| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vicker Lahn'se
   |
Posted - 2005.05.11 15:48:00 -
[1]
If I plan to drive my car around in a destruction dirby, nobody's going to sell me insurance. Why the hell would an insurance company allow its clients to go around attacking other people? You don't see any insurance companies insuring tanks that are used in the modern military. Look at the ISK flow to and from the Eve insurance companies. If the Eve insurance were a real company, they'd be going down in flames.
This is the cause of the massive ammounts of ISK that are pouring around in today's Eve galaxy. This is the cause of people going around mindlessly ganking any players they see. There's no risk in loosing your ship because you get most of the cost back.
I can see insurance companies insuring industrial ships and miners, but insurance does not apply to craft that would be used for war.
|
Verone
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 15:55:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Verone on 11/05/2005 15:57:17
 Originally by: Vicker Lahn'se
There's no risk in loosing your ship because you get most of the cost back.
You obviously don't fly teh 2 ships then? the insurance on them is atrocious to start with, and i feel myself like this is another "carebear" idea to drive "pirates" (known to most people as griefers because of all the crap we get) out of the profession.
It aint broke, no one else has complained. Don't mess about with it.
Insurance in eve covers the loss of a ship in any way shape or form, barring reprocessing, trashing and repackaging (which you have to be an idiot to do anyway).
It should stay that way, it always has been that way, and people should stop whining about wanting this and that changed, because CCP has a lot more problems on their hands keeping a server cluster the size of tranquility running 23/7.
Bug fixing, stability and content should come first over pointless things like this that have been that way since eve began.
COME AND SOCIALISE WITH US NASTY SNIGG BASTARDS AT : WWW.SNIGG.CJB.NET |
Joshua Foiritain
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 15:59:00 -
[3]
Why would you tell your insurance company youre gonna shoot people?
Removing insurance will encourage blobbing and ganking, as people will be less willing to risk their ship if they cant insure it...
Decreased insurance for everyone; Sure.
Complete insurance nerfage; Hell no.
Insurance also dont cover T2 ships and equipment.
---------------------------
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 16:09:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Joshua Foiritain
Why would you tell your insurance company youre gonna shoot people?
True, but at the same time, there are circumstances where your insurance company won't pay out regardless of if you told them beforehand or not. I'd suggest getting nuked by the SWAT team would be one of them.
The original post's suggestion goes a bit far, but I would like to see some change in this direction. Specifically, no insurance payout for deaths to concord. Losing your ship to concord is supposed to be a big punishment. Right now insurance is undermining that punishment a lot.
|
Gunstar Zero
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 16:12:00 -
[5]
just exactly would you do with your ship then? Mine?
|
Larno
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 16:18:00 -
[6]
How about:- make insurance cost 10% ship cost instead of 30% for platinum to encourage PvP!! :D
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 16:18:00 -
[7]
Well, actually  , I think the guy has one slightly valid point here.
Not the combat thing in general, thats rubbish and could never be part of game balance. And gamebalance > realism.
But the concord thing... well.
If it wasn't for the fact that it seems that about half the new players dont read the rules and get their hard-earned frigates blown up by concord at some point for using a smartbomb or whatever, I'd be all for no insurance payout if killed by concord.
anything else will end us up with more ganks/blob/snipers/loggers/lamers, and as such do more harm then good, even for the people that might think to be served by such a change.
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
The Enslaver
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 16:25:00 -
[8]
Or just remove all insurance... But thats just my opinion.
--------
FireFoxx80: If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU. |
Hastrabull
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 16:29:00 -
[9]
Originally by: The Enslaver
Or just remove all insurance... But thats just my opinion.
Yes, all insurance out. Even from mining barges and npcing ravens.
This way all of us will be equal. You cant favorize anyone.
I can bet, that after 3 days, whinning will start:
Get us insurance back! its not fair! we are loosing ships and noone pays us for our stupidity! GIVE INSURANCE BACK you *** CCP! 
So yes, get all insurance out of game. We dont need it anymore! 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: |
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 16:32:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Rod Blaine
If it wasn't for the fact that it seems that about half the new players dont read the rules and get their hard-earned frigates blown up by concord at some point for using a smartbomb or whatever, I'd be all for no insurance payout if killed by concord.
The trouble is, you can't balance the whole game based on the dumbest newbie. Maybe you could have a "first offence" flag, so that the dumb newb gets his insurance once, but after that is expected to have learned their lesson?
Maybe also look at the warning pop-ups again. The newbie should get the warning pop-up before shooting most things - smartbombs and fof's could be the only exceptions I can think of. Maybe plug the gap by having the pop-ups appear when you fit them instead?
But at the end of the day, the stupid will always find a way to be stupid, no-matter how hard you make it!
|
Vicker Lahn'se
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 16:38:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Verone
Edited by: Verone on 11/05/2005 15:57:17
Originally by: Vicker Lahn'se
There's no risk in loosing your ship because you get most of the cost back.
You obviously don't fly teh 2 ships then? the insurance on them is atrocious to start with, and i feel myself like this is another "carebear" idea to drive "pirates" (known to most people as griefers because of all the crap we get) out of the profession.
It aint broke, no one else has complained. Don't mess about with it.
Insurance in eve covers the loss of a ship in any way shape or form, barring reprocessing, trashing and repackaging (which you have to be an idiot to do anyway).
It should stay that way, it always has been that way, and people should stop whining about wanting this and that changed, because CCP has a lot more problems on their hands keeping a server cluster the size of tranquility running 23/7.
Bug fixing, stability and content should come first over pointless things like this that have been that way since eve began.
As a result, all of the HAC pirates I have run into actualy pirated isntead of ganking because they value their ship more and don't want to lose it. BS pvpers just run at things and blow them up just for the hell of it.
|
hylleX
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 16:54:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Vicker Lahn'se
There's no risk in loosing your ship because you get most of the cost back.
An example, if im in a geddon and get blown up. I get 66 mill insurance back fine, ship cost like 70+. But if u consider all gear on the ship heat sink II, sensor booster II, guns ammo crystals cost a bit too. Its a loss from my calculations of about 20-30mill + insurance cost 20 total of 40-50mill. And if u use tech2 guns its a lot more. So if wouldn't say u get most cost back.
Whats the deal with risk blabla anyway, too get people even more scared of pvp? ppl are already, pvp should be encouraged not nerfed.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 16:58:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Matthew
The trouble is, you can't balance the whole game based on the dumbest newbie.
You haven't read any patchnotes in the last 2 years, have you?
______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots.
They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 17:01:00 -
[14]
This is now a discussion of insurance level rather then the system itself.
We can go on for ages this way, since some would like a level of zero and some would see everything insured 100% by default. Nothing's going to change in that respect.
As for the system, yes, removing insurance from concord victims makes sense, but how much would it actually change ?
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
Unbeleever
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 17:16:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Unbeleever on 11/05/2005 17:16:42
Not to mention the insurence thing is a isk sink for the eve economy that helps level out inflation, if insurence was to be nerfed for hostil acts the economy would surley get more B.orked than it is already is.(Inflation I mean)
For me... Group therapy is a 30 pack of BEER!!
Then all of the voices are satisfied. |
Vicker Lahn'se
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 17:44:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Unbeleever
Edited by: Unbeleever on 11/05/2005 17:16:42
Not to mention the insurence thing is a isk sink for the eve economy that helps level out inflation, if insurence was to be nerfed for hostil acts the economy would surley get more B.orked than it is already is.(Inflation I mean)
Thats bull****. Insurance gives a lot more ISK to the players who lose their ships than the players pay for the insurance.
|
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 17:47:00 -
[17]
When will people realize that if you were to have absolutely real-world insurance in EVE, nobody would PVP?
___winterblink/warp_drive_active/eve_nature_vraie// |
Dawnstar
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 17:56:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Unbeleever
Edited by: Unbeleever on 11/05/2005 17:16:42
Not to mention the insurence thing is a isk sink for the eve economy that helps level out inflation, if insurence was to be nerfed for hostil acts the economy would surley get more B.orked than it is already is.(Inflation I mean)
Uh...? 
The insurance system puts more isk into the game than it takes out. Do the math sometime. Even if only 50% of the insurance policies which are taken out pay off (and I suspect the percentage is MUCH higher than that given how many ships a number of players go through), the system still puts more isk into the game than out. It is probably the #1 source of inflation in the game.
Actually, I would highly welcome some sort of numbers from CCP as to what the ratio of payout vs premiums actually are. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that the insurance companies are still in business. 
-D
Proposal for Overhauling Manufacturing. |
Joshua Foiritain
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 17:59:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Joshua Foiritain
Why would you tell your insurance company youre gonna shoot people?
True, but at the same time, there are circumstances where your insurance company won't pay out regardless of if you told them beforehand or not. I'd suggest getting nuked by the SWAT team would be one of them.
The original post's suggestion goes a bit far, but I would like to see some change in this direction. Specifically, no insurance payout for deaths to concord. Losing your ship to concord is supposed to be a big punishment. Right now insurance is undermining that punishment a lot.
Ah but then, how many ships lost to CONCORD die because they willingly commited a crime?
and how many of CONCORD's victims are simply friendly fire accidents?
Getting nuked by CONCORD because you accidently hit the wrong button is bad enough as it is, not getting insurance payout would just make CONCORD worthless.
---------------------------
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
Dawnstar
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 18:00:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Winterblink
When will people realize that if you were to have absolutely real-world insurance in EVE, nobody would PVP?
I think this statement is quite highly mistaken. People would still PvP. People who want to go shoot up other players will still do so.
However, they would primarily be using ships which didn't cost them so much to lose. I suspect that the average PvPer would be using cruisers rather than battleships for combat, as they are much easier to replace.
-D
Proposal for Overhauling Manufacturing. |
DrunkenOne
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 18:06:00 -
[21]
Edited by: DrunkenOne on 11/05/2005 18:06:27
Originally by: Dawnstar
However, they would primarily be using ships which didn't cost them so much to lose. I suspect that the average PvPer would be using cruisers rather than battleships for combat, as they are much easier to replace.
Which, IMO, would make eve about 23423423x cooler. Instead of all BS fleets you would have mainly cruiser/t2 fleets, with some BS support. Even if you went up against an all BS fleet and killed like 3 of theres and lost 10 cruisers, guess what, u won.
|
sableye
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 18:14:00 -
[22]
I think it would be good as you would have real reasosn to use normal cruisers even a battlecruiser would be a major loss this is only way you'll see balanced fleets ever.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 18:25:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Rod Blaine
Well, actually , I think the guy has one slightly valid point here.
Not the combat thing in general, thats rubbish and could never be part of game balance. And gamebalance > realism.
But the concord thing... well.
If it wasn't for the fact that it seems that about half the new players dont read the rules and get their hard-earned frigates blown up by concord at some point for using a smartbomb or whatever, I'd be all for no insurance payout if killed by concord.
anything else will end us up with more ganks/blob/snipers/loggers/lamers, and as such do more harm then good, even for the people that might think to be served by such a change.
Don't forget the lovely bugs like the drone/cagro sploit, not to mention lock-lag...
"As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade" |
Joshua Foiritain
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 18:33:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Dawnstar
However, they would primarily be using ships which didn't cost them so much to lose. I suspect that the average PvPer would be using cruisers rather than battleships for combat, as they are much easier to replace.
Actually people would form blobs and gank solo pilots even more then they do today because they dont want to risk losing their bs.
As long as blobbing works people will never fly cruisers in PVP.
---------------------------
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
HeLlRaIzA666
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 18:48:00 -
[25]
Why not put direct line advertisements on the billboard and introduce NO CLAIM BONUS's while ur at it vicker... bloody minmatar slave :P
Anyways... bk to the point.... no insurance would discourage small scale pvp and skirmishes... it wud be all giant fleet battles
--------------------------------------------
In War There Are No Runners Up...
Image by Denrace |
Roger Dodger
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 18:57:00 -
[26]
A lot of people say that if EVE were real insurance companies would be going down in flames. However, there's 5,000 systems in the game, and if only half of those are inhabited, that's trillions if not quadrillions of people.
PC players like you and me are literally nothing compared to the NPCs who buy insurance.
__________________
Proud member of the SinBin Fan Club
|
Stratten
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 19:04:00 -
[27]
seems fitting realistically, but the pirates would need compensation for the loss of that protection. something along the lines of non-pirate bounties for them...the higher the positive rating the more they could gain...with more profit, insurance is paid for in a way. hate to give em something to gain :) but it is after all fair
|
Sochin
|
Posted - 2005.05.11 22:24:00 -
[28]
I like how this plan involves you keeping your insurance but all the nasty people who are mean to you losing it.
Nemo me impune lacessit
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.05.12 01:32:00 -
[29]
I don't think this is a good idea, because the agressor is not automatically always the bad guy.
It should much rather be so that the lower your security status gets the more you have to pay to insure your ships.
|
Xendie
|
Posted - 2005.05.12 01:33:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Vicker Lahn'se
Originally by: Unbeleever
Edited by: Unbeleever on 11/05/2005 17:16:42
Not to mention the insurence thing is a isk sink for the eve economy that helps level out inflation, if insurence was to be nerfed for hostil acts the economy would surley get more B.orked than it is already is.(Inflation I mean)
Thats bull****. Insurance gives a lot more ISK to the players who lose their ships than the players pay for the insurance.
yes the ships value is lets say 100mill in base minerals, that means you got a 30mill platinum insurance fee.
now you have payed 130mill for that ship and we add some 30mill in equipments wich adds the total cost for the ship up to 160mill.
now where the hell is that insurance that gives me more then 160mill back on that insurance.
or do you get all your ship for 0 isk and insure them and loose them?
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |