| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Beringe
   |
Posted - 2005.02.28 06:23:00 -
[31]
We don't really need a way to financially damage a war enemy to that extent. You can still damage your enemy financially without it, and we don't need people quitting the game because they just lost everything (you know it happens, no matter how often we tell them not to fly what they can't replace).
Really, this is nowhere near the top ten list of EvE's biggest problems.
-------------------------------------------
"My main griveance with the Caldari state was that once I had finished my work for them, they wanted me dead."
"No, it's none of your business." |
Discodude
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 06:41:00 -
[32]
I like no insurance or no insurance in war time.
-----------------------------------------------
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his" General George Patton Jr. |
Lorth
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 07:50:00 -
[33]
 Originally by: Neon Genesis
I don't tihnk this is the answer, people wouldn't pvp in bs's because it would simply be 2 hard to replace them. Maybe decrease the effectiveness of insurance all2gether.
But to my mind, the real cause of the current massive devaluation of isk is lvl 4's, anyone care to speculate the moeny being injected into the economy every day from rens alone? 
From Rens, I would guess an easy 10 bill a day on a slow day. Look at number of ships in the last 24 hours and number of pirate ships in the last 24 hours and you have a number.
Then add in insurance, mission bonuses and what ever else you can think of....
Also theres prob anouther 6 or 7 systems that are as attractive as Rens, and a bunch more that arn't, so perhaps a good 100 bill from agent missions, and I'm trying to be really conservative here. Thats also about 2 mill per day per account.
So if you havn't earned, as in got that amount of isk from an NPC in a day you fall behind in the isk train. Doesn't sound like much, but in the long run it adds up.
|
Latex Mistress
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 07:51:00 -
[34]
Getting rid of platinum insurance either in 0.0 or war (or both) isn't a bad idea methinks.
And that is coming from someone who doesn't fly unless she's at war... 
If ECM is an act of aggression, why am I not on kill mails?
|
V1ceroy
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 07:57:00 -
[35]
Insurance won't be removed, and I don't think removing insurance is the only solution to the lots-of-isk syndrome.
Nerfing those lvl4 agents would be a much better idea, if not reward wise, then difficulty wise; so that people will actually do them in groups instead of solo in missile spamming ravens (Yeah, like it was intended).
Currently the isk-flow from agent missions is way to high, and can be obtained even in 1.0 space with no risk. Actually, the highest quality Cal Navy agent is in Niyabainen (1.0 space, next to the highway).
Agents should be distributed according to sec status. Low quality = high sec and vice versa. The highest quality agents should be in 0.0. Basic risk and reward.
|
Raem Civrie
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 08:38:00 -
[36]
No thanks. Don't touch lvl 4 missions, they really are fine as they are. The only thing that needs to be done about them is moving the agents away from high-sec. Seriously. If my agent was moved to .1, I'd be happy as a lark if only for the increase in LP per mission.
|
Falbala
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 08:40:00 -
[37]
If ccp really wants more people in 0.0 they put implants BPO on the market: economy sink+people in 0.0.
|
LockMe
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 09:01:00 -
[38]
instead of removing insurance in 0.0 raise your rates, the game can track how often you are in a system, as it is part of your map browser. It is like having high risk coverage in us. they charge you more. that would make sense, and as far as during wartime, I say the corp declaring war voids all their insurance contracts, and the corp they are at war with drops to 50% of what they have for coverage. This would bring down the number of BSs in fleet battles and make it so wars dont' drag out for months on end, as it would get expensive quick.
|
Joe
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 10:02:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Falbala
If ccp really wants more people in 0.0 they put implants BPO on the market: economy sink+people in 0.0.
Bpo's would only shift isk around (from the general public, to the owners of the bpo's), It wouldn't really be a money sink at all.
Npc corporations selling implants on the otherhand (even +1's & +2's) would deffeintly remove alot of isk from the game.
Npc Insurance should be removed from the game, not one 'insurance company' in eve could possibly be making any isk from their buiseness, and would have gone brankrupt a few months after luanch.
I do like the idea of leaving corp ship insurance ingame tho, as this would allow corps to finance and support the corps pvp wings & deep space ops etc. Maybe this could be paid for by corp tax's (if tax's ever get implemented).
Taranis WholeSale Deals. |
Falbala
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 10:09:00 -
[40]
Oh yes it would remove isk: Put implant BPO 1 billion, you sell 100 tommorrow. 100 billions out of the game, maybe even more. How can you say it wouldn't?
|
Myko
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 10:16:00 -
[41]
In my opinion forcing people into moving to 0.0 is impossible. There is a sizeable percentage of the playerbase that would rather quit eve rather than have any possibility of PvP, for them no reward is worth the risk. They will simply do whatever earns the most isk from least risk.
In my opinion insurance should be moved from a npc role to a player role, it would force re-imbursement prices to align to how risky a certain pilot or ship is, it would be much more realistic and could create an isk sink for those that have no idea how to run an insurance company :) it would also remove a source of npc income.
IMO there should be an empire space CONCORD tax that is used to support bounties - players in safe space should pay for their uber protection. I completely argree that agent level and quality should go up as the security status of the system they're in goes down - anyone who can do lvl 4 missions should have enough to risk a couple of jumps in low sec space.
|
Thyro
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 10:51:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Thyro on 28/02/2005 10:52:50
Originally by: Question2
Can someone please explain why people wouldnt WANT to go to 0.0?
...
I bet CCP was scratching their heads wondering why people didnt perform an exodus into 0.0 space.
...
Because several things that seem to be hard to think at least in Iceland...
Why no Exodus to 0.0? Well just few tips...
Chock points which prevent anyone to go through... Alliances that are unable to protect a just ONE complete region... and we assist Alliances closing more than one region. This is possible due to small number of chock points. Because if wasn't that then we will see more people on 0.0
Blobs on map... what to say more about this... enough posts about this and also doesn't need to much to think about.
Lack of NPC stations in 0.0 (exception for space controled by FA, SE, PA and few others that have many npcs stations fully serviced) however not enough to accomodate any minimal type of "Exodus"
Stupid conquerable stations with their useless services: only few stations, lack of services and easy to be conquered to cause pain to previous residents on top fees.
Useless POS with lack of basic services with exceptio of... POS are no more than a estatic Big Mining Station which, after too much pain produce some T2 components.
Offices + Labs in 0.0 or near 0.0 space that cost more if not same to the ones on 1.0.
Why "exodus" to 0.0 if in there are NO conditions to do so?
"Exodus" might mean Exodus from EVE to other and also interesting online games and not from EVE Empire space to 0.0.
Now regarding to topic originator.
Regarding INSURANCE well what to say... another sad idea. (BTW lets nerf everything including the fee to play EVE)
Anyway if your ars fly a T2 ship then you will know that insurance does not cover the loss of the ship neither all its modules. So, Stop be idiotic.
|
Admiral Pieg
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 11:54:00 -
[43]
Anyone speaking for this suggestion are obviously people whom want to cause even more grief when gangbanging someone at a gate.
Im sorry but this change will never be implemented unless ccp wants to file for bankruptcy during the next year.
Considering the time and effort it takes to get a battleship in comparison to how fast you can loose it, a change like this would drive people from eve like rats from a sinking ship.
Do i have to remind you that the majority of CCP's paying customers are empire hugging, agent running, roid popping carebears? No i didnt think so.
Having said that, i deffinetely think no insurance would make 0.0 battles and fleet warfare MUCH more interesting.
______________________
Pod from above. |
SlaneeshZ
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 12:05:00 -
[44]
Generally spoken if you want to have 0.0 being the fightclub of EVE then removing insurance will make it only attractive for filthy rich players. It's already risky because there aren't many places to insure in 0.0, you will have to insure ships in empire space and getting them safe to your 0.0 spot of choice. Also it would have the effect that people already in 0.0 will avoid fighting at all costs and may resort to cheap ships (newbie ships, frigs and tier 1 cruisers) instead of the big ones for fights.
I am not sure though what the exact reasoning behind removing insurance for 0.0 is though. Most people are hesitating anyway to go there and removing insurance for 0.0 isn't making 0.0 exactly attractive for them, it's like from going "go there, die and get a new ship, rinse and repeat" to "go there, die and eventually get a new ship, rinse and repeat until you are eventually broke".
Also I am not sure about removing insurance during wars, I mean anyone could found a 1 man corp and declare war on a 40 man sized empire corp serving as grief-placeholder to prevent them to get any money back from insurance, whether it may be from PvP or PvE fights wouldn't matter. Just watch them getting broke and move on once they are done or tired - you wouldn't even have to fight a single shot. If insurance during wars should go then only if the ship is killed by that corp they are at war with.
----
A true player does feel no need to remind himself or fellow players that it is just a game. |
Andrue
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 12:27:00 -
[45]
Insurance should expire more frequently and the premium should take account of past history. I also like the idea of player driven insurance. Being able to form an insurance company opens up the possibility of a stock market. Allow corporations/alliances to do the same and now you can hurt people financially.
The problem is that such systems aren't easy to set up.
--
(Battle hardened miner)
[Brackley, UK]
WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality. |
Demian Sky
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 17:01:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Demian Sky on 28/02/2005 17:02:41
Originally by: McBane
Actually, what they should do with insurance is to give a kind of no claims bonus. Each time you lose a insured ship, the insurance goes up in cost until a point comes where you effectively can't get insurance (ie cost of insurace is more than the value of the ship).
Should also include base cost of modules in the cover.
Think that would work much better then - would penalise those that rely on insurance, prevent insurance fraud and still protect the noobs. 
I can't believe people totally breezed over this post. If insurance had to stay, the above solution would work great.
However, I maintain none-the-less that insurance in 0.0 should be removed, as it would help deal with inflation, among many other things... The problem here is that everyone has become TOO FREAGIN' SPOILED!! Everyone is used to flying around in their shiney BS because it's a synch to buy a new one if it's blasted out of the sky. So spoiled are we now that the idea of flying into 0.0 in a cruiser or battlecruiser fills people with revulsion. That's rediculous! Cruisers and BC's would be substantially easier to replace--- but no, for some reason, half the EVE population is convinced that every pilot and his brother should be flying BS's around in every reach of space.
If there were no insurance, and people were so stupid as to fly out there with their ONLY BS rather than purchesing a modest cruiser, than by golly, they deserve to lose it!
Okay, so everyone will flock to empire to do agent level 4 agent missions. So here is yet another problem. Agent missions and NPC hunting in 0.0 needs to be polarized, whether insurance in 0.0 is nerfed or not. If agents and NPC hunting offered different kinds of rewards, then we'd see a healthy mix of pilots in both professions (perhaps agent NPC's should be an entirely different breed of pirate with a completely different breed of loot? Flesh traders, smugglers, etc).
|
Lord Dynastron
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 17:11:00 -
[47]
0.0 is already a pretty undesirable place for most people. This wouldn't make is any more so.
|
Lord Dynastron
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 17:13:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Myko
In my opinion insurance should be moved from a npc role to a player role, it would force re-imbursement prices to align to how risky a certain pilot or ship is, it would be much more realistic and could create an isk sink for those that have no idea how to run an insurance company :) it would also remove a source of npc income.
That would be really cool! You could base it on something as simple as # of deaths in the last X amount of time.
|
Dionysus Davinci
|
Posted - 2005.02.28 17:45:00 -
[49]
Wow, this would totally drive me back to empire or at least never PvP again.
Let's stop hating the rich players, because they buy the nice stuff like fraction ships that smaller players earn in empire for lots and lots of space bucks. Including freashly released Tech II making other players rich.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |