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) |
Smyrk
SRE Brotherhood
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:30:00 -
[181]
My objections to the idea of per-class pricing for insurance are many but here are a few:
Not all ships of the same class are the same risk to fly, or even close. Eagle vs. Vagabond comes to mind.
Not all ships of the same exact type are the same risk to fly. Railgun w/ sentry Ishtar vs. blaster w/ heavy drone Ishtar for example.
It doesn't make in-fiction sense for the insurance company to insure riskier ships better. I know most people don't mind this, but I think it indicates something is wrong.
Furthermore the market will tend to counter any artificially high insurance for high risk ships. Manufacturers can supply low and high risk ships equally, but demand is higher for high risk ships that get blown up a lot but are fun to fly, so the market cost for high risk ships can be higher relative to the material cost. There are a lot of variables in that equation, though, and I am not sure it really works out that way every time, but again compare the Eagle and Vaga (about same mat cost, but Vaga costs 25M more right now).
It seems to go against CCP's player-sandbox goals to have the game system determine which ships are risky or not. Even given the same ship with the same fit, a player may fly it in a risky way or a safe way. The game system should not make artificial guesses at this.
I understand not wanting to reimburse as much of t2 ship cost compared to t1 (because t2 ships are "advanced" and intended for experienced players who know they are putting ISK at risk), but that already won't quite happen because a chunk of the t2 ship's market cost is the cost of the invention, which doesn't apply to t1. If that alone isn't enough of a penalty to t2 insurance, maybe some kind of adjustment could be made to how the mat costs are calculated for t2 mats (or as a last resort all t2 ships could be less insurable), but it should affect all t2 ships, not per-class.
EVE already has enough poorly documented dark corners. Maybe the different insurance rates will be clearly communicated but I sort of doubt it. It would be great if all ships could end up insurable at 100% of mat cost and still reach the goals of "under-insuring" advanced ships, but at least all t2's should insure at the same penalized rate, etc. Per-class risk assessment just gets crazy.
I should note that anything I say about mat costs and ship costs here has to be taken with a humongous grain of salt. When they remove insurance's function as a floor for mineral costs, almost anything could happen to the entire economy including spectacular breakage. This change is subtly but hugely risky for the EVE economy. I'm excited about it.
|
Dwindlehop
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:31:00 -
[182]
Corp-insured ships provide a useful social contract (fly with corp, corp gets payout when you die) that would be tough to replicate with true no premium insurance. If you can come up with a way to make that work, then no premiums would be wonderful.
|
Shepard Book
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:34:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Serpents smile
Originally by: Shepard Book This does not help the sandbox grow. It just makes the weak want to stay in high sec.
Stop telling people to play the game your way.
I guess people crying for an insurance nerf for those killed by concord are not doing the same...Same goes for anyone wanting a buff to being safe in empire...
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:34:00 -
[184]
Insurance
I like the principle, though I would sound a note of caution about the automated process. I strongly encourage a full manual review of the updates before they go live. People will try their best to manipulate and abuse this system, so it will need close monitoring to catch and squish any successful attempts at an early stage.
There is still potential for it to act as an Insurance Exchange Rate, but now it's acting as a limit on the speed of change of mineral prices, rather than a hard floor.
In terms of how that limit acts if there is a crash in mineral prices, there is of course the obvious one of preventing the mineral prices dropping below 70% (or whatever the net insurance payout ratio ends up being) of the basket price at the last insurance refresh. However, that also means that at the next insurance refresh, the insurance basket will only drop to 70% of the previous one. So if "true" mineral prices for some reason crash 50%, it will take 2 insurance refreshes before the full effect of this manifests in actual market prices.
In terms of the Class-specific multipliers to apply to insurance payouts, I don't have specific suggestions for values. I would however encourage the consideration that the same ship class is far more dangerous in some situations than others. For examples, there are lots of barges and industrials trundling around high-sec at very little risk. However, those classes are also used in lowsec and 0.0, where their life is may times more dangerous. Balancing the multiplier based on the large numbers safe in high-sec would be a nasty disincentive to get industrial out in the more dangerous regions of space.
Auto-Insurance
I'm not particularly keen on the idea of removing the choice of whether to insure your ship or not. Whether to insure your ship is a good tactical decision to have to make, as it forces you to make a decision about how likely you are to lose the ship over the time period of the insurance, and whether it is worth risking the 30% premium payment (in the case that your insurance expires without you having lost your ship), or risk the additional hit if you do lose your ship.
The reason the decision doesn't matter right now is because with ships at insurance-fraud prices, you don't actually lose out if you haven't lost your ship, you just self-destruct it yourself before the insurance expires. With the scaling insurance values hopefully keeping us away from insurance-fraud ship prices, the decision of whether to insure or not becomes meaningful again.
What I would agree with is that there are currently far more insurance options than necessary. I'd be perfectly happy if it was simplified to 2 options, None or Platinum. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:37:00 -
[185]
Edited by: Nova Fox on 30/03/2010 18:37:50 I rather have a reminder that Im jumping or undocking in a ship that isnt insured yet with a link to insure now, rather than having the removal of the choices Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 24FEB10
|
Dwindlehop
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:38:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Smyrk EVE already has enough poorly documented dark corners. Maybe the different insurance rates will be clearly communicated but I sort of doubt it. It would be great if all ships could end up insurable at 100% of mat cost and still reach the goals of "under-insuring" advanced ships, but at least all t2's should insure at the same penalized rate, etc. Per-class risk assessment just gets crazy.
My gut reaction was Smyrk was dead wrong, but this paragraph won me over. Please make a system which is easily understood and simple. Favor simplicity over "correctness" in design.
I really don't think the isk involved in interceptor and covert losses is worth fiddling around with separate multipliers. Now, for cap losses, perhaps you are on to something. Maybe you want to create one multiplier for caps and another for sub-caps, or super-caps/caps/sub-caps. Think hard before you divide up sub-caps further: what does the additional complexity really gain you in correctness? The invention chance on larger T2 ships is already substantially poorer than smaller T2 ships, so there will be a natural discrepancy in the value of the payout for newer players vs. older players.
|
Volir
Dot.
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:39:00 -
[187]
How about these premium insurance values 100%: Frigates + Destroyers 75%: Battlecruisers, Battleships, T2 Frigates, and T2 Destroyers 50%: T2 Cruisers 25%: T3 Cruisers, T2 Battlecruisers, T2 Battleships
Subcaps used in large scale combat are 75% or greater. The "elite" pvp ships are all 50% or less. Low SP PVE ships are all 75% or greater while the high SP ships are 25%.
|
Kuseka Adama
Gallente Angels Of Death EVE Free Worlds Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:46:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Dwindlehop Corp-insured ships provide a useful social contract (fly with corp, corp gets payout when you die) that would be tough to replicate with true no premium insurance. If you can come up with a way to make that work, then no premiums would be wonderful.
The idea to make supercapitals 'truly hurt' is as far as i am concerned pricing smaller alliances out of the market entirely. I was in position to propose and launch a supercarrier project within my own group in the next month. I'm no longer considering anything above battleship class if this happens unless we grow to truly large proportions. And i'm talking 1500+ members. Its very simple. A supercarrier takes about 20 bill to assemble. ASSEMBLE! Factor in the prices of Fighter-bombers, fighters, fits and your talking 50 billion with ease.
And before people start going crazy please be serious. Would you take out a ship this expensive without anything short of a pure officer fit? There are any number of ways these ships can be taken out and worst of all the pilot doesn't have to be the reason for several of them. Two big ones that instantly pop to mind. Bad Fleet Commanding (recently exploited in providence and other areas) CCP node death. Which has happened to -A-'s benefit and others. With CCP's current stance on non reimbursement due to such issues (supposedly) You'd have to be crazy to fly one of these things now. Why would you even consider building one? I mean 5 bill in the scheme of things concerning these level of ships isn't much but it at least lets you get back on your feet after you get knocked down.
In the case of Titans its even worse. They've lost their AOE death machine now they're going to have next to no payout for things that just might end up NOT being the pilot's fault. Speaking from the perspective of a smaller alliance i cant justify these ships if the super cap changes go through. Social contracts only work if the corp has the capability and the ISK to endure such a hit. How many smaller factions can afford 20 billion at the drop of a hat or 50 billion? Its a stretch for even a 500 man corp. I hope they rethink this change concerning super cap payout it may seem like a smart idea but it effectively prices smaller alliances out of the market and really is not fair to a lot of people. As it is if it stands they've effectively smashed the dream i had for this character since the day i made it in 07.
Taking names and kicking ass. All in the search for Bubblegum. |
Yachitz
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:52:00 -
[189]
wrt loot as a means of generating minerals -- how difficult would it be to essentially acquire the minerals off the market at cost at a rate equal to what it would cost to produce said loot. A random purchase bot that basically sought out mean prices on the market, and removed a volume of minerals proportional to the amount of loot being dropped/generated would effectively close the system so that all the loot was basically "being made" from the base minerals mined in the eve universe. This would drive up mineral prices significantly probably in the short term until more miners hit the 'roid belts. But fundamentally there has always seemed something odd about being able to produce raw materials from finished products that didn't take raw materials to produce.
|
Zedah Zoid
Adhocracy Incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:54:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Callic Veratar In my view insurance should be purchased for a known payout value, not for the value when the ship explodes. If I insure a ship today for 10M, when it explodes, I should get 10M. Not whatever the current payout is. The hit will come from me buying a new ship from the market if it's doubled or halved in value.
As well, self destructs and CONCORD kills should not pay out insurance. Yes, there are many ways you can easily get yourself killed, but it should require more effort than undocking and shooting at the station. In my view, insurance is an incentive to get more players into PVP. It should not be set up in a way so it can be exploited to make money.
Agree with this.
|
|
Letrange
Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:54:00 -
[191]
A note for those wondering about the T3 insurance and what it means:
Most of the value of a T3 ship comes from melted nanoribbons. There is a 50/50 split between the nanoribbons used in the hulls and in the 5 subsystems fitted to the hull (hull: 26, 5 subsystems: 26). Although not exact this puts the effective insurance value at somewhere in the 50-60% range
Also I'd like to point out to everyone that we're talking about the manufacturing COSTS!!! not the sales price. Bear this in mind. The big problem I have with this is I have to wonder if CCP is using perfect BPOs for their calculations and not what we realy deal with. The net effect of this would be that the calculated costs would be substantially under sales price. This should not affect T1 or T3 that much but can have enourmous devaluation of the insurance payout for T2 where most of the pricing is based on ME:-4 calculations.
|
LtCol Laurentius
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:55:00 -
[192]
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?"
Its about high time CCP does something about the riddiccolous number of supercaps in the game. Currently EVE is heading towards "Titans Online". I believe this change will reduce the attractiveness of them, hopefully (in time) making them the truly unique flagships they were allways meant to be.
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:56:00 -
[193]
The "auto-insurance" is simply increasing the base insurance from 40% to 70%. Sure it will take out the gambling of 30% of the build value to get an additional 30% back but I can't see that as gamebreaking.
Godly scientist/builder/reverse engineer for sale |
Kuseka Adama
Gallente Angels Of Death EVE Free Worlds Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:00:00 -
[194]
Originally by: LtCol Laurentius
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?"
Its about high time CCP does something about the riddiccolous number of supercaps in the game. Currently EVE is heading towards "Titans Online". I believe this change will reduce the attractiveness of them, hopefully (in time) making them the truly unique flagships they were allways meant to be.
Try never seeing them in space. I wanted to make a Nyx the flagship of our group and i had the plans on paper almost complete i was nearly ready to propose the project. I cant justify it now. Not now not if we grow to 1000 players. Your talking a 50 billion hit in Supercarriers. Flat out. 50 billion. Your talking about a hit that an alliance will have a VERY hard time recovering from if they get a bad FC or CCP nodes go out. Like i said in my last post. These changes effectively price smaller outfits out of the supercap market. Titans online isn't good, i agree there. Pricing smaller outfits out of the super cap game entirely however just aint right. I cant think of many outfits able to justify an expenditure of this nature without some kind of reimbursement. With the 5 bill at least you had something to get off the mat with if something went wrong. Now? I wouldnt touch them with a 10 foot pole. Enjoy.
Taking names and kicking ass. All in the search for Bubblegum. |
Jarnis McPieksu
Insidious Existence En Garde
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:02:00 -
[195]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
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.
It is not a matter of "remembering to insure".
It is a gamble - will this ship go boom in the next 3 months or no?
For PvE ships, it usually isn't worth taking that gamble. For PvP ships, it depends - I can assure you that it is not uncommon to see a single BS to last through three months of 0.0 ops. For capitals, it's even worse - Dreads and Carriers rarely see full-blown capital ship battles.
So I'd say either remove the premium or make the insurance period indefinite (or a year or something equally close to "indefinite"). 3 months is annoyingly short, making the whole platinum insurance a gamble.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:02:00 -
[196]
So what you are saying is that because the hit went from 45B to 50B for you, you cant afford it anymore? Really?
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:03:00 -
[197]
Instead of insuring individual ships, what if we had insurance plans that cover all our ships? The default free plan might give 50% of the ship's value, while other plans might give more (up to 70%) for a purchase fee? We could buy plans with different rates for different ships. For example, I might want to take out a plan that offers 80% payout for Electronic warfare ships but only 60% for everything else. Or I might take out a tackler plan that has 80% for frigates and interceptors but 60% for everything else. Perhaps even a Tech 2 plan that gives 65% for Tech 2 ships but 35% for Tech 1 or Tech 3? There's a lot that can be done with the idea.
Another idea might be to have additional insurance plans that are limited to player-corps. The corp CEO might purchase plans for the whole corp and members of the corp could select one of those to use for free or a discounted rate. That'd be proper corp insurance without the micromanagement of manually insuring all the corp ships.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:04:00 -
[198]
Originally by: Derus Grobb Akita is going to explode
Nah, they covered a lot of the things I could have been angry about, so overall, this is far, FAR better than I had expected it to be, at least in theory.
Of course, in practice, the actual numbers (loot drop tables, what they replace meta-0 loot with, how ore and compound refine ratios will be tweaked and so on) will be extremely difficult to get quite right, and I expect a long, painful transitional period even if they WOULD get it almost perfectly right.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar Spikes Chop Shop
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:08:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Derus Grobb Akita is going to explode
Nah, they covered a lot of the things I could have been angry about, so overall, this is far, FAR better than I had expected it to be, at least in theory.
Of course, in practice, the actual numbers (loot drop tables, what they replace meta-0 loot with, how ore and compound refine ratios will be tweaked and so on) will be extremely difficult to get quite right, and I expect a long, painful transitional period even if they WOULD get it almost perfectly right.
there is hope, eh? :) ________________________________ : Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel |
Zarch AlDain
GK inc. Panda Team
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:08:00 -
[200]
WRT making insurance automatic:
I'm one of the people never insures ships, simply because I fly a lot of different ships (so each one only gets flown a little) and don't die that often. I've had way more insurance policies expire than pay up so now I don't bother.
Making insurance automatic would obviously be a benefit from my point of view. From a game balance POV I'm not sure, but I can see it helping newer players in particular out. If a new player saves up for their first cruiser, can't afford insurance, and then loses it, then that will put them back in frigates for a week...
WRT to concorde/suicide ganking/etc.
I understand the objection is that people who accidentally aggress should get a payout in order to protect newer players. Perhaps only block the insurance payout if concorde killed you AND the target of your attack died in the next 15 minutes.
(So delay Concord insurance payouts by 15 minutes, pay up at the end of the 15 minutes if the ship that was the target of the attack is still intact...).
|
|
PeHD0M
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:08:00 -
[201]
I like those changes, but i really hope, that after the Tyranis it will not be useless to loot npc wrecks. There should be some reward in them.
|
Kuseka Adama
Gallente Angels Of Death EVE Free Worlds Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:09:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Furb Killer So what you are saying is that because the hit went from 45B to 50B for you, you cant afford it anymore? Really?
No. They were hard to justify before to be honest. But i could make the argument before hand. Its even worse in titan numbers. Where your talking as much as 100 billion. I mean losing fittings is a part of losing a ship. But I just lost a key leg to stand on in making my argument on why we SHOULD have said pilots. And that 5 bill might not seem much to a plex buyer/seller but for some outfits that is a huge sticking point. That 5 bill usually would get put right back into getting another. Despite what you might think an alliance isn't always overflowing with money it can spend left and right. 5 bill is 5 bill and depending on where you sit its a mountain or a molehill. For my group its a couple of dreadnoughts fully fitted. For the price of a supercarrier we could get a bunch of normal ones with triage mode (something my faction likes) Or a strikeforce of dreadnoughts. Which would YOU buy? The changes to supercarriers made them far more attractive to fly but now your facing getting nothing back no matter what happens. My key problem with this is the fact its damned easy to lose ships when it isnt your fault.
When you lose a ship like that and its your fault you got no one to blame but yourself and i fully agree there. But Lets face it. How many capitals per year get killed because a node goes offline or a Fleet Commander makes a big error: Its a pretty large number. Far larger than the cap v cap kill rate i'd be willing to imagine. Losing 50 billion of investment to an FC error or a node screwup is a hell of a lot harder to swallow when you get nothing back at all than when you get 5 billion back.
Taking names and kicking ass. All in the search for Bubblegum. |
Aynen
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:09:00 -
[203]
Why not let players put out insurance contracts instead of letting insurance be an NPC only market? An entirely new market could emerge from it, having players compete for the best insurance contracts. Ofcourse there are potential pits to fall into when implementing the finer details of the idea, but I reckon they could be solved.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:11:00 -
[204]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Derus Grobb Akita is going to explode
Nah, they covered a lot of the things I could have been angry about, so overall, this is far, FAR better than I had expected it to be, at least in theory.
Of course, in practice, the actual numbers (loot drop tables, what they replace meta-0 loot with, how ore and compound refine ratios will be tweaked and so on) will be extremely difficult to get quite right, and I expect a long, painful transitional period even if they WOULD get it almost perfectly right.
I was going to post the exact same thing. I jumped into this devblog all ready to pick their solution to pieces and look for all the flaws but it's a surprisingly solid idea. They'll need to make sure the index they use is resistant to price manipulation but given the volume of mineral market transactions in EVE, I doubt manipulation on a trade-volume weighted average would be feasible. It's Tech 2 and 3 that I'd be worried about.
The mineral market will go through a period of turmoil and that all depends on how they balance mineral supply. They'll need to periodically re-evaluate the mineral supply from various parts of the game so that the mineral market is balanced closer with manufacturing demand. But with Dr Eyjo on staff, I seriously think they can do it. This should be good!
|
Cuchulain Spartan
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:14:00 -
[205]
The main factor in the loss of a ship in PVP is down to the pilots technique and experience, how it was fitted and what role you filled. Remember a ship can fill multiple roles that increase or decrease the level of danger it is expected to encounter. eg sniper, tackler, gank, tank, RR, bait etc so basing your insurance level off of the expected role of the ship is incorrect in my opinion.
Just come up with a standard insurance table that is applied to all classes regardless of tech level, 20/40/60/80 % of average ship value at time of insurance purchase. If someone wants to pay 30-50 mil to insure a HAC then let them. If they want to pay 200 mil to insure a Black Ops then let them.
I dont fly Capitals but the nerf there seems a bit steep. |
Tetragammatron Prime
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:14:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Kuseka Adama
Originally by: LtCol Laurentius
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?"
Its about high time CCP does something about the riddiccolous number of supercaps in the game. Currently EVE is heading towards "Titans Online". I believe this change will reduce the attractiveness of them, hopefully (in time) making them the truly unique flagships they were allways meant to be.
Try never seeing them in space. I wanted to make a Nyx the flagship of our group and i had the plans on paper almost complete i was nearly ready to propose the project. I cant justify it now. Not now not if we grow to 1000 players. Your talking a 50 billion hit in Supercarriers. Flat out. 50 billion. Your talking about a hit that an alliance will have a VERY hard time recovering from if they get a bad FC or CCP nodes go out. Like i said in my last post. These changes effectively price smaller outfits out of the supercap market. Titans online isn't good, i agree there. Pricing smaller outfits out of the super cap game entirely however just aint right. I cant think of many outfits able to justify an expenditure of this nature without some kind of reimbursement. With the 5 bill at least you had something to get off the mat with if something went wrong. Now? I wouldnt touch them with a 10 foot pole. Enjoy.
yes...should be take 50bil hit instead of people lose titan then you see them sitting in a new one next week. If you can't afford titan loss then as always don't fly what you can't afford to lose. Titan/MS is not "required" ship.
