Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
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 |
|
el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:08:00 -
[2]
Edited by: el caido on 30/03/2010 14:15:09 Excellent changes, on all fronts.
edit: While not an issue addressed in the blog, the 100% T1 insurance does not deter the other major 'problem' with insurance ... Flame on?
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:10:00 -
[3]
OMG and stuff
Secure 3rd party service |
|
Firesh
Etoilles Mortant Ltd. Solyaris Chtonium
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:10:00 -
[4]
Yeah!
|
Matalino
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:27:00 -
[5]
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.
|
Valator Uel
Caldari D-Stress Ad Astra.
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:29:00 -
[6]
Nice changes! Dynamic is always better
Quote: Aya > Hostile tcf gang coming to h-pa Deva Blackfire > ships? Ralarina > Yes, in ships
|
Numance
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:31:00 -
[7]
What is tech0 ?
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:31:00 -
[8]
A problem made worse by including T2 ships in dynamic insurance payouts: This will increase demand for T2 ships beyond what is already caused by the increasing player count. Since the supply of moon minerals does not scale, i.e. the total max output is fixed, prices will gradually spiral up, with payout readjusting again and again.
|
el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:33:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Matalino
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.
Thanks for clarifying.
|
Havohej
Du'uma Fiisi Integrated Astrometrics
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:35:00 -
[10]
Supercap insurance = best nerf ever.
Du'uma Fiisi is Recruiting |
|
Matalino
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:35:00 -
[11]
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.
|
Lockefox
Caldari Hell's Librarians Darkmatter Initiative
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:38:00 -
[12]
I am liking the core of what you are putting down, but would like to throw two isk into the pile.
First: I am weary of T2 insurance balancing. I have always seen these investments as a significant part of the "don't risk what you cannot lose" style of EVE. Though better insurance programs would incentivize putting them in harm's way, I fear that there will be consequences... namely price-capping T2 ships by mechanic, not by market forces.
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.
|
Doof Hardcastle
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:38:00 -
[13]
gay
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:39:00 -
[14]
In before drone compound speculation --- 34.4:1 mineral compression |
Nye Jaran
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:39:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Nye Jaran on 30/03/2010 14:46:19 Edited by: Nye Jaran on 30/03/2010 14:43:23 Have you looked at insurance pay outs when compared to guesstimated values of ore prices after the mineral changes? Based on readjustment, it sounds like it's possible to get enough payout to cover the original cost of the ship, insurance and possibly even mods. In other words, it sounds like it could be possible to recover the entire loss (mods included).
Don't like the T2 / T3 insurance changes. I like knowing that I'm risking 600m+ when I undock my Widow. Makes me take things a little more seriously. When I undock a scorp, I know I'm risking around 30m (effectively), and generally not care about the ship loss.
Really disappointed to see that the devs continue actively supporting terrorism within Eve by leaving intact insurance payouts on ships attacked by Concord (read: suicide ganking). Suicide ganking, as a mechanic, is generally fine. It just needs a little tweaking on the risk / reward balance by removing insurance payouts.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:41:00 -
[16]
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. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression |
Derus Grobb
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:42:00 -
[17]
Akita is going to explode ---
|
Malakai Draevyn
Caldari Internet SpaceShips Is Serious Business
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:44:00 -
[18]
*dodges the 'bbq the carebear flames' here* Changing the NPC loot tables will impact the missionrunners; some of us don't just mission for isk / LP - some of us use the minerals for manufacturing jobs. Gah - more mining. :(
On the other side of the coin - insurance increases (and market linked too) for T2 / T3 ships is a godsend. There is room for manipulation and creative playing the insurance market, but its gonna take a lot of work to do it....
Mixed bag, but not a bad blog overall. ..:: MD ::..
|
Numance
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:45:00 -
[19]
thanks for tech0 reply :)
i hate ****load of stockpile of t1 and t1 named modules from heavy missionning
should i refine them now or wait ^^ or selling now or wait ? refining only tech1 ?
|
Nick Curso
Black Nova Corp IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:46:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Chribba Edited by: Chribba on 30/03/2010 14:18:11 OMG and stuff
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?
pretty much this ^^ sounds slightly mental to me Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
|
Viper ShizzIe
Habitual Euthanasia Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:47:00 -
[21]
Wait so you're going to reduce the insurance payout on T1 ships (to make them more expensive to lose) while increasing the payout on T2/T3 (to make them less expensive to lose) while changing the insurance payouts on supercapitals so that the only ships where a respectable amount of isk is lost when they die are more expensive.
Right.
|
dischordia
Gallente wiggle Tech.
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:47:00 -
[22]
I feel that it will make people PLAY the game rather than AFK the game. Still extra tags is always good
|
Mielono
Caldari SWARTA
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:48:00 -
[23]
First I was worried, then I was interested, then I was intrigued, then I did a little dance.
I like the direction this blog seems to be pointing things.
Originally by: Culmen
A cat is like that carebear who sticks around only while there's food, and at best kills a few rats.A dog F*cking enforces NBSI, and deep down is slightly disappointed you aren't tak |
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Primary.
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:49:00 -
[24]
Long past time we got rid of meta 0 items in the loot tables.
This will be beneficial to both miners and builders I think.
The changing of the insurance tables will be interesting. I think t1 will pay less than now, t2 will pay more than now as will t3. It is obvious that the supercaps will pay much less than they do now.
Overall I think it'll be a positive change for the game.
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal |
Soulita
Gallente Inner Core
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:50:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Soulita on 30/03/2010 14:53:14 First page
Changes sound good at first glance, though personally I would prefer to see insurance payout capped at 80%. A loss should always hurt somewhat, even if it is a t1 ship effected.
I do not think reducing maximum payout for t1 ships from 100% to 80% would be a gamebreaking experience for newer players. Instead they learn earlier on that a ship loss is not free, preparing them better for their future life in EVE.
|
dischordia
Gallente wiggle Tech.
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:53:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Viper ****zIe Wait so you're going to reduce the insurance payout on T1 ships (to make them more expensive to lose) while increasing the payout on T2/T3 (to make them less expensive to lose) while changing the insurance payouts on supercapitals so that the only ships where a respectable amount of isk is lost when they die are more expensive.
Right.
the payout will be based on the MARKET at the time not a base payout from 5 years ago, so if its a booming market when your ship booms ... bonus for you.
|
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:54:00 -
[27]
The basic T1 loot from mission running should not be replaced by anything. Mission running is way too profitable as it is, and the loot is a relative minor part of the total rewards.
T2 should have insurance more or less like it is now. When taking a ship into combat where you KNOW that the loss will be felt, you get a nice adrenaline rush from it!
T1 capital ships should not give out full insurance, but maybe 50%. There should be significant risk to using these ships.
Otherwise looks like a good job! Especially the dynamic insurance will finally ensure a balanced mineral market in EVE
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.
|
Matalino
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:54:00 -
[28]
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.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:55:00 -
[29]
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..
|
Malakai Draevyn
Caldari Internet SpaceShips Is Serious Business
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:56:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Soulita Edited by: Soulita on 30/03/2010 14:53:14 First page
Changes sound good at first glance, though personally I would prefer to see insurance payout capped at 80%. A loss should always hurt somewhat, even if it is a t1 ship effected.
I do not think reducing maximum payout for t1 ships from 100% to 80% would be a gamebreaking experience for newer players. Instead they learn earlier on that a ship loss is not free, preparing them better for their future life in EVE.
Setting t1 at 100% is essentially paying out 70-80% of value after the insurance has been bought.
Ship A : Costs 100m from market : Pays out 95m on insurance : costs 20m to insure.
You're still 25m down..... thus the 70-80% thing is contained.
..:: MD ::..
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |