| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Furb Killer
Gallente
   |
Posted - 2010.05.30 08:13:00 -
[31]
New insurance is crap and broken (if the devblog was correct). But old one wasnt perfect either, ships that are essentially free to lose gave way too many issues.
|
Afrodite Draconis
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 08:21:00 -
[32]
LOL THE TEARS ARE SO DELICIOUS!
THANK YOU CCP!
|
Headerman
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 10:10:00 -
[33]
X
i thought ship prices revolved around insurance prices before...
|
Tosi
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 10:43:00 -
[34]
lol how clueless can people be XD
|
Katarlia Simov
Minmatar
Cowboys From Hell
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 14:45:00 -
[35]
I think that the insurance system was in need of an overhaul, but I really don't think the new system has achieved anything.
Before we had it so that a t2 fitted bs was not a huge blow, but it was FAR from 'riskless' or 'free', especially if you fit it with trimarks and so forth. Not as huge a loss as it could have been.
Now, we have basically the same, just its a marginally bigger loss. Not like a VASTLY different one. Just kind of a '**** you' to the people who can't afford it.
That kinda annoys me, but doesn't really make much difference to me.
The thing that DOES annoy me is that 'overhaul' or insurance, seems to have forgotten t2 and t3. t2 insurance especially, is insultingly small. A HAC pays out the cost of an inty :S ? I see... Totally different from before. I mean ... an increase THAT small, and THAT far from the market value is a biiiiig let down.
CCP said that t2 was supposed to cost like 30mil per ship, but we have never EVER been close to that, and I think that its time to admit that the free market has determined the price point, and we need to calibrate to that rather than to a unrealistic 'mineral cost'.
If you are going to apply some kind of market based formula DO IT FOR EVERYTHING. Just doing it to the only ships that were really worth insuring before kinda implies that they don't want anyone to bother with the insurance system.
|
Gandar Kimokanen
Reikoku
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 15:01:00 -
[36]
X
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 15:19:00 -
[37]
 Originally by: Katarlia Simov
The thing that DOES annoy me is that 'overhaul' or insurance, seems to have forgotten t2 and t3. t2 insurance especially, is insultingly small. A HAC pays out the cost of an inty :S ? I see... Totally different from before. I mean ... an increase THAT small, and THAT far from the market value is a biiiiig let down.
Yeah, it's a small change for T2 and for some ships smaller then they deserve (interceptor/AF/dictor), but it does make sense. People who want disposable T2 cruiser hulls are always going to be dissapointed, you won't ever get that (and making stuff like recons cheap to lose would be just idiotic anyway while the argument could be made for HACs/etc).
T1 is good and fine now. A BS isn't so dirt cheap/free and that tiers mean something, and that's good. Pre-Tyrannis ****fit BS were probably the most cost-effective ships in the game and costed complete peanuts; the only way BS losses hurt were if you fit trimarks on them.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
NoNah
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 16:16:00 -
[38]
Basing prices on market values would ONLY lead to more expensive ships as it would then be a great deal for most producers to just blow their own ships up - or hire someone to do it, much like we saw when t1 ships were similiar.
Personally I find anything that diminish the use of insurace a good thing. An interesting solution would however be to limit insurance greatly: No payout if there is no killmail, if anyone from your corp is on it, if concord is on it(Probably excluding the lowsec variety - but not necessarily) and limit it to 12 hours or something similiar. Sadly, it'd also have to protect itself from alts, so have something like if the same person appears on more than 3 killmails of yours within a weeks time, any insurance with him on it beyond that is void. Or something such.
Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 800414
|
Cipher Jones
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 22:27:00 -
[39]
TBH the way it should have been from the begining;
You pay a deductible and they replace the ship instead of giving you ISK.
All problems solved.
This is clearly a signature. |
Ka choop
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 22:41:00 -
[40]
Quote Malcanis if you don't agree with the OP Originally by: Malcanis
The new insurance system is totally awesome, and a long overdue adjustment.
Now your ship losses actually mean something.
And not that you guys care about the economy, but this change stops a vast ISK fountain.
Losing your ship should hurt. And not only if you're a miner losing his hulk to a suicide gank by 0-cost battleships.
|
Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 22:57:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Cipher Jones
TBH the way it should have been from the begining;
You pay a deductible and they replace the ship instead of giving you ISK.
All problems solved.
Right because the industrial side of the game deserves to be screwed with even more.
-Jin Nib
Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since:
2009.03.02 03:53:00
|
ZigZag Joe
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 02:50:00 -
[42]
new system sucks balls.
if they reduced the cost proportionally to the new cost, then, we might have something worth using.
|
ColdKut
The Dominion of Light
Opticon Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 03:19:00 -
[43]
I find it funny how many people cry bout the new insurance. The insurance is a percentage of the cost to build the ship based on current mineral prices. The old insurance was based off old mineral prices when you would have to pay 120mil for a tier 2 BS and about 80-90mil for tier 1s. I think the insurance the way it is now is fine. Just means some people have to farm a bit more instead of getting basically free tech 1 ships.
|
F90OEX
F9X
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 04:44:00 -
[44]
"Now your ship losses actually mean something"
This tbh.....
|
Baron Wikkheiser
The Dark Horses
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 04:59:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Malcanis
The new insurance system is totally awesome, and a long overdue adjustment.
Now your ship losses actually mean something.
And not that you guys care about the economy, but this change stops a vast ISK fountain.
Yes, because people in this game need even more motivation to only commit to fights they know for sure they can win 
|
Khin'charin
Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 06:03:00 -
[46]
Originally by: egegergergsdgedgege
I disagree with the op.
-Khin
I run L4's in my rifter.
|
Khin'charin
Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 06:11:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Baron Wikkheiser
Originally by: Malcanis
The new insurance system is totally awesome, and a long overdue adjustment.
Now your ship losses actually mean something.
And not that you guys care about the economy, but this change stops a vast ISK fountain.
Yes, because people in this game need even more motivation to only commit to fights they know for sure they can win
So, people didn't do this already you mean?
LOL.
Is that so?
-Khin
I run L4's in my rifter.
|
Miriiah
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 07:54:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Katarlia Simov
I think that the insurance system was in need of an overhaul, but I really don't think the new system has achieved anything.
Before we had it so that a t2 fitted bs was not a huge blow, but it was FAR from 'riskless' or 'free', especially if you fit it with trimarks and so forth. Not as huge a loss as it could have been.
Now, we have basically the same, just its a marginally bigger loss. Not like a VASTLY different one. Just kind of a '**** you' to the people who can't afford it.
That kinda annoys me, but doesn't really make much difference to me.
The thing that DOES annoy me is that 'overhaul' or insurance, seems to have forgotten t2 and t3. t2 insurance especially, is insultingly small. A HAC pays out the cost of an inty :S ? I see... Totally different from before. I mean ... an increase THAT small, and THAT far from the market value is a biiiiig let down.
CCP said that t2 was supposed to cost like 30mil per ship, but we have never EVER been close to that, and I think that its time to admit that the free market has determined the price point, and we need to calibrate to that rather than to a unrealistic 'mineral cost'.
If you are going to apply some kind of market based formula DO IT FOR EVERYTHING. Just doing it to the only ships that were really worth insuring before kinda implies that they don't want anyone to bother with the insurance system.
Bougt 2 Ishtars for 35M or so back in the days, so it was close to it at some point :p
Oh, the days of Naga Corporation :o
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 09:57:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Baron Wikkheiser
Originally by: Malcanis
The new insurance system is totally awesome, and a long overdue adjustment.
Now your ship losses actually mean something.
And not that you guys care about the economy, but this change stops a vast ISK fountain.
Yes, because people in this game need even more motivation to only commit to fights they know for sure they can win
People like that wont even fight with ships that someone else gives them for free.
|
Baron Wikkheiser
The Dark Horses
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 17:58:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Khin'charin
Originally by: Baron Wikkheiser
Originally by: Malcanis
The new insurance system is totally awesome, and a long overdue adjustment.
Now your ship losses actually mean something.
And not that you guys care about the economy, but this change stops a vast ISK fountain.
Yes, because people in this game need even more motivation to only commit to fights they know for sure they can win
So, people didn't do this already you mean?
LOL.
Is that so?
Why are you even here?
maybe you need to go take some ritalin or something, because i clearly implied that people already did this. They would only do it more since ship losses are more costly now.
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 19:04:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Baron Wikkheiser
They would only do it more since ship losses are more costly now.
It still isn't a good argument for free ships tbh. The problem with ***gotry isn't isk, it's ***gotry.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Zarnak Wulf
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 19:12:00 -
[52]
I'm still scratching my head a bit at this. Loot from lvl 4 missions were supplying alot of the minerals used to buy ships through reprocessing - so those minerals were dirt cheap. Mission loot got nerfed. That's where we're at now, right? So if mineral prices go up? Miners become important again... and the price of both ships and insurance goes up. Does that sum it up? This might be a more interesting discussion in a couple of months.
|
Backho
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 21:11:00 -
[53]
Personally i think otherwise.
T1 ships is fine.
For example, if you are riding a PVE battleship, CNR in motsu.
Having 100k-120k EHP means that you need a huuuuuuge ammount of battlecruiser/battleship gankers to gank you down (since CONCORD helps you before a second alpha).
Before the insurance change, it is profitable to suicide 20 ravens (6k alpha * 20 = 120k) in motsu.Simply because each raven hull is only -500k ~ 500k in price, and siege missile II is only 1m each.BCU unit is 600k/ unit
Total cost of gank is 20* (600x2 + 1*6) which is around 144m.
That means if two or more of your caldari navy BCU falls off, they make a profit out of you.
However now, insuring and blowing a battleship gives at least a 20-25m loss to the battleship itself.
Battlecruisers has a 10-15m loss to the hull.
That means 20 Battleship motsu suicide gank will cost 644m instead of 144m, and is much much more difficult to gain back.
While a 20 battlecruiser gank will still cost 300m+ instead of 50m. Still very costly.
T1 changes are excellent. Now we mission runners can safely undock as long as
1) you are in NPC corp
2) no kill rights
3) you have less then 400-500m of modules on a battleship.
incredible buff of high sec mission running by lowering risk.
However T2 insurance still leaves much to be desired.
marauders, black ops all has incredible bonus on their T1 counterparts.But the reason we dont see em is because of cost.
This should be rechecked by CCP.
We should increase insurance pay proportional to production cost of the ship instead of the mineral cost.
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 21:22:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Backho
However T2 insurance still leaves much to be desired.
marauders, black ops all has incredible bonus on their T1 counterparts.But the reason we dont see em is because of cost.
This should be rechecked by CCP.
We should increase insurance pay proportional to production cost of the ship instead of the mineral cost.
T2 should hurt to lose.
Also, most T2 BS are in fact crap and that's why you see them not so often, half of them are niche ships (black ops) which are not designed to outdo T1 for gank&tank purposes which is why most people use a BS and the rest are PVE-mobiles more or less (Kronos being somewhat of a exception). Pirate battleships are more designed for pimp BS PVP, and you actually see those now and then.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Kellen Ved
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 22:04:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Markey
when i first started playing this game there used to be a saying that all PVPers knew....
"If you cant afford to loose it, dont fly it"
lose lose lose lose lose lose lose lose
|
Byzan Zwyth
Firebird Squadron
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 22:16:00 -
[56]
when you die CCP gives you a free ship at the station, that's all the insurance I need.
Sig removed. Lacks EVE related content. For more information feel free to contact [email protected]. ~Saint |
Idocrase
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 22:55:00 -
[57]
Mmm, delicious suicide ganker tears. Numnumnum.
|
Zarnak Wulf
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 23:10:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Backho
However T2 insurance still leaves much to be desired.
marauders, black ops all has incredible bonus on their T1 counterparts.But the reason we dont see em is because of cost.
This should be rechecked by CCP.
We should increase insurance pay proportional to production cost of the ship instead of the mineral cost.
T2 should hurt to lose.
Also, most T2 BS are in fact crap and that's why you see them not so often, half of them are niche ships (black ops) which are not designed to outdo T1 for gank&tank purposes which is why most people use a BS and the rest are PVE-mobiles more or less (Kronos being somewhat of a exception). Pirate battleships are more designed for pimp BS PVP, and you actually see those now and then.
Anyone who has partaken in Black Op Ninja Fleets would agree that those particular T2 BS are not crap. 
|
Psiri
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 23:33:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Idocrase
Mmm, delicious suicide ganker tears. Numnumnum.
... or just legit PvPers who actually try to make a small profit of piracy, instead of farming with their alts on the side or buying plexes.
|
Athena Silk
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 23:55:00 -
[60]
The T1 insurance changes were needed, IMO, and seem fairly decent. As much as I miss my 7.5 mil T1/named Hyperion, they were way too cheap for what they are, and needed a change. And it also gives us a reason to fly Cruisers again, as a T2 fit BC is now a good 10-15 mil more than a T2-fit Cruiser.
I am disappointed with T2 insurance, however. Payout on a Taranis has gone from 1.5 mil to 3.8 mil, with insurance cost going from 800k to 1.5 mil, on a 15 mil hull, so it's still only covering a small faction of the cost (25% payout, more like 15% coverage), not the 50-60% that CCP implied for ships that frequently get destroyed (AFs, 'dictors, Interceptors).
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |