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) |
Eddie Sleaze
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:56:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Eddie Sleaze on 30/03/2010 14:56:25 Why pay out at all to hi-sec aggressors? Suicide Ganking is gay.
|
Serpents smile
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:58:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Serpents smile on 30/03/2010 14:59:30 Nice, I think. Would I had an titan, it would be permanently now docked at a POS though.
Edit: in before Akita T rage.
|
Kenreikko Valitonen
MAK Astrogeology Group
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:58:00 -
[33]
Supported. Looks like you're planning to take great steps in the right direction on all points here. This is great to see!
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:58:00 -
[34]
Sorry, got my 100%s mixed up. Yes, this is a nerf to suicide ganking, since the net payout would be at most 70% if the ratios of premiums to payouts stay the same.
It does beg the question, though - if the best payout on a T2 ship is 20%, and the most expensive insurance costs 30%, why would people bother? Presumably the cost of premiums for these ships will change relative to payout value. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression |
Aisley Tyrion
DAB
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:58:00 -
[35]
This is pretty winsauce, IMHO. I just hope you guys (CCP) have the 'courage' to go through with these and not give in to whines too much.
|
el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:59:00 -
[36]
Edited by: el caido on 30/03/2010 15:01:12 Quick question: is faction insurance remaining unchanged? In other words, will the payout remain equivalent to roughly 100% mineral value?
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:00:00 -
[37]
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.
|
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:01:00 -
[38]
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"
|
Malakai Draevyn
Caldari Internet SpaceShips Is Serious Business
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:01:00 -
[39]
Originally by: el caido Quick question: is faction insurance remaining unchanged? In other words, will it remain equivalent to T1 value?
Good question - I suppose it all comes down to compond insurance values on the T1 model plus the bits to upgrade it to the faction model.
Hrmmm - worth considering when this hits Sisi.
..:: MD ::..
|
Matalino
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:03:00 -
[40]
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.
|
|
Trauli
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:05:00 -
[41]
Great devblog! Very interested on what happens to the market once all this is implemented.
For suicide ganking purely for the immersion of the game, any ship killed that has concord as part of the killmail insurance should be automatically void. That way people can still suicide gank for extreme high value targets but it will need to much more relative to the value of their ship.
|
dischordia
Gallente wiggle Tech.
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:06:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Trauli Great devblog! Very interested on what happens to the market once all this is implemented.
For suicide ganking purely for the immersion of the game, any ship killed that has concord as part of the killmail insurance should be automatically void. That way people can still suicide gank for extreme high value targets but it will need to much more relative to the value of their ship.
I second this about the killmail but BUT then we will have all the tears in here too
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:07:00 -
[43]
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.
|
|
Nick Curso
Black Nova Corp IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:09:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:09:29
Originally by: CCP Chronotis The flip side of that would be the risk adversity argument, that some would risk them less because of this.
People wouldn't use them at all because of this. I think like viper said where is the logic in nerfing the one ship class where a respectable amount of ISK is lost in its loss. Not to mention the massivly expensive fittings they need. Unless ofc u want to see t2 fitted super carriers and titans. Has it also been considered how much of a time sink it is to build super caps from a non ISK perspective such as compression time/hauling/build time etc. In some cases ppl have worked for years to get these ships and contrary to the myth don't have 100's of bils in the bank after the ship purchase. To be punished with next to no insurance payout meaning you have to start from scratch again.
Seems like a bit of a crazy plan to me maybe its time to look away from the numbers and actually consider the other requirements of getting a ship like that and think to yourself "Is this really fair?" Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Amberlamps
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:09:00 -
[45]
Scrap metal = worthless compared to T1 M0 Modules, Considering we only get trit = big hit from the foam nerf bat, Wont that force Trit to all new lows?
Tags = Lolwtfbbq? Tags are useless and apart from the main 4 empires where you can reliably sell them at NPC stations, other factions well... they are completely pointless bar opening specific locked gates. There is relatively no market for them. Or we will end up with another fixed NPC price or where no one buys them and we have masses of them. Completely pointless replacement, Why not just increase the rat bounties instead a minor percentage to compensate for the T1 drop nerf instead of giving us pointless tags and cargo hogging scrap metal. Sorry Marauders your big cargo bay won't compensate for that scrap metal!
Other than that I agree with the Mining issue. Though CCP really needs to buck up their ideas of macro miners. There is little encouragement to report a macro miner, when you see the same group of people 23/7/365 on the same belt and they still get away with it... Pfft, I gave up on reporting people. Considering you get the standard "Infringement of EULA cannot be discussed with you" Meaning, we know but we won't do anything and hope you don't notice.
|
Larkonis Trassler
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:09:00 -
[46]
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.
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis |
Soulita
Gallente Inner Core
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:11:00 -
[47]
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?
|
Jameroz
Echoes of Space
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:11:00 -
[48]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis 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.
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.
|
Letrange
Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:14:00 -
[49]
Once again a CCP Chronotis Dev Blog delivers.
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.
|
Matalino
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:15:00 -
[50]
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.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:15:00 -
[51]
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 :).
|
|
Andre Vauban
Gallente Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:15:00 -
[52]
Can you comment on the time period on which insurance will be recalculated and will the mineral costs used for that calculation or maybe even the insurance payouts be published anywhere (via API)? An API for querying insurance payouts would be EXTREMELY valuable.
My concern is that my corporation posts internal contracts for all T1 ships at net insurance costs, ie if payout is 1000 isk and insurance cost is 200 isk, we sell the ship for 800 isk. This ensures members have perpetually "free" ships and the corporation only has to subsidize a small amount of each ship. This program is very important to us.
With the new model, we could still continue to do this depending on the time intervals and access to the information for us to quickly and easily recompute net insurance values. My concern is that it will be impossible to offer this service to our members if the insurance payout amounts change more often than every two weeks, which is the max contract time for which we can have a ship posted on corp contracts. The other concern is that CCP "hides" the computed value of the ship and/or insurance payouts. This will make it a VERY difficult process to compute net insurance cost.
|
Shana Matika
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:21:00 -
[53]
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"
This is one question that I had. As most T2 Ships are provided by invention the "base-Cost" factor is not that great as most ships will be build with an ME -4 BPC which is already 50% above base-price.
2nd is: Which date will be used to calculate the pay-out? As example: I insure my ship on the 30.03.2010. The ship get destroyed on the 03.05.2010. The "Recalculation" from the insurance-System is done at the 15.04.2010. Now will I get the Payout that was actual on the day I Subscribed the Insurance-Contract or will the system just pay all loses on the day-base?
Also: Will there still be several levels of insurance or will just every ship be insured from the moment on I assembled the ship (also interesting in view of super-caps).
|
Trauli
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:23:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Nick Curso Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:09:29
Originally by: CCP Chronotis The flip side of that would be the risk adversity argument, that some would risk them less because of this.
People wouldn't use them at all because of this. I think like viper said where is the logic in nerfing the one ship class where a respectable amount of ISK is lost in its loss. Not to mention the massivly expensive fittings they need. Unless ofc u want to see t2 fitted super carriers and titans. Has it also been considered how much of a time sink it is to build super caps from a non ISK perspective such as compression time/hauling/build time etc. In some cases ppl have worked for years to get these ships and contrary to the myth don't have 100's of bils in the bank after the ship purchase. To be punished with next to no insurance payout meaning you have to start from scratch again.
Seems like a bit of a crazy plan to me maybe its time to look away from the numbers and actually consider the other requirements of getting a ship like that and think to yourself "Is this really fair?"
The world needs less super capitals (so unless you are super rich and replace them at the drop of a hat) then of course there should be a massive risk for you to deploy one.
|
Plave Okice
Krazny Oktyabr Revolyutsiya
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:23:00 -
[55]
I like the mineral changes as even though I've never mined, the supply of minerals should mostly be in the hands of the miners.
As for insurance, just remove it and be done with it, what happened to the cold dark universe? Yeah there'll be uproar and moaning, but there always is, soon insurance will be forgotten.
|
Leiture
Amarr Liliis tenaci vimine jungor
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:23:00 -
[56]
scrap metal and tags?
What about new scrapmetal made of other mineral than tritanium?
Could we reprocess all the tags?
|
Nick Curso
Black Nova Corp IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:24:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:24:23
Originally by: Trauli
Originally by: Nick Curso Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:09:29
Originally by: CCP Chronotis The flip side of that would be the risk adversity argument, that some would risk them less because of this.
People wouldn't use them at all because of this. I think like viper said where is the logic in nerfing the one ship class where a respectable amount of ISK is lost in its loss. Not to mention the massivly expensive fittings they need. Unless ofc u want to see t2 fitted super carriers and titans. Has it also been considered how much of a time sink it is to build super caps from a non ISK perspective such as compression time/hauling/build time etc. In some cases ppl have worked for years to get these ships and contrary to the myth don't have 100's of bils in the bank after the ship purchase. To be punished with next to no insurance payout meaning you have to start from scratch again.
Seems like a bit of a crazy plan to me maybe its time to look away from the numbers and actually consider the other requirements of getting a ship like that and think to yourself "Is this really fair?"
The world needs less super capitals (so unless you are super rich and replace them at the drop of a hat) then of course there should be a massive risk for you to deploy one.
My point is for most it already is a massive risk to deploy them. After this you would just have to be insane. Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
La Gloria
Minmatar Khatovar Industries Ltd
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:26:00 -
[58]
You talk about balencing insurance in high-risk vs. low-risk (tacklers vs. Cov-ops.) I think the industrial ships, specificially the t2 ones without viable defenses, should have higher then average insurance values. For people mining in 0.0 or WH space or orca support ships, insurance can be a valuable risk-mitigator, allowing more aggressive low/null sec industrialists.
|
Last Wolf
Rage For Order
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:28:00 -
[59]
I have mixed feelings about this. I guess we'll just see how it plays out.
In Before Akita T threadnought'o'rage. Oh no you don't! Incoming witty reply, ETA: 300 seconds! |
Kersh Marelor
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:28:00 -
[60]
The price on a super carrier with proper fitting is around 25-30 bil ISK at least. How is getting 5bil after loosing one 'a lot of ISK' or how can it be thought of as 'little risk' is beyond me. We are aware that CCP hates everything linked to capitals and super-caps but you should consider some limits to this.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |