Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 14:46:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Ten Bulls Insurance premiums should increase based on number of claims.
That way the people who exploit this mechanic will end up paying so much they wont bother with it.
CCP, learn from real life please.
Why do you want to nerf mining even more?
Your proposal would make mineral demand fall through the floor.
EVE's economy is based on ship destruction. All that this thread is about is a few haulers and miners crying because they have to contribute a little to the demand they make ISK supplying.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Mighty Dread
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 15:33:00 -
[92]
Realistically no insurance company would insure someone who was perpetually having their vehicle destroyed. At the very least the insurance rate would skyrocket. It only makes sense that your insurance rate should increase based upon number of ships lost in x amount of time. Rates can return to more normal levels after x amount of time not being blown up.
I also think insurance rates should be higher for pirates and that someday players should be able to set up their own insurance companies.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Alcohlics Anonymous
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 15:51:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Mighty Dread Realistically no insurance company would insure someone who was perpetually having their vehicle destroyed. At the very least the insurance rate would skyrocket. It only makes sense that your insurance rate should increase based upon number of ships lost in x amount of time. Rates can return to more normal levels after x amount of time not being blown up.
I also think insurance rates should be higher for pirates and that someday players should be able to set up their own insurance companies.
Originally by: Malcanis
Of course "Insurance" for ganking is bull****. For the love of mike, how many times have we been through this exact discussion? The whole "suicide ganking shouldn't get insurance because insurance for crimes is silly" is based on a compeletely wrong assumption. No insurance company would insure ANY pod pilot for any ship, because we're an astoundingly hi-risk category. We dont get "insurance" money because there are little NPC gnomes who think that surely this quarter, PEND will turn a profit. We certainly dont get "insurance" based on real-world notions of whether it's "right" for us to do so. We get "insurance" because CCP have deemed that a partial ship replacement mechanic is required to balance gameplay and keep the economy moving. Realism doesn't come in to it. Huge aspects of EVe are vastly more unrealistic than the Insurance mechanic, and for the same reason: game balance and game play.
There is no good reason to remove "insurance" from hi-sec gankers unless you can objectively demonstrate (that means using facts and data) that hi-sec is too dangerous compared to the amount of wealth that can be amassed there (Good luck with that). Saying "Well, State Farm wouldn't pay me insurance if I used my car to ram raid a jewellers" is not a good reason. You might as well petition a ship loss on the grounds that your ship should constantly accelerate towards lightspeed, not be limited to a few kilometers per second.
You could cite all the Newtonian and Einsteinin physics you liked, but they wouldn't matter a bit, because the game isn't based on Newtonian physics just as it's not based on western financial rules and laws.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 16:05:00 -
[94]
Originally by: KaarBaak Ah, I didn't realize that moving insurance to a player-run mechanic would cause people to stop PvPing. So yeah, if removing/changing insurance would cause PvP to come to an end, then it shouldn't be changed at all.
More accurately: making it player-run would mean that it would be run as a for-profit business, which would in turn mean that it wouldn't serve its actual purpose: to reward people who blow up/get blown up a lot.
Insurance in EVE does not work like a business because it cannot work like a business and still serve its purpose. To make it player-run, it must work like a business, or no-one would run it. The two don't mix. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Space Tarantula Haklar
|
Posted - 2011.02.21 18:53:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Tippia (...)it wouldn't serve its actual purpose: to reward people who blow up/get blown up a lot.
Building on wrong assumptions can only draw poor conclusions...
The insurance has no other purpose than help newer players which can be really hurt if they loose their ship too often too soon in the game...
Want more ships get blown ? rework that #@! security status system and let Eve really be that cold harsh world every player claim it is.
_________________________________________________________________________________ The day as*holes are sent into orbit, you won't stop rotating M. Audiard |
Iceni
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 11:44:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Mighty Dread Realistically no insurance company would insure someone who was perpetually having their vehicle destroyed. At the very least the insurance rate would skyrocket. It only makes sense that your insurance rate should increase based upon number of ships lost in x amount of time. Rates can return to more normal levels after x amount of time not being blown up.
I also think insurance rates should be higher for pirates and that someday players should be able to set up their own insurance companies.
If it was insurance, it would work this way, and no-claims bonuses would be given for characters that don't claim for a time.
But it's not insurance, its a simple compensation payout that defies business logic.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 13:44:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Space Tarantula Haklar Building on wrong assumptions can only draw poor conclusions...
You mean like how people assume that the industry subsidy mechanic called "insurance" will work like an for-profit insurance company? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Traxaur
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 15:48:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Fritzman Edited by: Fritzman on 16/02/2011 08:35:42
When is insurance going to be removed from deaths by Concord? People in their haulers need to have more faith in the illusion of hi sec being completely safe. By removing the insurance, a lot of recreational gankers would stop popping indies for a minimal financial gain, and in the end their numbers would drop and ganking would become less common. People hauling just a couple of hundred million worth of isk wouldn't be viable targets any longer. Everyone would win in this scenario.
Any timeline on this change?
No where in EVE is ever/or should ever be completely safe sure perhaps insurance costs should go up if you get your ship blown up by concord but they shouldn't go so high as to completely prevent suicide ganking. If you're under the assumption that high sec should be 100% safe you need to stop playing EVE.
|
Culmen
Caldari Blood Phage Syndicate
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 17:26:00 -
[99]
For all the proof you need that CONCORD Kills should be insured. See: first day incursions entered high sec.
Lots of CONCORD related deaths, not that much more suicide ganking. Love how short the forum's memory is... and further more why do i even need a sig? |
Ingvar Angst
Amarr Omni Industrial Coalition Crooked Cross
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 17:55:00 -
[100]
I just saved a bunch of isk on my ship insurance by switching to Geico.
|
|
Space Tarantula Haklar
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 18:29:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Culmen For all the proof you need that CONCORD Kills should be insured. See: first day incursions entered high sec.
Lots of CONCORD related deaths, not that much more suicide ganking. Love how short the forum's memory is...
hehehe, if you really want to see an evidence here, it should rather be assigned to a "how badly aggro rules system are designed" argument... At least to work in a mostly PVE environment
In which case, "Insurance" looks more like a bandage on a wooden leg
_________________________________________________________________________________ The day as*holes are sent into orbit, you won't stop rotating M. Audiard |
MadMuppet
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.02.22 20:10:00 -
[102]
As I have learned with my ganking ALT, insurance is nice to have, but not an economical factor in me ganking. I would blow up ships to participate in Hulkageddon regardless of insurance. Thrashers are cheap.
-M Two pencils, sharpened to a razor-like point, are my only defense. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |