Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
120
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:25:00 -
[61] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: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.
Self-destructing should not yield insurance. How many noobs do you see self-destructing their ships? |
Dusenman
Krait Corp Fidelas Constans
15
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:26:00 -
[62] - Quote
Parsee789 wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: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. Self-destructing should not yield insurance. How many noobs do you see self-destructing their ships?
By accident maybe. But you bring up a good point. GM Homonoia: In other words; feel free to use the tactic, but don't be an utter and total ***. |
Dusenman
Krait Corp Fidelas Constans
15
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:28:00 -
[63] - Quote
Xorv wrote: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.
It would make hacking even more useful. Interesting idea to say the least. GM Homonoia: In other words; feel free to use the tactic, but don't be an utter and total ***. |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
371
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:29:00 -
[64] - Quote
Not the craziest idea I've ever heard. And I hear a lot of crazy ideas. Some of them I even come up with myself. "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
854
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 21:16:00 -
[65] - 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. As long as you thing having a self destruct is a good thing, could you add it to POSes, please? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Epiphaniess
Verboten Technologies
566
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 21:18:00 -
[66] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Not the craziest idea I've ever heard. And I hear a lot of crazy ideas. Some of them I even come up with myself.
See you can't tell us something like this without giving us a few examples.
Just makes us want to speculate. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
854
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 21:37:00 -
[67] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: 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
It happens. I live in a WH and got a free Drake form someone who got stuck in it, ejected and hit SD. No idea why he left the ship.
Edit: Options
No insurance at all No insurance for SD Insurance only for PVE losses Insurance only for players less than x months old Insurance based on space sec level
One thing to consider: Some players slap together LOL fleets and go out to low/null and do silly things. Insurance helps encourage such behavior. I think such activity should be encouraged. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Alexzandvar Douglass
NUTS AND BOLTS MANUFACTURING En Garde
58
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 21:38:00 -
[68] - Quote
You guys know Navys in real life used to scuttle there vessels if they were doomed to lose them to prevent them from being captured right? Just think of self destructing a valid way or robbing your enemy of a kill mail, ye olde style. |
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 21:41:00 -
[69] - Quote
Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:You guys know Navys in real life used to scuttle there vessels if they were doomed to lose them to prevent them from being captured right? Just think of self destructing a valid way or robbing your enemy of a kill mail, ye olde style.
Do you see them getting money from any insurance agency for doing that? |
Jim Luc
Dekker Corporation
30
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 23:16:00 -
[70] - Quote
I might have a solution to the problem that I thought of when I was watching the Alliance panel and one of the devs was talking about the upcoming contract changes.
Insurance should be a service that's run the same way insurance is run in real life. The monthly price should be based off location, type of vehicle, and "driver" record, with a deductible. Lower deductible means higher premiums. Pilots who self-destruct can get a payout, but it adds a point to their record for 3 months. 3 points, and they aren't able to get insurance, or their premium is extremely high. Deductible is optional by the way, if you don't pay it then your risk doesn't go up but you don't get the payout.
Think DUI before you're 25 years old insurance prices.
Also, the payout should be tallied every 3 months taking into account your sec status, risk (k/d ratio), points on your record, etc, with the option to add in an extra amount of ISK that would get repaid to you, but also causes your premiums to go up. This could then cover the loss of faction modules and fittings if you so desire.
SECOND PART:
By modifying the current contract system you can give us players the ability to start our own insurance corporations. This would allow player-run corps to insure capitals, and a modified contract system would allow first ask the insured party if they wish to pay the deductible, then it would automatically pay out the previously defined amount. It would also allow the insurance corp to set breach of contract stipulations:
- Self-destruction outside of a wormhole for instance - it can use the killmail's details of the location and add to risk points based on this (wormhole might be ok for self-destruct, but get a 20% reduced payout or something),
- Destruction in an off-limits system (allows the company to set higher premiums for low/null-sec dwellers)
- etc ... Idunno - we'll have to wait and see what they come up with in the new contracts system...
Oh, and here's another thought - for new players that are very risk-averse, we can have the ability to replace your t1 frigate and cruiser class ship, complete with any t1 modules and weapons, at the lowest station price at select hub highsec locations (where an ample supply are stocked).
This would do a couple things - it would allow n00bs the chance to get out and fight and die without as much worry, and it would promote the sale of the covered items in the locations provided. Just a thought
|
|
Barakach
R-ISK Shadow Operations.
69
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 01:31:00 -
[71] - Quote
This is the new chewbacca defense.
You must acquit, getting paid to blow up your ship does not make sense! |
Mocam
EVE University Ivy League
157
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:50:00 -
[72] - Quote
Jim Luc wrote:I might have a solution to the problem that I thought of when I was watching the Alliance panel and one of the devs was talking about the upcoming contract changes. Insurance should be a service that's run the same way insurance is run in real life. The monthly price should be based off location, type of vehicle, and "driver" record, with a deductible. Lower deductible means higher premiums. Pilots who self-destruct can get a payout, but it adds a point to their record for 3 months. 3 points, and they aren't able to get insurance, or their premium is extremely high. Deductible is optional by the way, if you don't pay it then your risk doesn't go up but you don't get the payout. Think DUI before you're 25 years old insurance prices. Also, the payout should be tallied every 3 months taking into account your sec status, risk (k/d ratio), points on your record, etc, with the option to add in an extra amount of ISK that would get repaid to you, but also causes your premiums to go up. This could then cover the loss of faction modules and fittings if you so desire. SECOND PART: By modifying the current contract system you can give us players the ability to start our own insurance corporations. This would allow player-run corps to insure capitals, and a modified contract system would allow first ask the insured party if they wish to pay the deductible, then it would automatically pay out the previously defined amount. It would also allow the insurance corp to set breach of contract stipulations:
- Self-destruction outside of a wormhole for instance - it can use the killmail's details of the location and add to risk points based on this (wormhole might be ok for self-destruct, but get a 20% reduced payout or something),
- Destruction in an off-limits system (allows the company to set higher premiums for low/null-sec dwellers)
- etc ... Idunno - we'll have to wait and see what they come up with in the new contracts system...
Oh, and here's another thought - for new players that are very risk-averse, we can have the ability to replace your t1 frigate and cruiser class ship, complete with any t1 modules and weapons, at the lowest station price at select hub highsec locations (where an ample supply are stocked). This would do a couple things - it would allow n00bs the chance to get out and fight and die without as much worry, and it would promote the sale of the covered items in the locations provided. Just a thought
The only way to do this would be with full disclosure of all losses. It also doesn't take into account the "here's a ship, go get it blown up" training missions.
So... CCP sets up a full lossmail board for all pilots -- showing how many losses to NPC's as well as to players?
You'd need to know how many ships are being lost and to what type of attacks for players to provide insurance and "trust" isn't all that hot a gig for most EVE players.
I think the shock-value of seeing all those NPC losses would be funny. Gankers no longer hiding their failures, the mass amount of mission and plex runner losses... Yeah, having that published would be a bit funny and data-mining it would probably show a radically different view of how "safe" PvE is vs PvP. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8753
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:03:00 -
[73] - Quote
It's a game mechanic, not a business.
That aside, turn ISK into a fiat currency, and remove inherent value from mining? Well, it would allow for market crashes on a new and unprecedented scale, and that could be funGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1218
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:09:00 -
[74] - Quote
Mocam wrote:So... CCP sets up a full lossmail board for all pilots -- showing how many losses to NPC's as well as to players?
You'd need to know how many ships are being lost and to what type of attacks for players to provide insurance and "trust" isn't all that hot a gig for most EVE players.
I think the shock-value of seeing all those NPC losses would be funny. Gankers no longer hiding their failures, the mass amount of mission and plex runner losses... Yeah, having that published would be a bit funny and data-mining it would probably show a radically different view of how "safe" PvE is vs PvP. Killed by a Guristas station torp, opps~ Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4360
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:41:00 -
[75] - Quote
Removing insurance entirely would have massive and far-reaching implications for the EVE economy and for ship balance. CCP would have to do a big rebalancing act.
But insurance for self-destructed ships? Yeah, no, I've never thought that made any sense. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
9009
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:15:00 -
[76] - Quote
Parsee789 wrote:Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:You guys know Navys in real life used to scuttle there vessels if they were doomed to lose them to prevent them from being captured right? Just think of self destructing a valid way or robbing your enemy of a kill mail, ye olde style. Do you see them getting money from any insurance agency for doing that? Maybe not, but that wasn't his point.
There are some situation that insurance companies do pay out in RL, they don't in game. But comparing RL insurance with the game mechanic, is ridiculous. They are the same in name only.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2037
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:38:00 -
[77] - Quote
Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:You guys know Navys in real life used to scuttle there vessels if they were doomed to lose them to prevent them from being captured right? Just think of self destructing a valid way or robbing your enemy of a kill mail, ye olde style. Scuttling denied loot, not credit for the destruction of the ship. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Alexzandvar Douglass
NUTS AND BOLTS MANUFACTURING En Garde
59
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:46:00 -
[78] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:You guys know Navys in real life used to scuttle there vessels if they were doomed to lose them to prevent them from being captured right? Just think of self destructing a valid way or robbing your enemy of a kill mail, ye olde style. Scuttling denied loot, not credit for the destruction of the ship.
Thing is, in EVE a good amount of times the Kill-mail it's self is the loot, on an expensive ship or well known pilot. |
Ariel Dawn
F9X
884
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:20:00 -
[79] - Quote
Self-destruct is fine.
The real problem is that people care far too much about killmails.
"Wow, I'm so impressed how you participated in killing a ship in EVE Online, now I want to sleep with you!" - said no one ever |
Sarcasim
The Southern Gentleman's Social Club Event Horizon Protocol
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:27:00 -
[80] - 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? I think its good to see people can take NO its not gonna happen and be ok with it.
|
|
Pharon Reichter
FinFleet Raiden.
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:44:00 -
[81] - Quote
Look , for most parts insurance is ok'ish as it is. So it is self destruct.
Giving insurance on self destruct does make little sense whatsoever. It's just another loophole waiting for another flawed mechanic to for and create an exploit.
few points:
- if you self destruct in combat it means that YOU care more about km-s than insurance ( km's are now generated anyway ) - if you self destruct some modules / loot still remain - so it's the same deal as being killed nothing gained for you except a malformed km instead of a full one.
ofc there is one aspect of the game where it really matters - other players keeping you hostage. if you have your ship webbed , nossed and scrambled and you have no power to fight back you are as good as dead. But trolls could just keep you like this indefinitely where you could not even regain insurance isk ( since if you SD you dont get insurance. ) So as far as now you have that option.
So yeah - hard to solve that one.
And for all the trolls out there: insurance is one of those things that helps players be less risk adverse and PVP more. stop being dumb and suggest changes that would mean less pvp.
Later-edit : and no getting stuck in a wh with a ship that you cannot take back insurance ISK is a veeeeeeeery bad example. you just need to warp to some sleepers and they will take care of your ship. ASAP ;) |
Mocam
EVE University Ivy League
157
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:20:00 -
[82] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Mocam wrote:So... CCP sets up a full lossmail board for all pilots -- showing how many losses to NPC's as well as to players?
You'd need to know how many ships are being lost and to what type of attacks for players to provide insurance and "trust" isn't all that hot a gig for most EVE players.
I think the shock-value of seeing all those NPC losses would be funny. Gankers no longer hiding their failures, the mass amount of mission and plex runner losses... Yeah, having that published would be a bit funny and data-mining it would probably show a radically different view of how "safe" PvE is vs PvP. Killed by a Guristas station torp, opps~
I asked Kelduum once about uni losses on missions -- he snickered and stated it was ... not trivial - with Recon 3 being readily on his tongue.
A new board setup by a nullsec crew had all losses showing a while back. I looked at it and was rather surprised to see a very healthy portion of ship losses to rats and in complexes -- from these more hardened style of players.
I seriously wouldn't be overly surprised to find that around 1/3rd of all ship losses in EVE were from NPCs.
As for Tipia's statement above yours - isk is already a "fiat currency" - moot point there. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:23:00 -
[83] - Quote
Dusenman wrote:Xorv wrote: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.
It would make hacking even more useful. Interesting idea to say the least. I like this idea, actually. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
857
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:51:00 -
[84] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: 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.
That can be seen as "You should always be able to SD your pod". It does not mean you should be able to SD your ship. We could just replace the self-destruct menu item with "Commit suicide". http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Dusenman
Krait Corp Fidelas Constans
18
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:57:00 -
[85] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: 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.
That can be seen as "You should always be able to SD your pod". It does not mean you should be able to SD your ship. We could just replace the self-destruct menu item with " Commit suicide".
As funny as that is, lets not put that into the game. GM Homonoia: In other words; feel free to use the tactic, but don't be an utter and total ***. |
Spurty
D00M. Northern Coalition.
376
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:14:00 -
[86] - Quote
The only reason I can see insurance being 'bad' is because:
- relatively small amount of isk goes to NPC - relatively bigger amount of isk is magicked into existence by NPCs
Remove the NPC part of this and make it a profession in EVE of alliances/corps.
- X isk is given to alliance/corp for insurance - Y isk is handed back on destruction of ship - People in NPC corps have a real incentive to GTFO (Only insure up to cruiser hull)
Where X < Y
SUM OF THIS CHANGE:
- Corps and Alliances are where you want to be, NPC corps can only insure up to T1 cruiser - People doing 'Reimbursements' for alliance have less headaches and paper work to do - Far far far less magicking of ISK into the system
Now, things get really exciting when insurance money isn't there for payouts
This is all part of the game already though - who holds the tech moon money?
---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
857
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:24:00 -
[87] - Quote
Dusenman wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote: 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.
That can be seen as "You should always be able to SD your pod". It does not mean you should be able to SD your ship. We could just replace the self-destruct menu item with " Commit suicide". As funny as that is, lets not put that into the game. Er, ah, right. Oops. OK "Self destruct pod" would be the option, available both before or after ejecting. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Jim Luc
Dekker Corporation
30
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:34:00 -
[88] - Quote
Mocam wrote:Jim Luc wrote: Long-winded idea here.
The only way to do this would be with full disclosure of all losses. It also doesn't take into account the "here's a ship, go get it blown up" training missions. So... CCP sets up a full lossmail board for all pilots -- showing how many losses to NPC's as well as to players? You'd need to know how many ships are being lost and to what type of attacks for players to provide insurance and "trust" isn't all that hot a gig for most EVE players. I think the shock-value of seeing all those NPC losses would be funny. Gankers no longer hiding their failures, the mass amount of mission and plex runner losses... Yeah, having that published would be a bit funny and data-mining it would probably show a radically different view of how "safe" PvE is vs PvP.
You have a point there. I was just trying to find a way for players to make their own insurance services.
Perhaps if there was a way for Concord to offer limited insurance services which use a pilot's "risk number" that is determined by many factors including pilot age, ISK-worth of their losses in a 3-month period, their sec standing, etc. Actually it would be uber cool if these insurance companies were offered by various factions within Eve. Cheaper premiums for Gallente pilots with high Gallente standing, not offered to pilots with negative Gallente standing. This way pirate factions can offer their own insurance to those with low-sec standings. Just a thought?
Anyways - the basic insurance offered by NPC corporations can use that predefined "risk number", but a system that's opened to the Eve general public can help them start their own insurance, which allows them to set premiums and what they choose to insure on whatever criteria they choose. The risk number can then be a general guide for that pilot. No details are sent about the damage done or what event caused the destruction. Just that the pilot paid the deductible, and received the payout which was saved in a Concord escrow that is provided by the private Eve corporation. This would allow Eve corporations to put up their own money as capital, and operate just like an insurance company should operate.
I would like to see this expanded so that private corporations can offer insurance on goods and shipping as well. Figuring out how to eliminate fraud would be a challenge, but I think that could be figured out without giving Eve pilots too much information. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2045
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:15:00 -
[89] - Quote
Ariel Dawn wrote:Self-destruct is fine.
The real problem is that people care far too much about killmails.
"Wow, I'm so impressed how you participated in killing a ship in EVE Online, now I want to sleep with you!" - said no one ever
I'll let a dev speak for me:
CCP Masterplan wrote:Killmails are great. They serve as reminders of good fights (or dubious mistakes). They let you measure losses inflicted on your enemy in cold hard ISK. They also demonstrate some interesting choices in ship fitting, or cargo-movement attempts. If you're so inclined, they provide a way to track your kill/death ratio, and measure it against your peers. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Dusenman
Krait Corp Fidelas Constans
18
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 17:35:00 -
[90] - Quote
From https://t.co/EaNYwX67:
CCP Masterplan wrote:For the Inferno 1.2 release, we've modified the self-destruct mechanics a little. These changes are now live on the Singularity test server. You can go and try them for yourself, and leave feedback in this thread.
Loot Drops Ships that self-destruct will now drop loot in their wreck. This follows the regular chance-based loot-drop mechanics for items fitted to the ship and carried in the cargo hold.
Kill Reports Ships that self-destruct whilst under aggression will now generate a regular kill-report. In order for this to happen, the ship must have been recently aggressed, and there must be at least one of the aggressors in space in the system at the time of death. The final-blow will be awarded to the eligible attacker who inflicted the most damage.
Self-destructs that do not involve player aggression will not generate a kill-report
By the way, you may have seen reports of the occasional self-destruct kill-report on Tranquility recently. These were caused by an unrelated defect, and were not intentional. Typically the items list of such mails is incomplete. I'm stating this in-advance, as no doubt someone would have asked about it.
GM Homonoia: In other words; feel free to use the tactic, but don't be an utter and total ***. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |