EVE Search - INSURANCE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT <- Suggestion

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

INSURANCE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT <- Suggestion

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
razdolbay	Posted - 2006.03.22 11:12:00 - [1] -=[ INSURANCE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ]=- If "anybody" kills "another one", this "anybody" automatically will pay 50% of insurance (WITH minus ISK balance feature if ISK balance fail), AND last 50% as now. THIS WILL MAKE UNIVERSE MORE PEACEFUL ! THIS WILL MAKE MORE RESPONSIBLE PILOTS !
Gen Kumon	Posted - 2006.03.22 11:36:00 - [2] It would also kill piracy and the majority of 0.0 combat.
Iron Wraith	Posted - 2006.03.22 12:02:00 - [3] yeah, how the hell am i supposed to laugh at an invading enyo in my alliances patch of 0.0 bouncing off my hardnend armour if he had to risk 50mill just to attack me? i really hope this is a joke post cos if its not you have a lot to learn about eve. its built for peacefull citizens as well as blood lusting nutters. i've spent several years killing the npc's in empire with no risk of player pirates. and now i'm having the time of my life out in 0.0 killing real pirates Because sometimes you just have to go back to your roots: [2005.02.20 01:08:03] (combat) Your Civilian Light Electron Blaster perfectly strikes Serpentis Smuggler, wrecking for 20.3 damage.
Laqum	Posted - 2006.03.22 12:24:00 - [4] Remember no flames.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.03.22 12:36:00 - [5] Originally by: Laqum Remember no flames. What about the requirement to post constuctively ? You can't seriously think the op has a contructive point to make here can you ? Anyway. Eve's pvp system is supposed to be non-consensual and have a deterimental effect on the loser upon loss of ship resp. pod. Having the 'winner' pay half of the damages would mean there is no longer a winner. No winners means we all get to be losers Capiche ? Power to the players !
Spoon Thumb	Posted - 2006.03.22 14:11:00 - [6] How about this: If you pod someone / destroy their ship and thus lose sec status in empire (0.1 and above) you have to pay a bigger insurance premium when your own ship next gets blown up x~~x~~x~~x~~x~~x~~x~~x~~x~~x~~x~~x~~x~~x~~x~~x Spoon Thumb - I can scoop ice cream with my thumbs!
Daikatana00	Posted - 2006.03.22 14:58:00 - [7] Edited by: Daikatana00 on 22/03/2006 15:00:21 Originally by: Spoon Thumb How about this: If you pod someone / destroy their ship and thus lose sec status in empire (0.1 and above) you have to pay a bigger insurance premium when your own ship next gets blown up Makes sense. Insurance companies probably won't insure dangerous pirates for the same price as law-abiding carebears because they cause the company to lose ISK but to make it fair they'd have to charge you more each time you lose a ship as well because you are also causing them to lose money to pay you. sigh... everyone seems to use the suggestions forum to make the game easier for them or harder for the people they don't like. Its a good thing CCP doesn't pay attention to the majority of these. Just a casual glance and off to other threads. Edit: new slogan: Insurance company should start to turn a profit or go under. CCP can't keep bailing it out with infinate ISK infusions. The above post does not reflect the views of any corp or alliance I may be in. If you have a problem with me or my opinion feel free to take it up with me, not my corp/alliance.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.03.22 15:16:00 - [8] Indeed, when I see suggestions like these i always wonder what they are supposed to achieve. To me it looks like the op thinks that consensual pvp is bad, and it looks like the subsequent suggestion just above is designed to nerf piracy in low sec. Neither is stated to serve any different goal. And if they are indeed aimed to do what I think then the respective posters might do good to next time include an argumentation as to why they think the current situation is wrong in the first place. Power to the players !
K Shara	Posted - 2006.03.22 15:34:00 - [9] lol & ROFL LOL again LOL for a third time.
Eddie	Posted - 2006.03.22 19:45:00 - [10] there are some in every game now please go back to wow/swg whatever you used to play Originally by: TomB It is a good day to be Jove oh thank GOD! I thought you were gonna wave the nerf bat around in this thread
Sir Juri	Posted - 2006.03.22 19:48:00 - [11] bad idea for many reasons, youll see why hopefully one day. Im a noob, bear with me :P
Deja Thoris	Posted - 2006.03.22 19:52:00 - [12] Insurance is simply a crutch to help stop losses being so catastophic. Trying to use it in a sly way to stop people shooting at each other is dumb.
Eralis	Posted - 2006.03.22 20:41:00 - [13] It's important to understand the effect of insurance: It makes ships cheaper, which is ultimately another form of ISK inflation. I think the real solution here is that insurance should be priced as to be profitable for "the insurance people". So the total amount of money paid in insurance should be 5-20% higher than the total money paid out in insurance. Possibly assign different pricing based on claim history. That way people who are actually using insurance as INSURANCE (i.e., they are trying to avoid combat and only occasionally get killed) get cheap rates and thus better financial protection from being unwilling participants (and possibly losers) in PvP, while those heavily into PvP have much higher insurance rates. The end result is that the costs of PvP are put more on the PvP players. This is good because it makes it more attractive for the non-PvP inclined to stay in the game even if they do occasionally get killed (since they have good, cheap insurance), and makes the REAL PvP stakes higher (cause when you kill another PvP player who has crap insurance, you get to hurt them more.)
Sir Juri	Posted - 2006.03.22 20:56:00 - [14] Originally by: Eralis It's important to understand the effect of insurance: It makes ships cheaper, which is ultimately another form of ISK inflation. I think the real solution here is that insurance should be priced as to be profitable for "the insurance people". So the total amount of money paid in insurance should be 5-20% higher than the total money paid out in insurance. Possibly assign different pricing based on claim history. That way people who are actually using insurance as INSURANCE (i.e., they are trying to avoid combat and only occasionally get killed) get cheap rates and thus better financial protection from being unwilling participants (and possibly losers) in PvP, while those heavily into PvP have much higher insurance rates. The end result is that the costs of PvP are put more on the PvP players. This is good because it makes it more attractive for the non-PvP inclined to stay in the game even if they do occasionally get killed (since they have good, cheap insurance), and makes the REAL PvP stakes higher (cause when you kill another PvP player who has crap insurance, you get to hurt them more.) Then I think its better with a player corp making an insurance thing then CCP, what you suggest would be so exploited/griefed and bad TBH. Im a noob, bear with me :P
Eralis	Posted - 2006.03.22 21:18:00 - [15] Yeah, corp insurance is good. But you do want somthing for non-PvP or non-corp players. The other problem with insurance as it is is it's often better to buy insurance and get a ship blown up than it is to try and sell it.
Spoon Thumb	Posted - 2006.03.22 21:29:00 - [16] Another idea i've heard bounded around this forum is to make insurance premium cheaper than it is atm. So the following two ways would mean f.e I pay 6.2mil rather than 7.2 mil to get platinum insurance for a Ferox, paying out 24mil when I die: Standings with NCP corps and factions or concord gets you a cheaper premium or Those that lose ships less often get cheaper premiums Of course the former suggestion massively advantages mission runnners over ppl doing pvp. The latter however might discourage people from going into low sec because they'll lose their no claims bonus :P *** Spoon Thumb - I can scoop ice cream with my thumbs!
Gogar Teltaf	Posted - 2006.03.22 23:06:00 - [17] look at this from a different side here. What about giving insurance for stolen ships, i.e if a member of your corp steals a ship from the hanger - you do not know who it is and therefore can not lay down justice. So either we should report a stolen ship and get insurance back (rather than just loosing 100-200m of ship), or have an auditing system on corp hangers in stations, and corp hangers/ship maintainence arrays at a POS.
Alsthana Leameur	Posted - 2006.03.23 03:24:00 - [18] Edited by: Alsthana Leameur on 23/03/2006 03:29:46 Originally by: razdolbay THIS WILL MAKE UNIVERSE MORE PEACEFUL ! ROFLMFAO i could not stop laughing when i read that... EVE is a game ABOUT pvp, about combat, about neck-and-neck territorial standoffs, about fights between corporations and alliances for resources and power, about pirates feeding of the weak and vigilaties coming in to rescue those they can, about the manufacturers building equipment for all the others to use, about losses which they replace, about an entire complex web of roles all supporting each other in a gigantic balance. if any of them were disrupted, the entire economy would fail, and 99% of players would leave. ---------------------- My solution to insta overload: Linkage my sig has no reason to be edited! HA! (i ac
razdolbay	Posted - 2006.03.23 08:18:00 - [19] suggest an idea (or correct my idea) OR dont speak. in posts above i see, that some peoples afraid for own reputation and money, so topic is correct and necessary time and place.
Eddie	Posted - 2006.03.23 10:21:00 - [20] lets just keep it as it is. works just fine as it is now Originally by: TomB It is a good day to be Jove oh thank GOD! I thought you were gonna wave the nerf bat around in this thread
Iron Wraith	Posted - 2006.03.23 10:31:00 - [21] ok, i'm gonna make a sensible post now. sorry about my first but i do see a lot of posts like this that are just jokes created to wind people up right, firsts lets look at the reasoning behind this. it sounds like you are aiming at a more RL model of insurance where the careful are rewarded and the reckless are charged. yes that is a fair system, but now lets look at how a fair system affects a game. PvPers come in all shapes and sizes, though they can be summed up in 3 categories: Pirates, Anti-Pirates and Alliance Fighters. I'm guessing you want the pirates to think twice about shooting at you because they will risk forking out for your ships loss? While this seems fair in a RL context it stops being fair in the games context. as a knock on affect those players who choose to hunt down pirates will also be penalised, is this something you think is fair? now lets take a look at the game and why things are as they are. first you have to understand that CCP want PvP in their game. they want thousands of pilots out in dangerous spaces fighting their wars, attacking innocents and hunting down those that attack innocents. they have created a game with a safe zone for the thousands of peaceful players and "wild west" zone for those who want to compete head to head in a might is right fashion. they have recently released an expansion pack (exodus) where they tried a few tricks to lure people into dangerous space so they could find out what eve really has to offer. introducing a system that penalises the PvPers and makes their already expensive lifestyle almost impossibly expensive is counter productive to CCP's aims and objectives. this is why i first thought you were joking, sorry, i meant no offence, there is a lot to learn about eve and several years on i'm still learning new things! as a player i have spent 90% of my time in empire doing non PvP activities. namely mission running but also a spot of trading when i lost one too many cruisers in a week and ran out of isk . now that i have found an alliance that fits my beliefs i have moved out into 0.0. i'm shaking off my "carebear" past and am embracing a new life of PvP fuelled by 0.0 rat hunting. last night i was in a fast hauler taking some gear from my old empire base to 0.0 when i got ganked by a pirate gate camp. i then had good fun for the rest of the evening sitting on that same gate in my brutix waiting for the pirates to return in force. after scaring off a few t2 frigs whose tank failed miserably against my blasters the pirates eventually returned in force. ouch! it freakin hurt! i have no idea how my ship survived, i was too busy hammering on the warp button to save my pod that i didnt notice my ship made it to warp till i was several AU's away! it was all in all good fun , i laughed with the pirates as i made my escape to empire, they were just as surprised as me that my ship escaped this is a side of eve you might not see for a while, nor do you have to see if you dont wish to. empire vs low sec gives both types of players the game they want. so there is no need to charge PvPers through the nose on insurance when there is ample things for non PvPers to do within the safety of concords protection. i know it can leave you feeling gutted when your ganked by pirates, but look at it this way, you are in their space. you have entered the area of eve where PvP is supposed to happen. if its left you with a sour taste in the mouth try talking to the pirates instead of yelling at them. most pirates can be a laugh to talk to. if you play your cards right they may even offer you advice on how to survive better next time. yes eve has its fair share of griefers but a pirate does not = a griefer. besides, if pirates really do offend you then try making contact with some anti-pirate organisations. kicking righteous ass is a good hobby Because sometimes you just have to go back to your roots: [2005.02.20 01:08:03] (combat) Your Civilian Light Electron Blaster perfectly strikes Serpentis Smuggler, wrecking for 20.3 damage.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.03.23 10:32:00 - [22] Originally by: Eralis It's important to understand the effect of insurance: It makes ships cheaper, which is ultimately another form of ISK inflation. I think the real solution here is that insurance should be priced as to be profitable for "the insurance people". So the total amount of money paid in insurance should be 5-20% higher than the total money paid out in insurance. Possibly assign different pricing based on claim history. That way people who are actually using insurance as INSURANCE (i.e., they are trying to avoid combat and only occasionally get killed) get cheap rates and thus better financial protection from being unwilling participants (and possibly losers) in PvP, while those heavily into PvP have much higher insurance rates. The end result is that the costs of PvP are put more on the PvP players. This is good because it makes it more attractive for the non-PvP inclined to stay in the game even if they do occasionally get killed (since they have good, cheap insurance), and makes the REAL PvP stakes higher (cause when you kill another PvP player who has crap insurance, you get to hurt them more.) You misunderstand. Combat in Eve is a tool as well as a goal. It serves to hurt those that lose their ships. It serves to do damage in a corporation v corporation or pilot v pilot competition. There are no differences between people that want to pvp or those that do not. Just like there are no differences between those that want to pay more so you can profit on the market and those that do not. There is no difference between pvp and non-pvp in Eve. PvP is a tool to cause financial damage. There is no reason why that damage should be lower for one player then for another based on whether he thinks he is a pvp player or not. Hell, there is no reason in Eve why a non-pvp player should be less viable as a target. And there's plenty reasons why he should be more viable... Power to the players !
razdolbay	Posted - 2006.03.23 11:27:00 - [23] tnx for comments especially to Rod.
Iron Wraith	Posted - 2006.03.23 12:34:00 - [24] so what do u think now then razdolbay? have we swayed your mind or do you still think us reckless pilots should have a higher premium? as a "good guy" i can honestly say that either paying half the insurance of a ship i kill or having worse insurance might push me back to empire as it is the isk can come in real fast when ratting, but we get invaded almost every night so ratting cant be relied upon. haveing to pay more for my losses or having to pay for my victories would turn my accountant against me and he'd get me shackled and dragged back to my agent for more safe space mission running. hehe as it is i've fudged the paper work so he thinks my mega was lost to a freak accident and doesnt know its sitting in my rapid response hanger for invasions Because sometimes you just have to go back to your roots: [2005.02.20 01:08:03] (combat) Your Civilian Light Electron Blaster perfectly strikes Serpentis Smuggler, wrecking for 20.3 damage.
razdolbay	Posted - 2006.03.23 12:47:00 - [25] Originally by: Iron Wraith so what do u think now then razdolbay? have we swayed your mind or do you still think us reckless pilots should have a higher premium? i suggest an improvement, - lets discuss it. i see many new ideas from this topic, and you? Originally by: Iron Wraith as a "good guy" i can honestly say that either paying half the insurance of a ship i kill or having worse insurance might push me back to empire as it is the isk can come in real fast when ratting, but we get invaded almost every night so ratting cant be relied upon. haveing to pay more for my losses or having to pay for my victories would turn my accountant against me and he'd get me shackled and dragged back to my agent for more safe space mission running. hehe as it is i've fudged the paper work so he thinks my mega was lost to a freak accident and doesnt know its sitting in my rapid response hanger for invasions DONT PANIC! make an agent missions for enough of money ))) do something than ratting. EVE not for PvP only !!! or soon you will be shoot yourself for fun, because will no players online. At this time balance between pvp and non-pvp players as a great canyon/wall/water (underscore needed)... i'm skill trained for pvp too, but i'm not interesting in it...
razdolbay	Posted - 2006.03.23 12:49:00 - [26] heh - need a new skill for self-shoot
Noveron	Posted - 2006.03.23 13:39:00 - [27] threads like this should be locked instantly imo. Signature file size to big, please keep it under 24000 bytes - Petwraith
Shadowen Falceneye	Posted - 2006.03.23 13:58:00 - [28] Well to be honest, insurance premiums should be related to standings, and security rating.. If you like to gank away the premiums should increase, as you're security rating drops. And should get cheaper as you're rating increases.. This means if you gank a lot of people, you can't get anything out of insurance, if you don't gank away then you get more out of it. Currently PoD killing only has one effect on the ganker => lower security rating, IMO there should be a penalty for destroying pods, which is more severe than just that. Podding people is The Most Pointless exercise in the game, espc if there isn't any bounty on the person. I'm an advocate for the cost/benefit model.. currently there is no reason NOT to pod somone, other than a minor security rating decrease. regards shadowen.
Iron Wraith	Posted - 2006.03.23 14:13:00 - [29] Originally by: razdolbay i suggest an improvement, - lets discuss it. i see many new ideas from this topic, and you? ok, i'm game for a good discussion but first can you pick up on a few ideas you like then edit your original post. instead of just having the one idea post a few you like. make sure you include pro's and con's and try to think about it from both sides of the argument. hopefully this will give us good grounds to start a discussion on and will avoid any angry new comers. Originally by: razdolbay DONT PANIC! make an agent missions for enough of money ))) do something than ratting. EVE not for PvP only !!! or soon you will be shoot yourself for fun, because will no players online. At this time balance between pvp and non-pvp players as a great canyon/wall/water (underscore needed)... i'm skill trained for pvp too, but i'm not interesting in it... after 2 years playing without wanting to do pvp i know eve is not for pvp only but if the effectiveness of insurance is reduced for pvpers than we really will be shooting our selves as the number of people wanting to risk pvp will drop like a brick! i can risk the loss of an uninsured cruiser now, but i wouldnt be able to take my favourite megathron out for pvp if i didnt have good insurance. at the moment the pvp crowd can play their game and the non pvp crowd can play their's. the change you suggest takes the game away from the pvp crowd and will make lots of players leave. so if your not interested in pvp why does it affect you? are you trying to play in low sec? or are you under attack from bigger corps declairing war on you? please let me know why you are getting shot at when you dont want to be so i can understand your point of view. (by the way, i have given up with agent missions. the lvl3 missions dont pay fast enough and the lvl4 missions are too risky for the pay. i get shot at more on a lvl3 mission than i do in 0.0 ratting! a lvl4 mission is extreemly dangerous and still doesnt pay as much as 0.0 ratting. so i choose to rat for isk and pvp for risk ) Because sometimes you just have to go back to your roots: [2005.02.20 01:08:03] (combat) Your Civilian Light Electron Blaster perfectly strikes Serpentis Smuggler, wrecking for 20.3 damage.
Iron Wraith	Posted - 2006.03.23 14:48:00 - [30] Originally by: Shadowen Falceneye Well to be honest, insurance premiums should be related to standings, and security rating.. If you like to gank away the premiums should increase, as you're security rating drops. And should get cheaper as you're rating increases.. This means if you gank a lot of people, you can't get anything out of insurance, if you don't gank away then you get more out of it. Currently PoD killing only has one effect on the ganker => lower security rating, IMO there should be a penalty for destroying pods, which is more severe than just that. Podding people is The Most Pointless exercise in the game, espc if there isn't any bounty on the person. I'm an advocate for the cost/benefit model.. currently there is no reason NOT to pod somone, other than a minor security rating decrease. regards shadowen. i dont think that will answer your problems. there are already high sec rating pirates in the game. and it doesnt take long to raise your sec in 0.0. i have gained more security status in the last few months through ratting in 0.0 than from years of mission running. its kinda scary that years of work can be done in months so if pirates have to earn sec rating for cheaper insurance then thats just what they will do. this will have 2 drawbacks on the innocents. the pirates will be richer and have bigger toys and the pirates wont be as easy to spot because they wont have a low sec rating. as for podding, well i dont think its such a bad crime anymore. well, maybe if you take implants into consideration, that hurts. but i've been killed several times now and the worst i've lost is 2 hrs worth of skill time cos my clone was only just out of date. (/me grumbles about not being able to use his t2 large blasters untill 40 mins after he gets home tonight). infact when i lost my ship last night i didnt even try to escape. wanted a quick ride home to my empire base for a ship refit what is needed is something done about implants. its fine to loose a few millions worth of clone along with the modules and part of the ships value insurance doesnt cover. now what would be nice is for jump clones to be more accessable. if you have to treck into low sec then being able to swap over to an empty clone would be great. it would also tempt more people into pvp as there is less to loose when your at war or fighting general enemy's then pod killing does make sense. its forces you opponent to loose more isk which brings you closer to winning the war and not just the battle. as for pirates pod killing victims, well it makes more sense for them to ransom than to blow the ship up, but a lot of pirates just enjoy the wanton distruction. some guy had an idea on transferable kill rights. this would allow the victims to pass on the right to kill a pirate even in empire to those that can actually do something about it. maybe thats a better way to alter the balance? Because sometimes you just have to go back to your roots: [2005.02.20 01:08:03] (combat) Your Civilian Light Electron Blaster perfectly strikes Serpentis Smuggler, wrecking for 20.3 damage.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.