SiSi and that hint of the insurance change, which we don't even know will actually migrate to TQ. ---
Psychotic Maniac Caldari Head Shrinkers	Posted - 2010.03.14 23:20:00 - [13] Actually, as expensive as t2 ships are now. We, NEED insurance boost for them. I have trained all t2 cruisers on 4 accts. guess what, I don't even use them. because, I can't afford 160m hic loss. that's not fun. where am I to get 160m a day to have some fun. CCP needs to do something so people can enjoy this game and not emoragequit all the time. as funny as that may be. really stupid that 90% of eve has skills for t2 ships and don't even use them.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2010.03.14 23:27:00 - [14] the only nerf to insurance that I want is no payout for death to concord. makes suiciding just a little too easy
Shrike Arghast	Posted - 2010.03.14 23:29:00 - [15] Edited by: Shrike Arghast on 14/03/2010 23:35:21 If you nerf insurance you're going to wind up with a game like Pirates of the Burning Sea, which - to a degree - was a different 'take' on the EVE forumula for how to build an MMO. The primary issue with POTBS was that, in its quest to be more realistic and hardcore, it was designed with no insurance - ships had a certain, set durability (say, 4/4), and when that ship was lost 4 times, it vanished. For PvPers this was a wonderful system - their actions created real, terrible losses for the players who they lorded over. For the rest of the population, PvP became something to be avoided at all costs - and so it was. Ships didn't get sunk, so players who built ships couldn't sell them, and even the hardcore PvPers ultimately left because nobody was willing to challenge them. The entire system of POTBS' (and EVE's) economy was based around ship loss and replacement - without quick and easy loss and fast replacement, the game simply didn't work anymore. It was like ripping the engine out of a car and expecting it to still drive. The simple fact of the matter is, the more you 'hurt' players when they lose, the less PvP you'll see. Look at it this way: 1) Nobody playing any competitive computer game likes to lose. Ergo, defeat in of itself, with no actual penalties (the WoW formula) is already painful. Result: lots of PvP. 2) PvP with some loss associated with it (EVE, pre-expansion SWG with skill point loss. etc) has a real, tangible value - it teaches players to exercise caution, but doesn't hurt so much that the loss coupled with the embarassment of losing (see point 1) causes them to stop PvPing. 3) PvP with lots of loss (heavy experience or item penalties [the 'I dropped all my loot when I died' matrix]) is only fun for a select few who are highly successful at it, and only in the short term while prey are plentiful. Like all things in life, the talented and skilled in computer games naturally rise to the top - and those players come to dominate (and eventually cripple) games that embrace this formula. Look at how (un)popular POTBS is. That game was released in the wake of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies - it should still be a hugely-populated playground, yet its virtually deserted. The reason for this is heavy loss. So, IMO, a big insurance nerf would destroy EVE. Within a few months you'd see players stop going to 0.0 in any large numbers, and then they'd get bored and quit. The PvPers who are hungry for this change don't comprehend that in making combat more crushing to those who participate in it, their supply of enemy combatants will rapidly wain. Kill of the prey and the preditors die too. I don't know why people want to change this so much. The insurance system in EVE is brilliant, and works very well. The economy is humming, PvP is fairly frequent and brutal... why do you want that to change? To stop people from suicide ganking? What makes you think an insurance nerf would stop this, really? And are you actually willing to accept ruining the game in order to potentially prevent it? Because that's what we're talking about here. Ruining the game.
Xtreem Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2010.03.14 23:38:00 - [16] while they are at it they need to remove the default basic insurance also, go back to how it used to be, if you dont insure your ship.. you get nothing when it pops..the only exception should be Titans and MS as they cant dock, thus cant be blamed :)
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.14 23:42:00 - [17] Originally by: Aerilis I just don't get it. Who would benefit? Not miners - no mineral floor = mineral prices drop further Not combat pilots - higher cost for ships This isn't a thread about why we SHOULD have a nerf, there are plenty of those already. I'm asking for personal reasons as to why YOU want an insurance nerf. Who says I want it? Cause I don't. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
chrisss0r	Posted - 2010.03.14 23:43:00 - [18] ewar drones will totally break this game. no one will play it anymore. oh ****. wrong year's "this will kill the game"-whine
Drykor Minmatar Aperture Harmonics K162	Posted - 2010.03.14 23:54:00 - [19] Edited by: Drykor on 14/03/2010 23:55:45 Originally by: Shrike Arghast .... I don't know why people want to change this so much. The insurance system in EVE is brilliant, and works very well. The economy is humming, PvP is fairly frequent and brutal... why do you want that to change? To stop people from suicide ganking? What makes you think an insurance nerf would stop this, really? And are you actually willing to accept ruining the game in order to potentially prevent it? Because that's what we're talking about here. Ruining the game. Or in other words, Eve is dying! Again. Honestly, if you think 50% less return (or what was it?) on ship insurance is going to kill Eve, I think you're hugely exaggerating. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing some more cruisers again instead of the standard battlecruiser. Also modules on a ship are still a large part of the fitting and nothing will change to that. Cost isn't a large prohibiting factor for pvp anyway, you can always downgrade to a smaller ship. Some people just like to pvp and some don't, it's much more of a matter of getting into it than it is of spending a few more million. ISK is easy in Eve once you're older than a few months. Let's see who this change will affect the most: -Battlecruiser pilots, who could just pay a little more now or fly a cruiser instead. -Battleship pilots who lose their BS frequently, which happens mostly in medium to large engagements, people participating in those can generally get replacement isk easily as well. T2/T3 has no noteworthy insurance anyway and T1 ships below battlecruiser size are irrelevant in terms of hull cost. Oh yes, and then there's dread/carrier pilots who lose their capitals so often that insuring them is actually profitable. I wouldn't mind these ships being a little more expensive to lose again for those people with regular cap fights.
Shrike Arghast	Posted - 2010.03.14 23:58:00 - [20] Originally by: Drykor Edited by: Drykor on 14/03/2010 23:54:29 Originally by: Shrike Arghast .... I don't know why people want to change this so much. The insurance system in EVE is brilliant, and works very well. The economy is humming, PvP is fairly frequent and brutal... why do you want that to change? To stop people from suicide ganking? What makes you think an insurance nerf would stop this, really? And are you actually willing to accept ruining the game in order to potentially prevent it? Because that's what we're talking about here. Ruining the game. Or in other words, Eve is dying! Again. Honestly, if you think 50% less return (or what was it?) on ship insurance is going to kill Eve, I think you're hugely exaggerating. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing some more cruisers again instead of the standard battlecruiser. Also modules on a ship are still a large part of the fitting and nothing will change to that. Cost isn't a large prohibiting factor for pvp anyway, you can always downgrade to a smaller ship. Some people just like to pvp and some don't, it's much more of a matter of getting into it than it is of spending a few more million. ISK is easy in Eve once you're older than a few months. Let's see who this change will affect the most: -Battlecruiser pilots, who could just pay a little more now or fly a cruiser instead. -Battleship pilots who lose their BS frequently, which happens mostly in medium to large engagements, people participating in those can generally get replacement isk easily as well. T2/T3 has no noteworthy insurance anyway and T1 ships below battlecruiser size are irrelevant in terms of hull cost. Why increase the punishment for loss? I still haven't seen a relevant argument here other than some loosely based 'I'd like to see fewer BCs' or 'it would sure stop high-sec ganking!' dead horses, and they've been beaten so hard that I can't see where the horse ends and the glue begins. Punishing players for PvP causes fewer players to PvP. I haven't seen anyone argue that this would increase the frequency of PvP, which I think is a major complaint of many long-time players.
ChrisIsherwood	Posted - 2010.03.15 00:07:00 - [21] I rarely see people in favor of this. However people are making an assumption: "changing insurance" is different than "changing insurance while IER provides the only floor for mineral prices" If CCP makes all these changes and then at the last minute add a a few hours of programming, one NPC that buys minerals at the existing price, then changing dozens of ships insurance rates won't affect miners too much. IIRC, CCP did not announce they were removing the shuttles which provided a ceiling on trit until it went live. If they half insurance without doing something else (tin hats say PI), then one would expect the minerals from mining and missions to be worth half as much. If the goal is to address suicide ganking, the traditional suggestion of no insurance from Concorde seems more targeted. if they want to increase the cost of losing your ship in order to reduce combat then huh? If they want to make mining less attractive for new players and alts, well this should lower CCP's taxes by getting rid of some of that revenue and profits.
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Punic Corp.	Posted - 2010.03.15 00:09:00 - [22] Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 15/03/2010 00:10:37 Insurance payout paying for both the market price of the new ship and the insurance payment on it is a recent thing. It certainly was not the case back in 07-08. Changing insurance payout to be more in line with current market prices would simply bring the amount of ISK loss from losing tech 1 ships closer to what it always used to be before. I don't understand whining about loss, at all. There is way, way too much wealth in Eve and tech 1 ships, at least, are way too cheap. Tech 1 ship losses don't mean hardly anything right now. ----- 'In Eve, as in real life, if you are bored it's your own fault.'
Drykor Minmatar Aperture Harmonics K162	Posted - 2010.03.15 00:12:00 - [23] Originally by: Shrike Arghast Originally by: Drykor Edited by: Drykor on 14/03/2010 23:54:29 Originally by: Shrike Arghast .... I don't know why people want to change this so much. The insurance system in EVE is brilliant, and works very well. The economy is humming, PvP is fairly frequent and brutal... why do you want that to change? To stop people from suicide ganking? What makes you think an insurance nerf would stop this, really? And are you actually willing to accept ruining the game in order to potentially prevent it? Because that's what we're talking about here. Ruining the game. Or in other words, Eve is dying! Again. Honestly, if you think 50% less return (or what was it?) on ship insurance is going to kill Eve, I think you're hugely exaggerating. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing some more cruisers again instead of the standard battlecruiser. Also modules on a ship are still a large part of the fitting and nothing will change to that. Cost isn't a large prohibiting factor for pvp anyway, you can always downgrade to a smaller ship. Some people just like to pvp and some don't, it's much more of a matter of getting into it than it is of spending a few more million. ISK is easy in Eve once you're older than a few months. Let's see who this change will affect the most: -Battlecruiser pilots, who could just pay a little more now or fly a cruiser instead. -Battleship pilots who lose their BS frequently, which happens mostly in medium to large engagements, people participating in those can generally get replacement isk easily as well. T2/T3 has no noteworthy insurance anyway and T1 ships below battlecruiser size are irrelevant in terms of hull cost. Why increase the punishment for loss? I still haven't seen a relevant argument here other than some loosely based 'I'd like to see fewer BCs' or 'it would sure stop high-sec ganking!' dead horses, and they've been beaten so hard that I can't see where the horse ends and the glue begins. Punishing players for PvP causes fewer players to PvP. I haven't seen anyone argue that this would increase the frequency of PvP, which I think is a major complaint of many long-time players. They are not being punished for pvp. Those people who feel it's a severe punishment when they are blown up in a game won't pvp anyway. The supposed isk factor you're talking about almost isn't there as it's so easy to sustain pvp in T1 ships in Eve with even a moderate income from level 4's or whatever. This is the main thing you have to understand, some people will PVP and some won't. Now if you made PVP completely meaningless in terms of loss, yeah then you might see some more people doing it, but as long as you lose anything significant, some people just won't do it. And Eve is just not the game to make loss meaningless. Those that do pvp in T1 BC's/BS's (IMO the only really affected group apart of capital pilots with very frequent usage of their caps) might actually like the thrill of risking something again that isn't just the modules they fit on their ship. If not they could hop in a smaller ship. But they definitely won't stop pvp'ing because of it. You know in 0.0, dreads are the new BS? And have been for a long time now. Maybe a battleship will mean something again. There is nothing wrong with engagements consisting of slightly smaller ships.
Sprilk	Posted - 2010.03.15 00:25:00 - [24] Originally by: Gnulpie Insurance nerf won't change anything for the 'insurance fraud'. Mineral prices will drop because demand will drop drastically while the supply with minerals will stay - for whatever reason - still very high. The prices will drop until the floor of the new insurance payout is met. Nothing gained this way. The only thing which changes is that miners will get hurt a lot with those new lower prices. Doesn't make sense to me at all. If prices drop, then we have deflation. since everything costs less the minners make less isk but the spend less since everything is now cheaper... if prices drop enough to "hurt" miners then they also drop enough to "help" miners by having things cost less.
Elgaris Dukor Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2010.03.15 00:58:00 - [25] Originally by: Aerilis I just don't get it. Who would benefit? Not miners - no mineral floor = mineral prices drop further Not combat pilots - higher cost for ships This isn't a thread about why we SHOULD have a nerf, there are plenty of those already. I'm asking for personal reasons as to why YOU want an insurance nerf. Let's see. There are two major isk faucets in EVE. Bounties/ mission rewards and the insurance. The insurance allows to convert minerals to isk. There are several isk sinks in game which require that produced isk like skillbooks, office rents, pos fuel and many more. Bye removing this one isk faucet you will automaticly strengthen the other. Also there will be less isk injected into the game which also will cause a rise of the value of isk, which means things will cost less isk. Another side effect will be that the prices of minerals and T1 product will be able to flow free. Its likely that they will drop in price but they will stabilize at some point when supply and demand are equal. So bye removing the insurance miners will nolonger be able to convert their minerals to isk directly. bounties and mission rewards would be the only source of isk.
ChrisIsherwood	Posted - 2010.03.15 03:04:00 - [26] Originally by: Sprilk If prices drop, then we have deflation. since everything costs less the minners make less isk but the spend less since everything is now cheaper... if prices drop enough to "hurt" miners then they also drop enough to "help" miners by having things cost less. But why would you ever want such a massive deflation. Take two people - today, one has 38 billion ISK, another has 500 Ravens. Insurance payout is halved, so price of minerals drops, so price of ships drops by nearly a factor of two. The cash person now is twice as wealthy as the asset person. i.e. deflation. Why would you want to do that? is that fair? especially in a sandbox? especially since you will clearly lose a few emoragequit industrialists over such a drastic change? especially since you would expect the mcrminers to persevere, so you decrease the % of miners you are legit. And if the M&D crowd think their assets are going to be worth half as much in May, then then prices will anticipate that PDQ. And even if the miners ships cost half as much, they would still have to mine twice as long to pay for rent, repairs, skill books, etc. I think that is the issue I have more read about, rather than whether it is a bit more or less expensive to PvP or suicide. By punished, all I meant was incentives: it is the exact same idea as reducing L4 mission payouts to reduce missioning or lowering the SP cost to encourage exploration. Some prices are elastic: double the price of BMWs and people keep their car longer or live with an Audi or Lexus. I think the demand for PvP, like toilet paper and Viagra, is not overly influenced by price. Still, when a game designer raises the virtual cost of something, it is almost certainly because they want to make it less frequent. That's just economics.
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2010.03.15 03:10:00 - [27] I don't PvP (combat) so I don't really care if they nerf / don't nerf insurance as I insure absolutely nothing. Though I do like that there's PvP (combat) happening in EVE in general so I guess I lean more on the side of not wanting an insurance nerf. It just wouldn't affect me directly if there was one... I think. edit: and just to remind you, there is still no divider between posts and sigs.
Jim Luc Caldari Rule of Five	Posted - 2010.03.15 03:33:00 - [28] Why don't they set up a system similar to the way car insurance works in the real world? For example, the more ships you lose, the higher your risk to the insurance provider, and the more you pay for insurance (with a cap on premiums). If you add modules and weapons, the payout goes up, but so does your premiums. If you remove modules & weapons, the renewal fee is represented, and your ship payout is adjusted according to the current worth of the ship, and all modules and weapons installed. Payouts are based on current ship's worth, NOT a set amount up front. Monthly premiums would rise & lower based on this. Insurring cargo can also be set up in a similar fashion, and the cost is based on your region (0.0 and wardecc'ed pilots will pay more) Change the current insurance system to allow for monthly payments (much like in the real world, you pay once every 6 months, or once a month with a small savings if paid in full). I'm not sure insurance fraud is a huge deal, I'd have to see numbers on that and how it currently affects the supply chain. I do think by adding a "good driver discount" you'd see fewer people trying to scam the system, because it just wouldn't be worth it.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.03.15 03:58:00 - [29] Originally by: DJ Obsidian would people quit posting about insurance until it is 100% official like the day it hits tq. No. Absolutely no. If it ever gets there, it's a disaster. Stuff like this gets put on SiSi PRECISELY because player feedback is needed from the earliest stages, NOT after the fact. You're a moron for even suggesting we should shut up about it until it's final. _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
Zartrader	Posted - 2010.03.15 04:27:00 - [30] Edited by: Zartrader on 15/03/2010 04:31:02 Originally by: Jim Luc Why don't they set up a system similar to the way car insurance works in the real world? For example, the more ships you lose, the higher your risk to the insurance provider, and the more you pay for insurance (with a cap on premiums). If you add modules and weapons, the payout goes up, but so does your premiums. If you remove modules & weapons, the renewal fee is represented, and your ship payout is adjusted according to the current worth of the ship, and all modules and weapons installed. Payouts are based on current ship's worth, NOT a set amount up front. Monthly premiums would rise & lower based on this. Insurring cargo can also be set up in a similar fashion, and the cost is based on your region (0.0 and wardecc'ed pilots will pay more) Change the current insurance system to allow for monthly payments (much like in the real world, you pay once every 6 months, or once a month with a small savings if paid in full). I'm not sure insurance fraud is a huge deal, I'd have to see numbers on that and how it currently affects the supply chain. I do think by adding a "good driver discount" you'd see fewer people trying to scam the system, because it just wouldn't be worth it. Because in the real world you don't buy cars with the intent of smashing them up, unlike PVP in EVE. Doing insurance this way would screw the PVP players and therfore the game, the opposite of what CCP would want (they are generally pro pvp and not too excited about carebears) Anyway, people are seeing this in isolation. By reducing Insurance, which will rebalance ships costs anyway so only miners should care, they can introduce other faucets such as Tech 2 insurance (which will help miners a lot) or allow for ISK from the new planetary system.

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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.