EVE Search - New insurance is breaking former contracts

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

New insurance is breaking former contracts

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Misunderstood Genius	Posted - 2010.05.31 23:58:00 - [1] Edited by: Misunderstood Genius on 31/05/2010 23:59:00 CCP changed the insurance pay and payout. No problem to me so far. But I agreed to an insurance contract BEFORE Tyrannis for 30,5m at 105m payout. That is effectively 74,5m I will receive in a case of loss. After the patch I received 68m. That is effectively 37,5. Due to design changes I lost 37m. Not big ISK but a contract is a contract. Period. (just imagine what this will mean for a Carrier loss). Me was told this is a result of game design changes. ISK is rl time or money. rl time is money. Period. I will not accept that CCP "steals" ISK by their changes. They need to handle this case right and customer friendly, please.
Valeronx Celestial Horizon Corp. United Corporate Ventures	Posted - 2010.05.31 23:59:00 - [2] You are wrong. Period.
Misunderstood Genius	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:04:00 - [3] Originally by: Valeronx You are wrong. Period. Just explain and I try to understand. (EVE forums ofc sighs)
Shinnen Caldari Northern Intelligence	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:09:00 - [4] I agree that it's odd that the insurance also changed on a ship that you insured before the changes. But then again, I imagine it would have been a hassle to code for the insurance of ships pre- and post-changes. Sorry for your loss =[
Felix Esperium Lysergic Distortions Research and Development	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:15:00 - [5] this should be merged with the thread from the guy who insured 90+ ravens pre-patch
THERisingPHOENIX Caldari TWiZTED CHAOZ	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:18:00 - [6] Changes has been already done and just like what Shinnen said, it will be a total hassle to change the game code. Though this will make ppl plan fleet tatics better and fly their ships / cap ships at more care.
Misunderstood Genius	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:20:00 - [7] Originally by: Shinnen I agree that it's odd that the insurance also changed on a ship that you insured before the changes. But then again, I imagine it would have been a hassle to code for the insurance of ships pre- and post-changes. Sorry for your loss =[ Well, I am not the only one affected by this. I can understand what you say but that's definitely CCP's problem. Just imagine that a design change need to reset all wallets to zero. I just want to illustrate with this example that there's no difference if it's 10m ISK or 10bil ISK. Players have to follow CCP's EULA or they have to deal with consequences. Same has CCP to do with "ingame contracts".
Lothros Andastar Gallente	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:21:00 - [8] Originally by: Misunderstood Genius Edited by: Misunderstood Genius on 31/05/2010 23:59:00 CCP changed the insurance pay and payout. No problem to me so far. But I agreed to an insurance contract BEFORE Tyrannis for 30,5m at 105m payout. That is effectively 74,5m I will receive in a case of loss. After the patch I received 68m. That is effectively 37,5. Due to design changes I lost 37m. Not big ISK but a contract is a contract. Period. (just imagine what this will mean for a Carrier loss). Me was told this is a result of game design changes. ISK is rl time or money. rl time is money. Period. I will not accept that CCP "steals" ISK by their changes. They need to handle this case right and customer friendly, please. Guess what moron, the EULA is also a contract. Read it. You will find CCP can pretty much choose to delete your account whenever they want, and you can do jack ** about it. My advice? Stop ***ing and count yourself lucky they don't.
Cailais Amarr British Armoured Division	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:28:00 - [9] Originally by: Misunderstood Genius Originally by: Shinnen I agree that it's odd that the insurance also changed on a ship that you insured before the changes. But then again, I imagine it would have been a hassle to code for the insurance of ships pre- and post-changes. Sorry for your loss =[ Well, I am not the only one affected by this. I can understand what you say but that's definitely CCP's problem. Just imagine that a design change need to reset all wallets to zero. I just want to illustrate with this example that there's no difference if it's 10m ISK or 10bil ISK. Players have to follow CCP's EULA or they have to deal with consequences. Same has CCP to do with "ingame contracts". Well if you read the EULA you'd find that: "Your Account, and all attributes of your Account, including all corporations, actions, groups, titles and characters, and all objects, currency and items acquired, developed or delivered by or to characters as a result of play through your Accounts, are the sole and exclusive property of CCP.." So you actually haven't lost anything as it wasn't yours to start with. Fly safe! C. the hydrostatic capsule blog
Misunderstood Genius	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:28:00 - [10] Edited by: Misunderstood Genius on 01/06/2010 00:33:30 Originally by: THERisingPHOENIX Changes has been already done and just like what Shinnen said, it will be a total hassle to change the game code. Though this will make ppl plan fleet tatics better and fly their ships / cap ships at more care. Well, from technical pov I understood. In this case I would really recommend to everyone who is experiencing the same problem: Petition and escalate to a senior GM. Finally it's a similar hassle but not affecting the game code but CCP staff. That seems to be the only way to fix this "very wrong designed case". Breaching this ingame contract is to me like breaching their EULA by players.
Zaknussem Intrum Industria	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:34:00 - [11] So everybody has been committing insurance fraud here on a galactic scale and nobody cares one iota, but when the insurance company suddenly starts scamming back... You'd think the insurance HQ was located in Soviet Russia.
Balsak Minmatar Friends of Bigfoot	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:36:00 - [12] Originally by: Misunderstood Genius Edited by: Misunderstood Genius on 01/06/2010 00:33:30 Originally by: THERisingPHOENIX Changes has been already done and just like what Shinnen said, it will be a total hassle to change the game code. Though this will make ppl plan fleet tatics better and fly their ships / cap ships at more care. Well, from technical pov I understood. In this case I would really recommend to everyone who is experiencing the same problem: Petition and escalate to a senior GM. Finally it's a similar hassle but not affecting the game code but CCP staff. That seems to be the only way to fix this "very wrong designed case". Breaching this ingame contract is to me like breaching their EULA by players. So just because you feel somehow cheated when in fact you weren't and you understand why CCP did it this way you still want to tell people to file bogus petition just to cause CCP a hassle ?
Misunderstood Genius	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:37:00 - [13] Edited by: Misunderstood Genius on 01/06/2010 00:39:03 Originally by: Lothros Andastar Originally by: Misunderstood Genius Edited by: Misunderstood Genius on 31/05/2010 23:59:00 CCP changed the insurance pay and payout. No problem to me so far. But I agreed to an insurance contract BEFORE Tyrannis for 30,5m at 105m payout. That is effectively 74,5m I will receive in a case of loss. After the patch I received 68m. That is effectively 37,5. Due to design changes I lost 37m. Not big ISK but a contract is a contract. Period. (just imagine what this will mean for a Carrier loss). Me was told this is a result of game design changes. ISK is rl time or money. rl time is money. Period. I will not accept that CCP "steals" ISK by their changes. They need to handle this case right and customer friendly, please. Guess what moron, the EULA is also a contract. Read it. You will find CCP can pretty much choose to delete your account whenever they want, and you can do jack ** about it. My advice? Stop ***ing and count yourself lucky they don't. Yes, if they have a serious reason they will kick player paying them. I know. There's an EULA meant to protect the product and interests of CCP. Correct. Makes sense from point of law. But there are also customers investing time and money. Both are needed or there's no EVE. Thanks for your very kind answer.
Misunderstood Genius	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:45:00 - [14] Edited by: Misunderstood Genius on 01/06/2010 00:53:26 Originally by: Balsak Originally by: Misunderstood Genius Edited by: Misunderstood Genius on 01/06/2010 00:33:30 Originally by: THERisingPHOENIX Changes has been already done and just like what Shinnen said, it will be a total hassle to change the game code. Though this will make ppl plan fleet tatics better and fly their ships / cap ships at more care. Well, from technical pov I understood. In this case I would really recommend to everyone who is experiencing the same problem: Petition and escalate to a senior GM. Finally it's a similar hassle but not affecting the game code but CCP staff. That seems to be the only way to fix this "very wrong designed case". Breaching this ingame contract is to me like breaching their EULA by players. So just because you feel somehow cheated when in fact you weren't and you understand why CCP did it this way you still want to tell people to file bogus petition just to cause CCP a hassle ? You misunderstood what I meant. A code change will be too much hassle. But if thousands of player petition this can be also too much hassle. A petiton seems to be the only way to talk to CCP. And I am sure a lot of player will do it depending how much they lost by this change. And I guess we have the right to petition if we need answers and eventually a solution. And to me the result of the insurance change is treating customers wrong - investing their time, money, GTC whatever else to support CCP and the game dev. END OF THREAD!
Svarty II Minmatar	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:52:00 - [15] I got an notification telling me they'd pay me 100% of the ship cost. Interestingly that will be ~25m, which is 3m less than I paid for my ship. Therefore: 100% < 90% Genius. Thanks for showing the rest of the universe the error of their ways, CCP. Truly, we are morons who sully your intelligence with our faith in simple mathematics.
Balsak Minmatar Friends of Bigfoot	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:53:00 - [16] Edited by: Balsak on 01/06/2010 00:55:08 Originally by: Misunderstood Genius Originally by: Balsak Originally by: Misunderstood Genius Edited by: Misunderstood Genius on 01/06/2010 00:33:30 Originally by: THERisingPHOENIX Changes has been already done and just like what Shinnen said, it will be a total hassle to change the game code. Though this will make ppl plan fleet tatics better and fly their ships / cap ships at more care. Well, from technical pov I understood. In this case I would really recommend to everyone who is experiencing the same problem: Petition and escalate to a senior GM. Finally it's a similar hassle but not affecting the game code but CCP staff. That seems to be the only way to fix this "very wrong designed case". Breaching this ingame contract is to me like breaching their EULA by players. So just because you feel somehow cheated when in fact you weren't and you understand why CCP did it this way you still want to tell people to file bogus petition just to cause CCP a hassle ? A petiton seems to be the only way to talk to CCP. And I guess we have the right to petition if we need answers and eventually a solution. And to me the insurance change is treating customers wrong - investing their time, money, GTC whatever else to support CCP and the game dev. Well as long as you are admitting to it then go right ahead and waste peoples time and punish those who have legitimate petitions by making them wait even longer Look man, everyone knew the insurance changes were coming and exactly why they were being done. At this point you are just being petty and vindictive for no reason other than your own personal gratification. Can you say selfish ? You aren't some helpless victim who was so wrongfully abused. You are playing an ever changing game and these types of things are going to happen, get over it or take your money elsewhere which is how you get your message through to companies. Edit: I just noticed you edited your post with "END OF THREAD". ROFL. Please do yourself a favor, get over your over inflated sense of self worth.
Washell Olivaw	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:54:00 - [17] Originally by: Misunderstood Genius Not big ISK but a contract is a contract. Period. Assuming you signed with your character name, you're now guilty of fraud. Or is it perhaps not a legally binding contract? This reminds me of the urban myth of a guy who insured his expensive cigars against fire, then filed a claim after smoking them. Company sued, lost, paid and counter sued for arson, and won. Originally by: Signature Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
James Tritanius	Posted - 2010.06.01 00:55:00 - [18] Originally by: Lothros Andastar Guess what moron, the EULA is also a contract. Read it. You will find CCP can pretty much choose to delete your account whenever they want, and you can do jack ** about it. My advice? Stop ***ing and count yourself lucky they don't. You are the moron. I should count myself lucky that CCP doesn't ban my account arbitrarily? It's a business. The game has a monthly subscription fee. It's like saying that you should feel lucky that McDonald's doesn't kick you out of the store for absolutely no reason at all. Also, I can do a lot about it if CCP starts to abuse its powers. For example, awareness raising. What happens if CCP is known to arbitrarily ban paying customers? It will decrease customer satisfaction and scare away potential customers, which will start an avalanche effect that destroys its customer base (and all possible means of income.) On Topic: I am not actively against compensation to pre-patch insurance contracts. I have ships that were insured before Tyrannis as well.
Misunderstood Genius	Posted - 2010.06.01 01:04:00 - [19] Originally by: Washell Olivaw Originally by: Misunderstood Genius Not big ISK but a contract is a contract. Period. Assuming you signed with your character name, you're now guilty of fraud. Or is it perhaps not a legally binding contract? This reminds me of the urban myth of a guy who insured his expensive cigars against fire, then filed a claim after smoking them. Company sued, lost, paid and counter sued for arson, and won. The cigars legend is funny but has nothing to do with the EVE's ship insurance :-D
BeanBagKing Ch3mic4l Warfare STR8NGE BREW	Posted - 2010.06.01 01:28:00 - [20] I like your name, it fits your topic well.
Fearless M0F0 Blue Republic	Posted - 2010.06.01 02:13:00 - [21] Originally by: Shinnen But then again, I imagine it would have been a hassle to code for the insurance of ships pre- and post-changes. I agree with OP, a contract is a contract. I'm impressed there was no more whining about this when it was announced. It is a shame that CCP devs didn't bother to add a couple extra fields to the items database (insurance payout amount, insurance expiration date), so when insurance premiums change they don't affect already insured items. -- Fearless M0F0> RELEASE TEH KRAKEN! Teh Kraken> RAWR
Nooma K'Larr Minmatar	Posted - 2010.06.01 02:17:00 - [22] your mommy dresses you funny ------------------------------------------------ Urging CCP to work on current issues next expansion.
Boogie Bobby	Posted - 2010.06.01 02:19:00 - [23] Judge Judy would probably be interested in hearing this case.
Psionist	Posted - 2010.06.01 03:05:00 - [24] In eve, a contract is just a suggestion I guess.
Thuranni Eldjotnar	Posted - 2010.06.01 03:21:00 - [25] You entered into a "contract" with a fictional entity, Pend Insurance. Quote: ISK is rl time or money. rl time is money. Period. ISK has no RL value.
Cipher Jones Minmatar	Posted - 2010.06.01 03:24:00 - [26] Edited by: Cipher Jones on 01/06/2010 03:24:46 Originally by: Misunderstood Genius Edited by: Misunderstood Genius on 31/05/2010 23:59:00 CCP changed the insurance pay and payout. No problem to me so far. But I agreed to an insurance contract BEFORE Tyrannis for 30,5m at 105m payout. That is effectively 74,5m I will receive in a case of loss. After the patch I received 68m. That is effectively 37,5. Due to design changes I lost 37m. Not big ISK but a contract is a contract. Period. (just imagine what this will mean for a Carrier loss). Me was told this is a result of game design changes. ISK is rl time or money. rl time is money. Period. I will not accept that CCP "steals" ISK by their changes. They need to handle this case right and customer friendly, please. Actually, here is the deal: Quote: The selected item will be insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. Repackaging the item will void the contract... You can go on to read the rest of the in game contract but the point is, nowhere in the contract does it say that the full amount of insurance must be paid. In real life Larry Silverstein couldn't even get his full 7 billion payout with the best lawyers in NYC. This is clearly a signature.
Napro Caldari Buccaneers of New Eden death from above..	Posted - 2010.06.01 03:28:00 - [27] Originally by: Thuranni You entered into a "contract" with a fictional entity, Pend Insurance. Quote: ISK is rl time or money. rl time is money. Period. ISK has no RL value. You should stop by the Timecode Bazaar sometime... it'll blow your mind
Usagi Tsukino Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2010.06.01 07:50:00 - [28] Didn't we already have this thread? __________ Multispectacular.
baltec1 Antares Shipyards Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2010.06.01 08:13:00 - [29] Originally by: Felix Esperium this should be merged with the thread from the guy who insured 90+ ravens pre-patch Nah. Fail of that magnatude deserves to be left on its own to bask in all of that glory.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.06.01 08:55:00 - [30] Insurance is now designed to underpay if the value of the ship drops during the course of the contract, which is effectively what happened here. Working as intended. - DesuSigs - Now with ThreadAssignÖ and SigSelectÖ
Sader Rykane Amarr Midnight Sentinels Midnight Space Syndicate	Posted - 2010.06.01 08:59:00 - [31] Originally by: Napro Originally by: Thuranni You entered into a "contract" with a fictional entity, Pend Insurance. Quote: ISK is rl time or money. rl time is money. Period. ISK has no RL value. You should stop by the Timecode Bazaar sometime... it'll blow your mind RL money has an isk value. But ISK does not "legally" have a RL money value. Sig Gallery is currently down: Contact me ingame for prices.
Ryhss Caldari Victory Fleet Systems C.H.A.L.I.C.E.	Posted - 2010.06.01 09:12:00 - [32] Originally by: Misunderstood Genius Originally by: Valeronx You are wrong. Period. Just explain and I try to understand. (EVE forums ofc sighs) I agree with you Misunderstood.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2010.06.01 09:19:00 - [33] Originally by: Misunderstood Genius Originally by: Shinnen I agree that it's odd that the insurance also changed on a ship that you insured before the changes. But then again, I imagine it would have been a hassle to code for the insurance of ships pre- and post-changes. Sorry for your loss =[ Well, I am not the only one affected by this. I can understand what you say but that's definitely CCP's problem. Just imagine that a design change need to reset all wallets to zero. I just want to illustrate with this example that there's no difference if it's 10m ISK or 10bil ISK. Players have to follow CCP's EULA or they have to deal with consequences. Same has CCP to do with "ingame contracts". The insurance agreed to pay you 100% of the ship mineral value at the moment of the loss. Between the time you insured the ship and the time it was destroyed that value got recalculated to keep it up with current prices instead of using outdated prices. You are still getting 100% of the ship value as set by the game, simply that value has changed to reflect the current value of the minerals.
Misunderstood Genius	Posted - 2010.06.01 09:20:00 - [34] Originally by: Sader Rykane Originally by: Napro Originally by: Thuranni You entered into a "contract" with a fictional entity, Pend Insurance. Quote: ISK is rl time or money. rl time is money. Period. ISK has no RL value. You should stop by the Timecode Bazaar sometime... it'll blow your mind RL money has an isk value. But ISK does not "legally" have a RL money value. We are not talking about the forbidden case of selling ISK. When I buy GTC's for EUR 26,00 and get ingame 500m ISK, ISK will have a rl money value for me. A full fitted Megathron is something around EUR 10-12 in this case. When I invest rl time to earn ISK it has a rl value. In this case it's time. For some time seem to have no rl money value. For those who earn money with a profession it has. Depending how much you earn it would make sense to buy and sell GTC for ISK instead of wasting ingame time to earn the ISK. Finally EVE is business. Nothing more. A lot of people with no experience in business are simply not aware of what it really means. The EULA quote someone mentioned before where everything is owned by CCP is not saying: "STFU, CCP can get your stuff whenever they want!" These rules are made to protect CCP's work, to give them the power of decision and to prevent that people make profit with it on the black market or just sue them because they believe that ingame stuff is their personal property. All terms and conditions of business work like this. You have to decide the single case as a CEO how close you will go against your customer with your rules. Especially when you don't do mass-market business and your business is dependend on some main customers. But I understand that an ingame contract is ruled by this EULA and therefore it's not like a rl contract. In the hard case CCP can do what they want. Understood. But if they would do it arrogant, without caring about their customers paying their bills they lose customers. And this is not helping them to keep on developing EVE.
Misunderstood Genius	Posted - 2010.06.01 09:28:00 - [35] Edited by: Misunderstood Genius on 01/06/2010 09:28:06 Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Misunderstood Genius Originally by: Shinnen I agree that it's odd that the insurance also changed on a ship that you insured before the changes. But then again, I imagine it would have been a hassle to code for the insurance of ships pre- and post-changes. Sorry for your loss =[ Well, I am not the only one affected by this. I can understand what you say but that's definitely CCP's problem. Just imagine that a design change need to reset all wallets to zero. I just want to illustrate with this example that there's no difference if it's 10m ISK or 10bil ISK. Players have to follow CCP's EULA or they have to deal with consequences. Same has CCP to do with "ingame contracts". The insurance agreed to pay you 100% of the ship mineral value at the moment of the loss. Between the time you insured the ship and the time it was destroyed that value got recalculated to keep it up with current prices instead of using outdated prices. You are still getting 100% of the ship value as set by the game, simply that value has changed to reflect the current value of the minerals. Thanks for this. But I never ever had the case that the insurance payout was recalculated. It was always stable for every shiptype. For years. I had not the impression that mineral values were considered.
Savatar Mei	Posted - 2010.06.01 09:32:00 - [36] Originally by: Lothros Andastar Guess what moron, the EULA is also a contract. Read it. You will find CCP can pretty much choose to delete your account whenever they want, and you can do jack ** about it. My advice? Stop ***ing and count yourself lucky they don't. GDIAF f'ing twaat
Savatar Mei	Posted - 2010.06.01 09:38:00 - [37] Originally by: Balsak Well as long as you are admitting to it then go right ahead and waste peoples time and punish those who have legitimate petitions by making them wait even longer Look man, everyone knew the insurance changes were coming and exactly why they were being done. At this point you are just being petty and vindictive for no reason other than your own personal gratification. Can you say selfish ? You aren't some helpless victim who was so wrongfully abused. You are playing an ever changing game and these types of things are going to happen, get over it or take your money elsewhere which is how you get your message through to companies. Edit: I just noticed you edited your post with "END OF THREAD". ROFL. Please do yourself a favor, get over your over inflated sense of self worth. 'tard
Tim Hibbins Minmatar Tim and Sasha Savings and Loans	Posted - 2010.06.01 10:13:00 - [38] Originally by: Misunderstood Genius Not big ISK but a contract is a contract. Period. Im also lossing alot of money on this. Very bad change CCP Guess we should be happy we atleast dont loose what those who paid for a contract on a titan before Tyrranosaurus.
Amerilia	Posted - 2010.06.01 10:19:00 - [39] Originally by: Tim Hibbins Originally by: Misunderstood Genius Not big ISK but a contract is a contract. Period. Im also lossing alot of money on this. Very bad change CCP Guess we should be happy we atleast dont loose what those who paid for a contract on a titan before Tyrranosaurus. Hot to insure a titan? last time I checked it wont dock
Aisley Tyrion DAB	Posted - 2010.06.01 10:25:00 - [40] Originally by: Svarty II I got an notification telling me they'd pay me 100% of the ship cost. Interestingly that will be ~25m, which is 3m less than I paid for my ship. Therefore: 100% < 90% Genius. Thanks for showing the rest of the universe the error of their ways, CCP. Truly, we are morons who sully your intelligence with our faith in simple mathematics. Well they should say they'll pay you 100% of the ship VALUE. Ideally cost should be the same as value but that is not always the case. So you can buy a frigate for 1 billion isk but it certainly isn't that valueable.
Merouk Baas Gallente	Posted - 2010.06.01 10:53:00 - [41] Originally by: Misunderstood Genius But I never ever had the case that the insurance payout was recalculated. It was always stable for every shiptype. I had not the impression that a change in mineral values were considered. Mega case: 30,5m payed, 105m payout. Since ages. They announced the change in the patch notes, ahead of time. It was discussed and commented on. It was on the test server, players could test it if they wanted to. As far as I can tell, they notified you of the change weeks in advance. As far as it being a contract, step out of your imaginary "reality" and realize it's a game feature that was changed. Or, if you want to continue... the law governing "insurance" was changed, allowing "insurance companies" to "pay" you in minerals rather than ISK. What happens in RL when the government changes the laws for insurance? Do you get screwed? YES. So roleplay that. Anyway, you're whining that you weren't warned about a change that was announced, you're trying to depict a pixel "contract" as reality, and you're not even the first to do this. No sympathy.
Plocsk	Posted - 2010.06.01 10:57:00 - [42] EVE IS PERFECT SO STFU. [/fanboi]
Gunnanmon Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.06.01 11:36:00 - [43] Originally by: Thuranni ISK has no RL value. lol. Go to any ice belt. Signature locked for discussing moderation. Navigator
Kendon Riddick	Posted - 2010.06.01 11:53:00 - [44] i payed a billionty dollarz for my ravenz off this nice bloke in jita, i just insured it and to my HORROR the payouit wasnt even 100m, forget the billionty dollarz i should get back. Insurance must be broked! i demandz fatiscation
James Tritanius	Posted - 2010.06.01 12:03:00 - [45] Originally by: Kendon riddick i payed a billionty dollarz for my ravenz off this nice bloke in jita, i just insured it and to my HORROR the payouit wasnt even 100m, forget the billionty dollarz i should get back. Insurance must be broked! i demandz fatiscation Go back to your cave, troll. Market value IS defined by the price on the market. You can have a grasp on it when you look at the lowest price (highest of the buy-orders if you are selling), the median price and the average price.
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2010.06.01 12:09:00 - [46] Insurance is a game mechanic not a real life contract. Hence why they insure mission runners who keep heading off again and again into the face of 100 of the "galaxys most deadly" npc rats. Or payout to freighter pilots who autopilot though lowsec. Or pilots who self destruct. SKUNK (o)
Kharylien Gallente Masked Rider Project	Posted - 2010.06.01 14:24:00 - [47] If only this change had been announced months in advance, so we could make our decisions about things like ship insurance accordingly. Oh wait, it was. Insurance is fine.
BrundleMeth Caldari Temporal Mechanics	Posted - 2010.06.01 16:48:00 - [48] "I will not accept that CCP "steals" ISK by their changes. They need to handle this case right and customer friendly, please." You "won't accept" What a joke. What case? You really don't have a clue how things work do you? What a lugnut. If I was CCP and I read this I'd cancel your account(s)...
Natalie Caladan Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2010.06.01 17:15:00 - [49] Just keep your ship in one piece the coming 3 months and you won't notice any difference!

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.