Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Matrae Cor
Minmatar M Cor Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:12:00 -
[1]
I would like to suggest a change in game rules to replace the current insurance arrangement with one that is based more on the individual pilot's risk profile. This will make insurance less expensive for thos with lower risk factor and higher or not available to those with higher risk factors. It should be pretty easy to administer as it depends upon four inputs: 1. Type of ship covered (same as now) 2. Amount of coverage desired (same as now) 3. Pilot's Security standing (New) - Security ratings between -1.5 and 1.5: no premium adjustment - Security rating > 1.5 & <= 2.5 = 5% reduction in cost - Security rating > 2.5 = 10% reduction in cost - Security rating = to or worse than -1.5 to -2.5 10% added cost - Security rating = to or worse than -2.5 to -5.0 25% added cost - Security rating = to or worse than -5.0 to -7.5 50% added cost - No coverage available to those with security rating worse than 7.5 4. Desired coverage area - High sec only = 15% discount from base cost - High & Low Sec (null excluded) = base premiums = no adjustment - All of EVE, including Null Sec. 25% added cost
Base premiums would begin at 50% of the current level. Then add or deduct from the base based upon tee coverage and risk factor. Also no coverage for ships lost because of Concord violations
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:26:00 -
[2]
so you basically nerf lowsec into oblivion. Yeah...we need more lowsec nerfs.
most stupid idea in weeks! ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:47:00 -
[3]
personally i think we should remove insurance all together. then i am not penalized anymore because i always forget to insure my ships.
|
Flying ZombieJesus
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 17:23:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Flying ZombieJesus on 16/03/2010 17:24:53 Why is a low security status associated with risk?
A mission running navy mega in lowsec is much more at risk than a -10 pirate in an interceptor.
If its risk based, you should try basing the rates on risk instead of an arbitrary number that may or may not have any impact on the amount of risk the pilot is in.
So, to summarize,
No.
EDIT:
Also, just noticed your "coverage" area. I really hope this is not an attempt to stop suicide ganking, because that would make it a lot cheaper for them.
Step 1 : Rat to 0.0 sec status Step 2 : jump to highsec Step 3 : buy 4x BS Step 4 : Insure all in highsec only, for 25% off previous cost. Step 5 : Extra profit.
|
Darth Kuminos
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 20:39:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Darth Kuminos on 16/03/2010 20:39:20 I think he means insurance coverage. High sec only would be covered in High Sec space only, and if the ship was lost in Low or Null, no payout. If you insure for High and Low (no Null) and loose your ship in Null space, no payout.
I kinda like this idea, but I think it might be a bit of a pain for CCP to add the code to do (if they even would). I also think anyone with a Sec status of -5.0 and lower should not be able to get any kind of insurance.
Of course, just voicing my thoughts on the matter.
|
Flying ZombieJesus
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 23:16:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Flying ZombieJesus on 16/03/2010 23:16:46
Originally by: Darth Kuminos Edited by: Darth Kuminos on 16/03/2010 20:39:20 I think he means insurance coverage. High sec only would be covered in High Sec space only, and if the ship was lost in Low or Null, no payout. If you insure for High and Low (no Null) and loose your ship in Null space, no payout.
I kinda like this idea, but I think it might be a bit of a pain for CCP to add the code to do (if they even would). I also think anyone with a Sec status of -5.0 and lower should not be able to get any kind of insurance.
Of course, just voicing my thoughts on the matter.
I'm aware of what it means. It means that anyone who lives in nullsec is going to pay more, and anyone who missionruns in complete safety in highsec will pay much less.
Theres no reason to split those two, either. The main gripes about insurance is that its profitable to self destruct BS as well as ganking indy's due to almost no cost in isk.
This wouldn't solve either of those, as I pointed out it would actually make them more profitable.
EDIT : Except his late ninja edit including concord.
Bad idea is still bad, and destructing BS would still become much more profitable.
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 23:53:00 -
[7]
I agree it should be risk based, but not in the manner which you suggest. Having worked in the insurance biz irl (yes i know real life does not have any necessary correlation to EVE) one of the largest factors in determining rates is the number of times you have made a claim. Following this general framework, the amount of ISK needed to insure a ship should be directly related to the number of times insurance has been paid out (X) in some given time period (T). As an example (these numbers are jsut thrown around for illustration and could be lowered or raised) lets say T is 1 month:
X=0, then 0% increase in cost to insure X=1, then 5% increase X=2, then 10% increase . . . X=20, 100% increase
This could act as a limit to the Insurance Exchange Rate (insurance fraud)thereby increasing mineral values...so the miners can be happy. Additionally it decreases the profitablity of suicide ganking overtime, but does not remove profitability all together. Which should make both "carebears" and "gankers" equally unhappy...just less so in relation to other suggestions.
|
Kara Sharalien
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 23:56:00 -
[8]
I certainly like the concept, numbers need heavy modification.
Other factors you could base risk on are number of ships lost compared to number of ships killed, the type of ship used (who really uses a breacher in PvP?).
Originally by: Thuul'Khalat WHY YOU VIOLENCE MY BOAT?!
|
King Rothgar
Violent By Design Rough Necks
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 00:10:00 -
[9]
Basing it on sec status is bogus, I assure you that I (-9.x sec) lose far fewer ships than many with 5.0 sec status. I've personally made sure of that.
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 00:24:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Kara Sharalien I certainly like the concept, numbers need heavy modification.
Other factors you could base risk on are number of ships lost compared to number of ships killed, the type of ship used (who really uses a breacher in PvP?).
I hesitate to link insurance cost to kill ratio's just because they are a meaningless statistic by themselves (it just increases the reasons to blob), also it would up insurance costs on BS because you lost 2-3 frigates in the mean time. Doing things by ship type risks just moving the problem as opposed to limiting the problem. I.E. people just start flying the breacher over the rifter. This seems like it would need constant updating to keep up with the shifts in FOTM and cost effectiveness. I would like to keep it as simple as absolutely possible. I am not saying no... just hesitant. WHat kind of "heavily modified" numbers were you thinking btw?
I did not think about large wars in 0.0 with this idea and it is something that might present a fatal flaw. It can be pretty easy to lose 10+ ships per month if your having fleet battles on an almost daily basis...and you happen to be primaried early on in all of them. Over a protracted war this could make losses become very painful, therby decreasing the amount of fighting in 0.0. Conversly it might encourage more medium sized HAC/Recon gangs and less RRbs blob fights . Jury is still out on this for me.
|
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 00:31:00 -
[11]
I didn't here an argument why you want to penalize 0.0 pvp slightly but lowsec-pvp much harder and improve highsec pvp?
Balancing insurance around security status is the worst you could ever do. You'd have to introduce sec status loss for 0.0 and highsec to make this work. ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |