| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
The Marmite Collective
2031
   |
Posted - 2012.07.25 16:00:00 -
[31] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:The time limit where it "runs out" is a disincentive to be a competent pilot and not lose your ships.
Agreed. I rarely insure my ships.
The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
719
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 16:02:00 -
[32] - Quote
Player run insurance would be amusing...
I think the artificial ISK generated by insurance is healthy for regular gameplay, but perhaps it should go down based on the security level of the location you're in?
I think what should probably happen instead is if someone is losing a lot of ships and claiming a lot of insurance, their premium should go up for insuring, meaning they have to pay more for losing more ships. Although this is a bit of a "punishment", it does make a bit more sense in the grand scheme of things, if you're a dangerous pilot your insurer will start to go... WTF?
This should be on the order of tens of ships lost in a span of time, rather than just a couple ships lost.
I lose ships relatively rarely, so I almost never insure, because in the span of 2 insurance cycles I could have bought another XYZ ship for the cost of insuring it. I tend to insure right before I go into a situation that is along the lines of "Yes, this ship is gonna go boom!"
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
539
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 16:03:00 -
[33] - Quote
Parsee789 wrote:Being Concorded no longer gives your insurance - a step in the right direction.
If you purposely self-destruct your ship you shouldn't receive insurance. It simply doesn't make sense.
Its like receiving cash for blowing up my own car.
No insurance company would even consider giving you money for that.
This kind of thread makes no sense, the fact you receive insurance for SD or not it's the owner problem, not yours.
If you can't kill fast enough your enemy before it goes SD just try to be better next time and plz stop crying for something it's not of your business if the guy insured his ship or not.
Don't like it? -don't use it, it's simple.
brb |
Dusenman
Krait Corp
Fidelas Constans
15
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 16:19:00 -
[34] - Quote
Chribba wrote:In this case, the black box of the ship would record that SD was activated, so unless you have a friend that loots the black box from the wreck, the insurance company would know you activated SD.
Why not remove insurance completely... make EVE that dark harsh place it is. Also it's not fair that supercaps cannot insure their ships - and ofc even more unfair that the base payout for a titan is like 650m...
/c
I can't recall the last time I insured a ship. So this is ok with me. But I wonder how hard this would hurt the newer players?
GM Homonoia: In other words; feel free to use the tactic, but don't be an utter and total ***. |
Jiska Ensa
Unour Heavy Industries
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 16:36:00 -
[35] - Quote
This was suggested ages ago when people were still self-destructing to MAKE money off of a ship.
It was also pointed out that if SD'ing didn't pay out insurance, people would just blow up their own ship with an alt. |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration
Lone Star Partners
189
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 16:38:00 -
[36] - Quote
Chribba wrote:Why not remove insurance completely... make EVE that dark harsh place it is. Also it's not fair that supercaps cannot insure their ships - and ofc even more unfair that the base payout for a titan is like 650m...
/c
I'd be in favour of removing the Insurance mechanic entirely along with clone costs; the value of the ship, its modules, and your implants should be the price tag.
SP loss on death would be relinquished to the realm of Tech 3 and possibly some of the more snazzy implants.
e: Of course, removing Insurance is by itself also a step in the right direction... |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
RAZOR Alliance
418
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 16:38:00 -
[37] - Quote
If you remove insurance altogether (which I agree with) you should also reduce clone costs for higher SP clones.
Insurance is an ISK faucet.
EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Gritz1
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 17:42:00 -
[38] - Quote
Othran wrote:Remove the ability to self-destruct would seem to be the best solution.
If self-destruct actually caused area of effect damage to other ships there might be a valid reason for retaining it but it doesn't so there isn't.
Get rid of self-destruct.
So you get pointed in the middle of no where, say, in your pod. And you have no way of self destructing, and now these bad people can hold you there for hours. See a problem? |
Bubanni
SniggWaffe
YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
380
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 17:44:00 -
[39] - Quote
Also remove insurance from ships that haven't been insured by the player... so there is no default insurance, you have to buy the insurance first
Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275
Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
368
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 17:48:00 -
[40] - Quote
Gritz1 wrote:Othran wrote:Remove the ability to self-destruct would seem to be the best solution.
If self-destruct actually caused area of effect damage to other ships there might be a valid reason for retaining it but it doesn't so there isn't.
Get rid of self-destruct. So you get pointed in the middle of no where, say, in your pod. And you have no way of self destructing, and now these bad people can hold you there for hours. See a problem?
It would also suck to get stuck in a wormhole system with no probes and no friends. You should always have the option of putting a gun to your head.
If that option results in a killmail, no insurance, a loot-drop, a nice AOE fireball, or a mark-of-shame on your character, that is one thing. But getting rid of self-destruct entirely is not really an option, for reasons such as those mentioned above.
"This one time, on patch day..."
CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
283
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 17:54:00 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Gritz1 wrote:Othran wrote:Remove the ability to self-destruct would seem to be the best solution.
If self-destruct actually caused area of effect damage to other ships there might be a valid reason for retaining it but it doesn't so there isn't.
Get rid of self-destruct. So you get pointed in the middle of no where, say, in your pod. And you have no way of self destructing, and now these bad people can hold you there for hours. See a problem? It would also suck to get stuck in a wormhole system with no probes and no friends. You should always have the option of putting a gun to your head. If that option results in a killmail, no insurance, a loot-drop, a nice AOE fireball, or a mark-of-shame on your character, that is one thing. But getting rid of self-destruct entirely is not really an option, for reasons such as those mentioned above.
If that did happen, you would not see any complaints about self destructs
On holiday. -áIn some other world.
Where the music of the radio was a labyrinth of sonorous colours.
To a bright centre of absolute convicton where the dripping patchouli was more than scent,
It was a sun-á |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
1029
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 18:04:00 -
[42] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:EVE insurance is an isk fountain anyway just plain remove it. Eve insurers would have gone bust one billion times over as there premiums would never cover the pay outs. CCP should remove NPC insurance company's and allow insurances company's to become player run. SO no you can't insure your combat ship any more. High sec bears in orca's and freighters would probably still be able to get insured by an other player.
this would work. they could beef up corp tool to allow for automactic ship replacement plans and payouts. they talked about this during AT10. Think about it, join a corp, you'll get paid whe you lose a ship. Stay in noob corp, and you have to pay more per loss. which should be less anyways. becuase your in high sec running missions.
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
1029
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 18:09:00 -
[43] - Quote
Dusenman wrote:Chribba wrote:In this case, the black box of the ship would record that SD was activated, so unless you have a friend that loots the black box from the wreck, the insurance company would know you activated SD.
Why not remove insurance completely... make EVE that dark harsh place it is. Also it's not fair that supercaps cannot insure their ships - and ofc even more unfair that the base payout for a titan is like 650m...
/c I can't recall the last time I insured a ship. So this is ok with me. But I wonder how hard this would hurt the newer players?
if they are in a noob npc corps, then not much as it would only effect losses to missions. Maybe this happened to peole at 1st. but overall, missions are a very small % of ship losses.
In a PvP corp, most corps have ship replacement programs. If ships were less expensive, and there was no insurance, it would be a great excuse to start paying your players to PvP when they die. let corps cover that extra cost, instead of the magic npcs doing it for us. In fact due to the replaceent programs I never insure my ship anyways during a war.
I get a new one anyways
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
1029
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 18:11:00 -
[44] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Gritz1 wrote:Othran wrote:Remove the ability to self-destruct would seem to be the best solution.
If self-destruct actually caused area of effect damage to other ships there might be a valid reason for retaining it but it doesn't so there isn't.
Get rid of self-destruct. So you get pointed in the middle of no where, say, in your pod. And you have no way of self destructing, and now these bad people can hold you there for hours. See a problem? It would also suck to get stuck in a wormhole system with no probes and no friends. You should always have the option of putting a gun to your head. If that option results in a killmail, no insurance, a loot-drop, a nice AOE fireball, or a mark-of-shame on your character, that is one thing. But getting rid of self-destruct entirely is not really an option, for reasons such as those mentioned above.
that's a poor excuse, removing self destruct from ships isn't the same as removing it from your pod.
I mean I'm willing to hear why ships should be able to self destruct. I think it would be awesome if you could come across empty ships in wormhole space to steal, since the players had to jump out and self destruct his pod.
what do you think?
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Dusenman
Krait Corp
Fidelas Constans
15
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 18:12:00 -
[45] - Quote
Jiska Ensa wrote:This was suggested ages ago when people were still self-destructing to MAKE money off of a ship.
It was also pointed out that if SD'ing didn't pay out insurance, people would just blow up their own ship with an alt.
This is fine, as it would hurt kill board stats.
GM Homonoia: In other words; feel free to use the tactic, but don't be an utter and total ***. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1421
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 18:14:00 -
[46] - Quote
Shantetha wrote:I was thinking something similar Chribba, but not quite the same. Lowsec, Null, and wormholes are suppose to be dark harsh places, empire not as much but still dark and harsh. So ya can loose your ship in Highsec and get a refund. Lowsec you risked and lost and the insurance company is penalizing the pay out for that extra risk. Nullsec you have a corp and alliance and the insurance company isn't going to risk any money out there in the wilds. So the actual figures might come out something like this.
- Highsec hull reimbursement at current insurance prices.
- Lowsec 50% of hull reimbursement at current insurance prices
- Nullsec/WH 0% of hull reimbursement at current insurance prices.
- no insurance on SD irrespective of location in space.
yeah let's further punish people for living in nullsec
how about removing all profitable PvE from hisec first
a rogue goon |
Gritz1
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 18:17:00 -
[47] - Quote
I don't get why this is such a hot topic. Ever hear of scuttling? We destroy ships in our time for tactical reasons or others, and I'm sure as hell that idea would still live on in the future. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
1763
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 18:28:00 -
[48] - Quote
Just get rid off any insurance altogether - it always has been a flawed mechanic and doesn't fit with eve.
Also, lol about idiots being butthurt about how they didn't get a little picture card to show around.
The other guy lost his ship - and nothing else matters.
You know... morons. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
818
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 18:50:00 -
[49] - Quote
it should give you at least the money you payed for the insurance since it is now invalid. lol
a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105
You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
The Marmite Collective
2033
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 19:01:00 -
[50] - Quote
Bit of brainstorming. Don't take this too seriously. Or do, if you like it.
What if there were a way to remotely prevent a ship (but not pod) from self destructing? Perhaps a combat use for the codebreaker: you have a chance of remotely preventing the self destruct by gaining access to the ship's systems.
This could be used to hold down those capitals while you destroyed them, or for REAL piracy where you tackle a ship and demand they eject. Of course the longer you use it to hold someone, the more likely they are to get help. Again: this WOULD NOT work on pods, so it would be impossible to hold a person indefinitely. They could simply eject from the ship and fly off or self destruct.
Could be fun. Could get really stupid. I dunno. Just a thought.
The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
The Marmite Collective
2033
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 19:02:00 -
[51] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:it should give you at least the money you payed for the insurance since it is now invalid. lol
You don't get your premiums back when you destroy something you insured.
The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
The Marmite Collective
2033
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 19:04:00 -
[52] - Quote
Gritz1 wrote:I don't get why this is such a hot topic. Ever hear of scuttling? We destroy ships in our time for tactical reasons or others, and I'm sure as hell that idea would still live on in the future.
There will always be scuttling, no argument there. It's just that some people have wandered off the topic of how to make self destruct less stupid and started talking about getting rid of it entirely because they can't imagine how people could abuse it.
The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
244
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 19:23:00 -
[53] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Gritz1 wrote:Othran wrote:Remove the ability to self-destruct would seem to be the best solution.
If self-destruct actually caused area of effect damage to other ships there might be a valid reason for retaining it but it doesn't so there isn't.
Get rid of self-destruct. So you get pointed in the middle of no where, say, in your pod. And you have no way of self destructing, and now these bad people can hold you there for hours. See a problem? It would also suck to get stuck in a wormhole system with no probes and no friends. You should always have the option of putting a gun to your head. If that option results in a killmail, no insurance, a loot-drop, a nice AOE fireball, or a mark-of-shame on your character, that is one thing. But getting rid of self-destruct entirely is not really an option, for reasons such as those mentioned above. that's a poor excuse, removing self destruct from ships isn't the same as removing it from your pod. I mean I'm willing to hear why ships should be able to self destruct. I think it would be awesome if you could come across empty ships in wormhole space to steal, since the players had to jump out and self destruct his pod. what do you think?
So long as loot isn't dropped there is still a valid reason to SD a ship. Also the aforementioned issue of being pointed and add something like being perma-jammed and your ship is in about the same situation as the pod in the example above. |
Patrakele
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
61
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 19:29:00 -
[54] - Quote
Insurance should be removed. Losing a ship - losing a ship, not here's some money, go buy antoehr, because we are such nice guys... |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1426
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 19:37:00 -
[55] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:Just get rid off any insurance altogether - it always has been a flawed mechanic and doesn't fit with eve.
Also, lol about idiots being butthurt about how they didn't get a little picture card to show around.
The other guy lost his ship - and nothing else matters.
i agree, only members of super rich alliances should be able to afford to lose ships
a rogue goon |
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
118
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 19:47:00 -
[56] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:Just get rid off any insurance altogether - it always has been a flawed mechanic and doesn't fit with eve.
Also, lol about idiots being butthurt about how they didn't get a little picture card to show around.
The other guy lost his ship - and nothing else matters. i agree, only members of super rich alliances should be able to afford to lose ships
There's a saying in EVE my friend and that is:
"Don't Fly what you can't afford to lose." |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
236
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 19:57:00 -
[57] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:Just get rid off any insurance altogether - it always has been a flawed mechanic and doesn't fit with eve.
Also, lol about idiots being butthurt about how they didn't get a little picture card to show around.
The other guy lost his ship - and nothing else matters. i agree, only members of super rich alliances should be able to afford to lose ships
as a member of a super rich alliance looking for new ways to make wreched highseccers suffer, i agree as well |
Stan Smith
Deathraven Industries
The AirShip Pirates
39
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 19:57:00 -
[58] - Quote
Quote: how about removing all profitable PvE from hisec first
make moon mining either less profitable, or make interaction required irst, then we'll talk
removing insurance hurts newer players. if they get a new ship, they think they're ready for a mission, they aggro the wrong ship (as noobs can tend to do) and things go wrong. why should we punish this noob twice for the same mistake?
self destructing needs a huge high damage area efect fireball. mindset: If i'm going down, i'm taking you with me!" why shouldnt wormhole players be allowed to overload their ship's reactor before ejecting from their ship? i'm fine with a codebreaker module preventing certain ship functions (but not self destructing) as long as it's very difficult and is counterable. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
437
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:04:00 -
[59] - Quote
Another +1 for removing Insurance entirely, but especially in the case of Self Destruct.
Further more regarding Self Destruct, make it a means for people to potentially capture ships.
* As soon as you activate SD, your pod is ejected from the ship.
* Hacking Mod can be used to shut off a SD timer and pass ownership to the Hacker.
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
The Marmite Collective
2034
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:23:00 -
[60] - Quote
The problem with removing insurance is you completely lose the safety net for newer players. Insurance as it exists prevents someone from losing that first battlecruiser and ragequitting because they just watched a month of PVE go down the drain. Insurance softens the blow and lets them keep going.
Now if you want to void insurance on PVP, fine. But don't gut the new player experience just because experienced players can get by without it.
The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |