| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
25
   |
Posted - 2012.08.10 02:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
It may be intended, but that doesn't mean that ludicrously low payouts for fantastically expensive ships isn't silly. A raven's insurance payout on a ship that costs 6x as much as a raven is ludicrously low. Unfortunately when all faction battleships have approximately the same material "cost" as the raven and the price fluctuations are primarily the result of player valuation of the ships themselves CCP really can't come up with an automatic adjuster for those prices unless they track individual ship pricing as well as mineral pricing for insurance purposes.
Personally, what I'd like to see is some more variation in ship material requirements for faction ships. Increase the minerals required to something in excess to a raven's requirements and the payout values will go up as well. Besides, it never made sense to me that the insurance on a machariel was identical to a raven's when a raven was smaller and heavier than a machariel. |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 08:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Here's the thing...
if you were comfortably reimbursed for the loss of a T2/T3/Faction ship... why would you ever fly T1 stuff again? One of the big reasons T1 ships remain [more or less] viable after so many years is due to insurance.
The whole point of T2, T3, and Faction ships is that you're supposed to pay through the nose for the extra ~15% edge it gives you.
I don't think you have to go to the extreme of being "comfortably reimbursed" to make most players happy about this particular issue. Just increasing the payouts enough that it's actually worth the time to insure non-T1 ships would be an improvement. |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 12:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Vaal Hadren wrote:In the real world, we seldom insure our 1970's shitbox's but sure as hell insure our Ferrari's. In EVE it's the direct opposite and the most overtly glaring oversight for any new player to the game (or to TII - I think faction insurance is also unintentional yet the material costs there would need to weighted against required LP to be at all sensible). I'm neutral with regard to faction at this point, but hostile to the current TII insurance situation for good reason. In the "real world", people who crash a lot or have a lot of accidents end up being unable to insure their stuff.
Don't forget that in the "real" world insurance agencies don't pay you regardless of whether or not something wrecked was insured. Then there's the fact that you can generally insure things for their full, adjusted, value sans any psychological value but taking into account collectors' statuses and such.
/shrugs. We can compare/contrast it all day, but in the end it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What matters is that there are more than a few ships out there where it is easier on players to just get the default insurance payout on a lost ship than to bother insuring them, and this is actually a bad thing because it creates isk from nothing without potential for removing it from the game. At least with insuring ships there's a chance that the ship will survive the 30 day period and need to have the policy renewed thereby removing isk from the game, and hopefully removing more isk than is created when the policy does finally pay out. |
| |
|