| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rasmier
Big-Damn-Heroes
4
   |
Posted - 2013.01.05 04:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
Whenever we lose a T3 ship, we can insure that ship to recive a very small compensation for that loss even with platnum insurance. Can we see the insurance rates and payouts reflect the current prices of ships? It doesn't seem unreasonable to want more than 10-20m for a ship that costs over 450m-600m just to put togeather depending on what subsystems you use to put the ship togeather. To those that argue that pilots could insure an expensive subsystem ship and have it blown up with crap subsystems to recieve more, perhaps an option could be added that if you change the subsystems on the ship, the insurance would be voided. |
Ckra Trald
Remnants of Retribution
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 05:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
Don't fly what you are afraid to lose
If you fial, try again
If you flel, try again.
Try as much as you want, you'll still... faill? |
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1314
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 05:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
Yeah eve totally needs the giant isk faucet this would cause.
So, no. |
Atticus Lowa
Lowa Corp Industries and Security
24
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 05:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
Consider it an additional risk for flying the almighty and glorious Strategic Cruiser, T3s can compete with battleships, so im guessing there SUPPOSED to be a huge risk for people. |
bufnitza calatoare
Nex Angelus.
Unclaimed.
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 07:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
don't loose a ship, simple as that..
I flew a 5b isk nightmare in high sec for over 2 years and never once got ganked.
play smarter or just quit now. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
1800
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 07:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
Why would I ever fly a T1 hull again if I got most of the value back for flying (and dying in) something clearly superior?
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. |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
227
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 08:00:00 -
[7] - Quote
Just remove insurance. |
Steven Seaga1
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
22
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 08:15:00 -
[8] - Quote
Rasmier wrote:Whenever we lose a T3 ship, we can insure that ship to recive a very small compensation for that loss even with platnum insurance. Can we see the insurance rates and payouts reflect the current prices of ships? It doesn't seem unreasonable to want more than 10-20m for a ship that costs over 450m-600m just to put togeather depending on what subsystems you use to put the ship togeather. To those that argue that pilots could insure an expensive subsystem ship and have it blown up with crap subsystems to recieve more, perhaps an option could be added that if you change the subsystems on the ship, the insurance would be voided.
Ball up HTFU it's internet space pixels after all |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics
K162
1203
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 08:47:00 -
[9] - Quote
youre flying a billion isk ship, you can afford to forgo insurance |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1585
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 09:55:00 -
[10] - Quote
PEND insurance is a game mechanic designed to cushion the financial blow for newbies or frugal players.
It only really nearly fully covers cheaply fit T1 ships, and it does so only under those circumstances by design.
You won't see insurance payouts for any ships above plain vanilla T1 ever going up radically.
Side-note, a long-term side-effect of higher T2 payouts would be a raising of the trading price of T2 ships to the point where the financial loss would be comparable to the one nowadays. You're only going to make it even harder for less wealthy players to get into T2 ships in the first place, while not really lowering replacement costs, and also add to the ISK faucet debit rate in the process.
That's not really good for anybody except maybe moongold extraction entities, and even that's arguable.
T3 would not be quite so drastic in compensation (since the PvP-to-other usage ratios are different from T2), but a similar effect would be noticeable.
You'd have to keep adjusting payouts for replacement costs to really go down, but then you're manufacturing a needless and detrimental inflation spiral, so why bother ?
I could go on about it, but...
...long story short, "NO".
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T
T2 BPO poll: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789
Buying this: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=147098 |
Doddy
Excidium.
819
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 10:19:00 -
[11] - Quote
Rasmier wrote:Whenever we lose a T3 ship, we can insure that ship to recive a very small compensation for that loss even with platnum insurance. Can we see the insurance rates and payouts reflect the current prices of ships? It doesn't seem unreasonable to want more than 10-20m for a ship that costs over 450m-600m just to put togeather depending on what subsystems you use to put the ship togeather. To those that argue that pilots could insure an expensive subsystem ship and have it blown up with crap subsystems to recieve more, perhaps an option could be added that if you change the subsystems on the ship, the insurance would be voided.
Its just the same as t2 insurance isn't it? Insurance covers base cost, t2 and t3 producers add cost heavily and so players greatly overpay for them. Insurance doesn't cover this overpaying, quite rightly or it would just keep pumping more and more isk in. As it is insurance shouldn't really exist at all, making it cover players profit margins would just be dumb.
|
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
The Irukandji
1171
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 10:25:00 -
[12] - Quote
Rasmier wrote: It doesn't seem unreasonable to want more than 10-20m for a ship that costs over 450m-600m just to put togeather depending on what subsystems you use to put the ship togeather.
Yes it does.
Waaa waaa mee too mee too I want free iskies for my T2 ships as well......!
Seriously, the insurance value is generally based on the mineral value of the hull. Lots of other stuff besides minerals goes into making T2/T3 hulls that are not minerals, they come from PI, sites, etc. It is the value of this "other stuff" that drives up the price of these advanced hulls. If CCP started to pay out on all this other stuff it would add so much isk to the economy that we would inflate out of control forever. You think I wouldn't charge you twice as much for the ship I made you if I knew you could afford it? You think you wouldn't pay it if you got all your money back when it popped?
So HTFU, and as other people have said - if you are whining about 500M then maybe you can't afford to be flying T3's in the first place. Learn to play eve and accept the consequences of failure. |
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
The Irukandji
1171
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 10:31:00 -
[13] - Quote
Doddy wrote:t2 and t3 producers add cost heavily and so players greatly overpay for them.
You're quite correct. However you have to understand also that producers don't just "add cost" on a whim. T3 materials require effort and risk to acquire. T2 materials require moons to mine, goo to be transported, reactions to be made, all through nullsec which requires sov to be paid for and defended, POS fuel to run, etc. You could complain about the price of technetium or ribbons but acquire your own tech moon or components and you will see just what kind of costs are involved.
Like any economy, every cost is connected to other costs and is completely justified. |
Doddy
Excidium.
819
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 11:36:00 -
[14] - Quote
Ptraci wrote:Doddy wrote:t2 and t3 producers add cost heavily and so players greatly overpay for them.
You're quite correct. However you have to understand also that producers don't just "add cost" on a whim. T3 materials require effort and risk to acquire. T2 materials require moons to mine, goo to be transported, reactions to be made, all through nullsec which requires sov to be paid for and defended, POS fuel to run, etc. You could complain about the price of technetium or ribbons but acquire your own tech moon or components and you will see just what kind of costs are involved. Like any economy, every cost is connected to other costs and is completely justified.
Erm no. The fleets that take tech moons already exist, their purpose is not to take tech moons. Nor is there any costs involved in maintaining the ships or pilots to defend them. In fact the only cost involved is the cost of any ships lost taking or defending the moon along with along with any ammo/cap fuel expended which is a tiny tiny fraction of profits. Sov is not necessary and in any case actually reduces pos costs rather than adds to them, though all the biggest chains are in npc null anyway.
The cost of moving the goo is negligible, as are the pos fuel costs. That leaves 95% of the cost as raw profit
Its not like "any economy", no economy has 1 super substance required for all advanced technology which is located in only a handful of places. Oil for example has alternatives which would be used if it became too expensive. The chinese are trying to buy up all rare earth metals but even they don't have the resources to get a monopoly like is possible in eve. And obviously there is no innovation in eve industry, players cannot design a cheaper process to make t2 ships or develop a t1.5 technology that does the same thing for less. Even if rl was like this it still wouldn't be "justified".
|
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
373
|
Posted - 2013.01.05 19:28:00 -
[15] - Quote
SmilingVagrant wrote:Yeah eve totally needs the giant isk faucet this would cause.
So, no.
Yes, wouldn't want anyone to keep up with the Hive right? 
Petition for a Minimum bounty of 10 mil. Prevent useless bounties!
|
Nariya Kentaya
Tartarus Ventures
Surely You're Joking
276
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 01:04:00 -
[16] - Quote
No, if you can't afford T3's as throwaways, then dont fly them. Besides, they are only meant for ELITE pvp'ers, like WH's. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12495
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 01:14:00 -
[17] - Quote
Rasmier wrote:Can we see the insurance rates and payouts reflect the current prices of ships? No.
That would defeat the purpose of making them undesirable to lose.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan. |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
2074
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 01:17:00 -
[18] - Quote
People still insure ships?
How bizarre.
Mr Epeen 
-ávOv |
baltec1
Bat Country
4675
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 01:27:00 -
[19] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:People still insure ships? How bizarre. Mr Epeen
I always insure my megathrons. My current mega is on its 4th payment |
DSpite Culhach
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
43
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 04:52:00 -
[20] - Quote
What of ship insurance was made not to pay back isk instantly, but to give you a replacement hull?
You could add in a replacement delay, say a few days for the hull to be ready for pickup as well.
Would make more sense that the insurance agencies are making hulls cheaper then we do (better contacts and resources) but that the more unusual the hull, the longer it might take to get you a replacement.
You'll be out of isk, have to wait, but could be scaled to give you a better bang for your insurance buck. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1589
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 06:25:00 -
[21] - Quote
DSpite Culhach wrote:What of ship insurance was made not to pay back isk instantly, but to give you a replacement hull
The most obvious and immediate problem for that if you do it the straightforward way (i.e. spawn a new hull out of nowhere) would be that you're pretty much hobbling the whole point of the EVE economy.
That is, as much as possible is actually created by the players (or at least by direct player action). CCP has constantly moved to increase the number of player-produced items and minimize NPC-spawned items.
Doing that would go completely against the whole direction they're trying to push the game towards.
Basically, doing it that way is a big no-no.
Let's say you go a somewhat circuitous and "fairer" route and say NPCs will buy out one (player-created) ship from the market (the cheapest, of course) and transport it "in the NPC background" somewhere else, where needed, according to where the loss reimbursement is supposed to occur (that could act as the "timer" you were talking about).
THAT, while at first sight is not really a problem (it doesn't undermine the player-run economy directly), is actually even more of a problem: it spawns ISK out of nowhere.
And --insert fictional deity name here-- knows we have way too many ISK faucets and not enough sinks already, which contributes towards inflation.
It also eventually leads to a massive spike in ship trading value (via the double whammy of out-of-nowhere ISK and the wanton continual purchase of cheapest available ships), which only makes the initial problem worse (you keep spawning more and more ISK for each ship loss).
And you know where most of that ISK eventually ends up, at least for T2 ships ?
If you guessed anything except "technetium and other rare moon material miners", you would be wrong.
And surprise, surprise, that's the worst place huge amounts of ISK should be ending up at.
It's less bad for T3 ships, but still not very enticing. Depending on how things stand, it could go to wormhole ratters or wormhole gas miners. While THAT part might actually be a somewhat good thing, since the total trade volume for T3 ships is completely dwarfed by T2 ships anyway (and likely to stay that way), so you're still left with the moongold issue.
All in all, sorry, that's not a good idea at all, no matter how you look at it.
The consequences are just too ugly in too many places, for way too little improvement elsewhere.
And again, there's absolutely no good reason for doing it at all in the first place, since only newbies and penny-pinchers are really supposed to be protected by the mechanics anyway.
If anything, PEND insurance should be completely removed, not boosted.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T
T2 BPO poll: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789
Buying this: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=147098 |
Glathull
Suicidal Panda Tears of Love and Death
44
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 06:36:00 -
[22] - Quote
New Meme:
EvE has insurance? |
Implying Implications
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
291
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 10:35:00 -
[23] - Quote
I get paid to lose ships.
püåpüÉpüàn+P |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |