|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
|
CCP Fallout
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:04:00 -
[1]
CCP Chronotis outlines changes to minerals and ship insurance that will be coming in Tyrannis in his newest dev blog.
Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:00:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Chribba
And the supercap insurance plan is quite interesting to see what you make of it - are there perhaps any plans to actually allow us to put insruance on said undockable ships - or do we aim to build 40-50b ISK titans to die and get 500m insurance payout?
Currently, the idea is that they would only get a fraction of what they get currently (even after the marking to market of insurance values) with the view being that strategically important assets should hurt more when you lose them rather than giving billions in insurance. The flip side of that would be the risk adversity argument, that some would risk them less because of this. We have opened the floor to constructive debate here as suggested in the blogs regarding this as it is easy for us to change the multipliers being used per ship group.
Originally by: Matalino
How often will insurance costs/payouts be updated?
While a change in payout affect insurance that has already be purchased? For example if I pay 3mil to buy platinum insurance of 10mil, and the payout drops to 8mil before my insurance runs out, would I get the 10mil that I originally purchased, or would I only get the 8mil payout? If the payout increased to 12mil would I get the higher payout?
The insurance value changes occur semi-periodically, currently we are looking at between one and three months.
We have changed the insurance quote text to stress the payout is now estimated rather than fixed to answer the second question.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:07:00 -
[3]
Originally by: GateScout Isn't the T2 components/invention/etc. for T2/T3 ships the primary driving factor for those ship's costs? If so, the change to T2 ship insurance won't significantly reimburse the loss of those ships. (something that I support) ...or am I missing something?
From the Dev Blog: "Our new insurance system recalculates the value of all ship classes which includes Tech 2 and Tech 3 classes establishing the base material cost of the ship"
Yes, tech 2 insurance still falls well below their market prices and will continue to pay out much less than Tech 1 ships do (faction ships are considered tech 1 for insurance). The initial changes however do increase the payments from today however relatively.
If we take one example like the Vagabond, the insurance would pay out around 12 million today. With Tyrannis, that would increase to 33 million net payout if you insured the ship.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:15:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Revisions to drop loot tables and ore distribution are great but I'm somewhat concerned about the changes to T2 insurance. What with the finite supply of moongold if you make T2 ships cheaper to lose you will see more people flying them, driving up prices which then adjust insurance payouts etc thus potentially leading to spiralling costs all over the place.
The valuations are clamped to always payout a fraction of the market value of the materials used to manufacture the ships in the case of Tech 2. Yes if the value of those materials increases so does the cost of building the ship and it's market price and the relative insurance payout. The same is true of all ships hence why its called dynamic insurance :).
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:31:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Soulita CCP Chronotis, since you are reading this thread and asked for a constructive open discussion I do have a question for you and would be very interested to hear your opinion on this:
Insurance payout for ship losses resulting from Concord kills.
What is your stance on this much discussed insurance related issue?
Our stance is that this should get a further nerf some day outside of the initial relative reduction in Tech 1 ship payout which will occur after Tyrannis. However it should be noted this will not stop 'suicide ganking' since it is up to the player how much they can afford to lose in this way. It will cost more but if they can still afford it then it will still happen.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:35:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Letrange
2 things:
- Is the cost of insurance pegged to a % of estimated payout? - I would advise updating the rates monthly. If you look at the basket value of minerals as they change over time I suspect that once every 3 months is insufficient. If it's on a set schedule then it could eventually be automated to a certain degree.
Yes, insurance premium cost is still 5% of the insurance value incrementing up to platinum at 30%.
It is an automated task and the first change will be the largest correcting for seven years of movement. It can be altered to run on a different schedule however is designed to account for chaotic transitions like the mineral supply changes and avoid short term spikes and going for long term trends.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:43:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Batolemaeus Edited by: Batolemaeus on 30/03/2010 14:58:21
One question.
Wouldn't the re-evaluation of insurance payout for certain battleships that are rarely used outside of pvp (like the armageddon or rokh) but have a rather low live expectancy especially during times of war result in these ships getting more and more easy to replace, to the point of making their loss nearly meaningless (like it is now)?
Of course i'm assuming this is an automatic process. And if it is, it would mean that certain ships *cough*drake*cough*raven*cough* would suddenly be more expensive to lose in pvp, since they rarely die due to being flown in pve a lot. If it is automatic, this could easily be a self reinforcing process, prompting people to fly other ships for their insurance payout, further reducing insurance payouts for these ships..
I think you misunderstand, the debate on whether certain ship groups get more or less insurance based on their role and place in the universe is not automatic based on ship use and loss.
It is more us looking at certain ship groups and specifying some to pay out a little more than others based on their role and use. For example covert classes get less than tacklers as an example here as they are less prone to dying due to their role.
Battleships all get the same payout multiplier (1.0) since they are tech 1 currently which equates to a 70% net payout as usual. However covert ops might only get 0.2 but interceptors might get 0.4 is how we translate the goal and the mechanics behind the scene.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:49:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Mahke
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Revisions to drop loot tables and ore distribution are great but I'm somewhat concerned about the changes to T2 insurance. What with the finite supply of moongold if you make T2 ships cheaper to lose you will see more people flying them, driving up prices which then adjust insurance payouts etc thus potentially leading to spiralling costs all over the place.
The valuations are clamped to always payout a fraction of the market value of the materials used to manufacture the ships in the case of Tech 2. Yes if the value of those materials increases so does the cost of building the ship and it's market price and the relative insurance payout. The same is true of all ships hence why its called dynamic insurance :).
This is an important issue and you should re-read and think about Larkonis' post.
Moon material supply is static. The combination of reduces insurance coverage of t1 and insurability of t2 (especially command ships, but, others will see the effect too) is going to drive up t2 demand hard: I fly mainly t1 because of relative prices but expect to go back to t2 (and perhaps t3 for pve, "100% for Tech 3 ships" is insane) because of this and am probably not the only one. This will constitute a HUGE demand shift for t2 ships against a fixed moon mineral supply.
Unless tyrannis is coming with a new moon mineral sink, you really should have whoever at CCP looks at economic changes take a good look at the numbers involved and consider the knock-on effects of this.
P.S. -- thanks for the obvious arbitrage opportunity on the drone loot change
it is a doomsday scenario and wont happen tbh but yes we were aware of what increased payout entails with ship use.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:58:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik Awesome changes!
Will there be a way to automatically compute / look up the recalculated base price (or insurance values)? Via an API call maybe?
It is on our 'backlog' to use agile speak. Something for the possible future.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:05:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Why replace loot drops with scrap metal? Why not just remove the drop (the one replaced with scrap) all together? Will there be any thought put towards reducing the volume of scrap metal so that it can be efficiently looted? Does this affect both regular NPC rat and mission rats, or just mission rats?
1. it is better to drop something in reward terms even if it is not worth everyone's time to loot. 2. Limitations of the system - it must drop something or everything else increases in drop rate which we do not want 3. It is already a good volume/trit ratio currently, was boosted a while back in these terms 4. Both.
|
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:04:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Arboreal Feline Question: Currently, it is in our best interests to destroy an insured ship when reaching the end of the insurance session, rather than re-insure the ship. With the changes to insurance payout, this would quickly become obsolete. Insuring ships more than once simply isn't cost effective. This is currently solved by insurance fraud, but after Tyrannis hits insurance fraud (hopefully) won't exist.
I propose two possible solutions to this:
1. Insurance extensions: after the initial premium is paid, and the first insurance period is about to come to a close, you can pay a smaller premium to continue your coverage. Essentially the initial outlay is the deposit, and the periodical payments are the premiums, much like RL insurance.
2. Drop the time limit on insurance coverages, aka. eternal coverage. This is a much less elegant solution, and comes with some problems of it's own which are readily apparent.
Obviously, number 1 is much more appealing. It would make people actually re-insure ships instead of destructing them for the payout at the end of the coverage, and still cost a modest sum of money periodically so as to not be a completely free ride.
On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships.
In this case you would then only get a single payout per ship always on death with caveats in the future which might affect this like concordokken for example and never need to insure the ship.
To give you some data: 75% of ships that were insured were platinum. Most ships were not insured with only battlecruisers, battleships and dreadnoughts being the most insured groups as a % of the total for each group.
|
|
|
|
|