| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
KingDread
Interstellar eXodus
BricK sQuAD.
0
   |
Posted - 2012.08.10 00:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
When is CCP gonna up the insurance payouts on T3 ships? Your paying 200mil+ for a T3 ship, but the insurance payout is that of a frigate. Why is that?
I think the insurance should be around the same, if not more then the Tier 3 BC's. Is this gonna be in a patch sometime soon? |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises
Purpose Built
1200
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 01:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
Insurance is based on ore mineral build cost. This is intended.
Part of the risk of a T3 is the lack of decent insurance. This is intended.
Same with T2, same with Faction. All of it, intended. |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 02:13:00 -
[3] - 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. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
833
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 04:03:00 -
[4] - Quote
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.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
KingDread
Interstellar eXodus
BricK sQuAD.
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 04:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
Understood.. but you say it is according to the mineral or material cost? then why is the payout on T3 ship only 11mil? |
Nnamuachs
Kiith Paktu
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 05:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
KingDread wrote:Understood.. but you say it is according to the mineral or material cost? then why is the payout on T3 ship only 11mil?
Because the material cost is subjective. Basic minerals have what one could argue is a baseline effective cost (ability to repro loot etc.). Whereas all equipment for t2 is produces through moon reactions, so the prices are subjective, and t3 materials are produced through wormhole goodies, of which the prices are also at the whim of the player. |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 08:39:00 -
[7] - 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. |
Lord Zim
1127
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 11:29:00 -
[8] - Quote
KingDread wrote:When is CCP gonna up the insurance payouts on T3 ships?
Never.
KingDread wrote:Your paying 200mil+ for a T3 ship, but the insurance payout is that of a frigate. Why is that?
Because losing a T3 is supposed to hurt.
KingDread wrote:I think the insurance should be around the same, if not more then the Tier 3 BC's.
That's nice. No.
KingDread wrote:Is this gonna be in a patch sometime soon?
No. |
KingDread
Interstellar eXodus
BricK sQuAD.
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 11:53:00 -
[9] - Quote
Shereza wrote: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.
Now I totally agree with this statement |
Vaal Hadren
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 11:54:00 -
[10] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Insurance is based on ore mineral build cost. This is intended.
Part of the risk of a T3 is the lack of decent insurance. This is intended.
Same with T2, same with Faction. All of it, intended.
Not so.
You're advocating an insurance system which was created before TII even existed and that hasn't been addressed since TII's inception. < This.
If it was the material costs it would be intended. The problem is there is no ore costs for TII ships aside from that of the TI hull needed to manufacture the TII variant. The 'TII materials' should be counted in the cost of insurance (only if even modestly so). It's ludicrous to imply that there is nothing 'wrong' with insurance beyond T1.
Note: I'm not saying TII insurance payouts should cover the costs of the ship lost or even take the sting out of it. What i'm saying - (not just me, but everyone i've ever talked to ever, ever) - is that TII insurance should be desirable - it should be in one's interest to insure every ship they fly. And at the moment, it's simply not.
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.
A related point however, is the cost of faction items with regard to tag requirements in particular. IMO, either make faction items significantly superior to TII versions (while remaining only able to use T1 and Faction ammunition) or radically lower the tag requirements across the board. I'm inclined to think that the stats of Faction gear and Deadspace gear should be switched. Deadspace drops are far more common (in EVE as a whole) then the vast majority of high tag required faction items while being superior in every way. And this despite the carebear majority and their literally billions of Empire LP. It just seems a bit upsidedown. |
|
|
KingDread
Interstellar eXodus
BricK sQuAD.
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 11:56:00 -
[11] - Quote
Now where is CCP on this topic. When i filed a petition on this topic, they told me to post on the forum cause CCP trolls here a lot and they would give me their opinions as well as other pilots. I haven't seen CCP yet. |
Lord Zim
1128
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 11:57:00 -
[12] - Quote
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. |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 12:04:00 -
[13] - 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. |
Lord Zim
1129
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 12:16:00 -
[14] - Quote
T1 is the common workhorse. T2 is its expensive cousin, losing one is supposed to hurt more than losing the T1 equivalent. T3 is T3's more expensive cousin, and losing one is supposed to hurt more than losing a T2. Suck it up. |
Vaal Hadren
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 12:21:00 -
[15] - Quote
Why did everyone latch onto my 'real world' quip and completely ignore my argument.
Hint: that quip was not my argument.
WTB Superior global human genepool.
Vaal Hadren wrote:You're advocating an insurance system which was created before TII even existed and that hasn't been addressed since TII's inception. . . If it was the material costs it would be intended. The problem is there is no ore costs for TII ships aside from that of the TI hull needed to manufacture the TII variant. The 'TII materials' should be counted in the cost of insurance (only if even modestly so). It's ludicrous to imply that there is nothing 'wrong' with insurance beyond T1.< This.
This remains unaddressed.
Thinking caps on, please. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
165
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 12:21:00 -
[16] - Quote
Shereza wrote:
Just increasing the payouts enough that it's actually worth the time to insure non-T1 ships would be an improvement.
But what would be enough?
I expect that when you ask anyone, who would like to see it done they will give you different answer.
KingDread wrote:Now where is CCP on this topic.
Busy.
Dealing with stuff that is actually important and haven't been discussed 10000000 times before.
Lord Zim wrote:T1 is the common workhorse. T2 is its expensive cousin, losing one is supposed to hurt more than losing the T1 equivalent. T3 is T3's more expensive cousin, and losing one is supposed to hurt more than losing a T2. Suck it up.
Apparently this simple fact is too hard to comprehend. |
Lord Zim
1129
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 12:30:00 -
[17] - Quote
Vaal Hadren wrote:Vaal Hadren wrote:You're advocating an insurance system which was created before TII even existed and that hasn't been addressed since TII's inception. . . If it was the material costs it would be intended. The problem is there is no ore costs for TII ships aside from that of the TI hull needed to manufacture the TII variant. The 'TII materials' should be counted in the cost of insurance (only if even modestly so). It's ludicrous to imply that there is nothing 'wrong' with insurance beyond T1.< This. This remains unaddressed.
It has been addressed. It's working as intended. Suck it up. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
1062
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 13:07:00 -
[18] - Quote
Shereza wrote:
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,
Uh ... all of them?
Yeah, getting the payout on a 'cane or brutix (or other T1 ship here) is nice ... but with as cheap as (T1) ships are, it doesn't matter so much to insure them all the time.
Then again, it depends on one's financial situation ... I have enough ISK to replace the occasional uninsured ship. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery
Team Liquid
195
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 13:24:00 -
[19] - Quote
Do you think a real life insurance company would insure your experimental car based on alien technology?
I doubt it. |
Emperor Salazar
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
632
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 13:49:00 -
[20] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Do you think a real life insurance company would insure your experimental car based on alien technology?
I doubt it.
I normally despise real life analogies.
But this one is funny. |
|
|
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mordus Angels
490
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 14:02:00 -
[21] - Quote
Think outside the box.
What is the intention of insurance? Assistance in recovering after an event that costs ISK to recover from.
Why do insurance companies charge different rates?
Risk differences combined with anticipated payout.
Suggestion: (As compared with current platinum payout)
High sec losses should be least expensive to cover, as these are least probable in theory.
Max coverage should pay 125% or hull replacement, whichever is less.
Low Sec losses are more likely. Keep current rates and replacement levels.
Null Sec losses are expected to the point where if a ship lasts longer than the original contract, it is considered to be special.
Max coverage should pay 75% or hull replacement, whichever is less.
Insurance automatically scales based on location of event.
Concord involvement against pilot at time of event: No Payout due to criminal cause.
BONUS
Offer perfect level of coverage:
After three twelve week contracts at max level are completed, your ship will be replaced with an identical hull if lost. No modules or rigs or any items beyond the hull, however, are included.
Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata)
Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Herold Oldtimer
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
65
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 14:13:00 -
[22] - Quote
Insurance payout values are dynamic (effective since the release of Tyrannis). This means in short that you can choose to insure your ship at a price where the payout will be calculated at the time of the ship loss based on the (then) current market prices and the type of ship you were flying at the time.
What this means is that after every set insurance period, an index will be created calculating the trimmed average values for all building materials that are used in the building of ships (minerals, T2 and T3 components) and when a ship is destroyed, this index will be used to calculate the full replacement value of that ship based on the materials required to build it. The player will then receive an amount of ISK that is defined by the:
(value of the ship according to the index) * (percentage of insurance coverage) * (ship type multiplyer)
The ship type multiplier is used to make some ships more expensive to lose then others. For example; a Tier 1 battleship will have a multiplier of 1, therefore receiving the full benefit of the type of insurance bought, but a Titan may have a multiplier of 0.01, thus only granting a fraction of the insurance value. This change will allow insurance to scale along with changes in the market and is meant (among other things) to minimize the risk of insurance fraud. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises
Purpose Built
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 14:35:00 -
[23] - Quote
Last I checked, T1 ships (used to make T2 ones) still used the minerals.
And I'm not sure since I've never seen one, but I think the BPOs use minerals rather than the T1 ship.
And this was implemented (referring to mineral based insurance that slowly changes based on mineral costs of construction) with the change to insurance (about six months ago I think... may have been a year by now). Last I checked, we had T2 more than that. |
Lord Zim
1131
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 18:27:00 -
[24] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:And I'm not sure since I've never seen one, but I think the BPOs use minerals rather than the T1 ship.
They use the T1 hull, not the minerals. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |