| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Matalino
   |
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:27:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Matalino on 30/03/2010 14:31:01
Good blog, nice changes. However, I have a couple of questions.
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? Originally by: el caido
edit: While not an issue addressed in the blog, the 100% T1 insurance does not deter the other major 'problem' with insurance ... Flame on?
Yes, it does. A 100% market value insurance payout means a 70% market value net insurance payout. The current problem is that the insurance payout is now around 145% of the market price of the ship, the net payout is around 100% of the market price.
That is a big difference.
|
Matalino
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:35:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Numance
What is tech0 ?
Meta 0: regular T1 modules.
Meta 1-4: "named" modules.
Meta 5: Tech II modules.
Meta 6+: faction/office/deadspace modules.
|
Matalino
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:54:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Matalino on 30/03/2010 14:56:02
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Originally by: Lockefox
Second: Price balancing is great, but what of suicide gank mechanics. I know this has been a CSM discussion. Are there any updates on how you guys want to tackle this problem? I have no problem with suicide ganks, I just believe that insurance should be voided in this circumstance. It's part of the risk v. reward calculation that should be being made when choosing who to suicide gank.
At the moment, with 100% payouts set for basic T1 ships, I'd say they're probably leaving this alone.
Sisi was changed weeks ago. Basic T1 ships are getting a huge insurance payout cut. Dropping from 100% of "base" value to 100% of market value.
However, there is no indication of any change to insurance mechanics with respect to CONCORD. You can still buy insurance for suicide ganking, you just won't get nearly as much.
|
Matalino
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:03:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Matalino on 30/03/2010 15:05:59
Originally by: Batolemaeus
I'm sure that those 100 isk sellorders for every single mineral don't screw up insurance calculation at all.
Not a problem. They use the average global mineral prices, not the local ship prices. They also use a "trimmed mean" not a strait average, so extreme orders will not affect the price. 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?
Moon goo and other components would be included in the adjustment of insurance price. Inefficiency from invention would result in a market price that is higher than the material costs, but that is still acceptable. The goal with insuring these ships is to provide partial not complete releif.
|
Matalino
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:15:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Jameroz
Maybe we could have an API that lists all ships with the insurance costs and payouts? (Or the base value if we can calculate these from that)
If the data only changes once a month then you could just cache the values until the next change adding very little extra load to the DB yet providing very useful data to the players.
I second the motion for an insurance payout API. Either list the insurance payouts for each ship, or the insurance contribution for each mineral/component. Cache time would be similar to the skill/certificate trees.
|
Matalino
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:30:00 -
[6]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
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 :).
The same things are not true of all ships. Tech 1 and Tech 3 ships are built from components with dynamic supplies. Tech 2 ships are built from components with fixed supplies. Increasing the payouts in proportion to the cost of those components will result in an increase in the cost of those components.
|
Matalino
|
Posted - 2010.04.01 17:26:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kuolematon
So 100% for T1, 40% for T2 and then 100% for T3? Isn't that kinda moot?
Should it be 100% for T1, 75% for T2 and 50% for T3. Why punish someone who just got to T2 and doesn't have skills for T3??
Insurance covers only the cost of the ship. With T3, the ship is only a small portion of the cost: subsystems are mandatory and are not included in the insurance payout. So realisticly the payout for Tech 3 is proportionally the similar to the payout for Tech 2.
|
| |
|