Very happy for any chance to dictor/ceptor insurance.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:20:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Nyphur I jumped into this devblog all ready to pick their solution to pieces and look for all the flaws but it's a surprisingly solid idea.
My surprise was not so much that they were willing to change here and there, but that, for the first time, they really put together almost all possible pieces that might have an influence and made (at least it seems they will make) a serious change in each and every one of them. Pleasantly surprised doesn't even begin to cover it.
Now we have to wait for the exact numbers before a final verdict. A lot of things can still go wrong, but at least they're on the right track this time.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Caldari Citizen4714
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:23:00 -
[208]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Our intention is that we can make certain ship classes pay out much less, some closer to the full value.
Here we can then say that a tackler class which is a highly dangerous role and prone to see you dying a lot might pay out more than say a specialist covert ops class of ship has a higher survival rate. So players who fly the ships with short life expectancies will be more sustainable to fly on lower incomes, and the same can be applied to more casual ship classes such as cruisers or battlecruisers used more by newer players to allow them to get to grips with the game whilst not losing everything constantly.
On the high end game play side of this is the role of strategic ship classes as valuable targets. Here we refer to them as supercapitals, the largest classes of ships in the game which cannot dock in stations. Currently they get a default payout of 40% of the old static value of the ship which is around 5 billion ISK for supercarriers and 20 billion for titans.
The idea is that these are cut to a fraction of their current payout values so they might only get 1-10% for example of the base build value of their ships. This is done with the intention of making strategic ship classes be more valuable targets and their death have much stronger meaning and value.
This is awesome!
Originally by: CCP Chronotis We have our own ideas for how much of the full insurance value we want to payout for each ship class which generally is 100% for Tech 1 ship groups, 20-60% for Tech 2 and 100% for Tech 3 ships (those this is only a portion of the value of the entire ship since subsystems are not included currently). However we are interested in your feedback on what you think they should be for each ship class and why.
Payout shouldn't have anything to do with T1/T2/T3. The only reason we see T2 stuff as riskier/less viable today is solely because of the awful insurance payout. Is this desirable for some reason? I can see making them more valuable to sell so that people have incentive to make them, but why hurt the buyer so much with the lack of decent insurance? It discourages flying them, which in turn discourages purchasing them, which in turn discourages making them since it's not as profitable....
Why not base the insurance on how likely to be primaried they are? Or how few hit points they can manage to have? Or a combination of the two? Deciding based on tech level seems to be arbitrary and discourages using the more advanced ships in favor of cheaper alternatives. But the only reason they're cheaper is the high cost coupled with low insurance payout. The training time required for them is already sufficient barrier I think to allow some feeling of progression.
Ideally, any insurance formula in a game designed to be fun should include as many factors as possible to result in as much fun as possible. I think there's a tremendous opportunity here to make the game more enjoyable by making the higher end stuff more attainable wallet-wise. - Support DISBANDING the Alliance CCP Renamed at the Alliance's Request |
Cuchulain Spartan
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:25:00 -
[209]
Looks like a stealth nerf to curb inflation aswell.70% payout on t1 and reduction in Supper Cap payout is a nice way to take a lot of isk out of the game. |
Xander XacXorien
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:28:00 -
[210]
I don't find the proposals either realistic or sensible.
Insurance should not pay out for suicides and neither should it be used to support a floor for mineral prices. If you wish to support suicides then try and at least bring some sort of storyline to it - goddamn this game is boring me to death with it's lack of imagination - bring in fudal lords or some such which use profits from piracy to fund ganking. Can't CCP please put some realism into the game play ?
Nerfing missions again ? Well they are a standby for at least SOME fun in Eve and the possibility of AT LEAST progressing somewhere in the game. I think CCP has lost sight of fun in Eve, not everyone enjoys PvP - some prefer to make stuff, some prefer to trade, some prefer to mine. Stop spending years of dev time on what has turned out to be fruitless gameplay changes in 0.0 and start trying to bring some fun to other aspects in the game. Perhaps then you'll gain a new perspective on how 0.0 should work.
To provide a floor to minerals and bring it into the storyline you should get NPC's to buy minerals, ships and modules to fund their mission activities - at least this would then make some sense and provide some kind of recursive aspect to Eve game play.
Sorry to be so negative but just bored of Eve at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |