EVE Search - Tweak insurance scheme and free Faction ships from the display case!

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Tweak insurance scheme and free Faction ships from the display case!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
G'Kar Nomad	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:23:00 - [1] Way too many Faction and Navy ships sit in ship hangers, because their owners are afraid of losing them (including a CCP staffer that wouldn't bring his Caldari Navy Raven out of the hanger bay). What's the point of faction and Navy ship handouts, if they sit idle in hanger bays? CCP could fix this by adding a Platnium+ insurance, where a replacement ship is the payout, instead of just Intergalatic Kredits. In addition to players being more willing to use these wonderful ships, it is a good ISK sink, because the Insurance Corp could charge more for Platnium+ coverage. Replacement ship insurance is a win-win for all concerned; players win because they will not be too afriad to use their Faction and Navy ships, and CCP wins because people will actually use the shinny toys they handout. In addition, Platnium+ insurance is also a good ISK sink. Everbody wins!
Sadistic	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:32:00 - [2] Agreed. I have a fleet tempest that has not seen the light of day in 6 months. Then again, I have about 8 other normal battleships that I could say the same about. But those I dont insure, the Fleet boat I would.
CharlieMurphy Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:37:00 - [3] what would you base the insurance payout on ? not mineral cost thats for sure and if you did work out an insurance price what happens when everybody starts selling faction bs for twice the price? no faction bs are special let them stay that way people that own one and never take it out of the station have simply wasted their isk or if they got it from a bp drop or a reward have a very expensive ornament that they will probably sell one day when they are skint faction ships seem to take the very highest levels of skill to fly to their potential anyway
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:38:00 - [4] Originally by: G'Kar Nomad Way too many Faction and Navy ships sit in ship hangers, because their owners are afraid of losing them Agreed, however, that's because people tend to not just not fly what they cant afford to lose these days, but actually not fly what they can afford to lose either. Quote: (Replacement ship insurance is a win-win for all concerned; players win because they will not be too afriad to use their Faction and Navy ships, and CCP wins because people will actually use the shinny toys they handout. In addition, Platnium+ insurance is also a good ISK sink. Everbody wins! Not at all, replacemetn ship insurance wrecks the eve economy as no new ships need building anymore. And if you counter that by taking the replacements off-market at market price you open up a can of exploit-worms of immense proportions. Old blog
Illuminaty ISS Logistics Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:39:00 - [5] Imagine what that would do to T2 prices.
Tek'a Rain Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:39:00 - [6] no. being Completly unable to lose these ships will be a wrecking blow for sanity. would this insurance cost More then the market value? (the market value that would SPIKE when this abomination comes about) if so, it would be useless, as people could simply buy another cheaper. if it covers the replacement by simply giving you a new ship, its also terrible. would mean no one ever loses anything. ever. that billion+ CNR you took down through luck and skill and teamwork? jokes on you, he has a new one waiting in hanger, while You are still floating about in a pod. couldnt even count on good loot, since the ships would be infinitly replaceable pilots have no added incentive to use more then t2 or midgrade named to protect their huge investment. and once you start this, the whines would start to expand it. "I want to get my cruiser back" "I want to get all those lost modules back" death penalty goes away. might as well add freakin Elves and Dwarves ffs. Blaque or Foiritan
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:40:00 - [7] Actually, all insurance need removing. --------- It's great being a Caldari, ain't it? Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Ozzie Asrail FATAL REVELATIONS Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:41:00 - [8] If you want to fly a high performace ship then you pay the price. It's pure risk v reward. so if you dont have the stones to fly your ebayed isk then why should you get the bonus of them. ----- [23:08:46] GM Fear > I am stuck as well [23:17:57] Sharkbait > so why ... you drag me here. thats just mean :( [23:18:03] GM Fear > hahahaha
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:41:00 - [9] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Actually, all insurance need removing. Extreme, but with some tweaking of building requirements a very possible and maybe desirabel thing yes. Old blog
Feldorian	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:43:00 - [10] Edited by: Feldorian on 27/10/2006 22:44:01 hehe, lost my Machriel in a mission less than a week after building it ;-) Stupid ****ing alt

Scoundrelus Finite Horizon	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:44:00 - [11] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Actually, all insurance need removing. Easy for you to say Mrs. Vagabond BPO. =============================================== We are Watching You.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:44:00 - [12] Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 27/10/2006 22:44:27 Originally by: Rod Blaine Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Actually, all insurance need removing. Extreme, but with some tweaking of building requirements a very possible and maybe desirabel thing yes. But PvP should hurt as much as it can, is not it? Wars would be shorter and it is easier to control your enemies if they dare not fight. --------- It's great being a Caldari, ain't it? Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:45:00 - [13] Originally by: Scoundrelus Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Actually, all insurance need removing. Easy for you to say Mrs. Vagabond BPO. --------- It's great being a Caldari, ain't it? Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:47:00 - [14] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 27/10/2006 22:44:27 Originally by: Rod Blaine Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Actually, all insurance need removing. Extreme, but with some tweaking of building requirements a very possible and maybe desirabel thing yes. But PvP should hurt as much as it can, is not it? ` Theoretically, yes. Fighting wars of attrition is more fun if attrition actually emans something. Due to current inflation and earning potential of vet chars in alliances ti means less they I would personally see as ideal. However, things would rapidly go to crap if noone would want to fight anymore. Old blog
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.27 22:50:00 - [15] Originally by: Rod Blaine Theoretically, yes. Fighting wars of attrition is more fun if attrition actually emans something. Due to current inflation and earning potential of vet chars in alliances ti means less they I would personally see as ideal. However, things would rapidly go to crap if noone would want to fight anymore. PvP would be like gambling. Fits in risks vs rewards model. The higher you dare to wager, you can either win big or lose big. If your alliance dare to field 200 battleships vs a 100 battleships alliance, the smaller alliance might run to empire with tails behind their backs. PvP would be hard core, more painful, more aggressive, more carnage. --------- It's great being a Caldari, ain't it? Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.27 23:00:00 - [16] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 27/10/2006 23:01:59 Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: Rod Blaine Theoretically, yes. Fighting wars of attrition is more fun if attrition actually emans something. Due to current inflation and earning potential of vet chars in alliances ti means less they I would personally see as ideal. However, things would rapidly go to crap if noone would want to fight anymore. PvP would be like gambling. Fits in risks vs rewards model. The higher you dare to wager, you can either win big or lose big. If your alliance dare to field 200 battleships vs a 100 battleships alliance, the smaller alliance might run to empire with tails behind their backs. PvP would be hard core, more painful, more aggressive, more carnage. Yes, but take for example our current results v ascn. 1000 BS dead in a month versus about a fraction of that in losses I think (dont have exact numbers here atm, it's just an example). Currently it hurts too little tbh. But if that would really be crippling, wouldn't it overpower gorups like us that will throw everythying they have into every fight to dominate (and thus do so most of the time) ? The effect of the gap between the 'better' alliances and the 'lesser' widens with the cost of death in the game. Currently, it doesn't really need to widen by more then a bit tbh. Just enough to make it less easy to keep up pure tech1 warfare for all eternity purely based on insurance and isk making alts. Old blog
Illuminaty ISS Logistics Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.27 23:08:00 - [17] Originally by: Rod Blaine Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Actually, all insurance need removing. Extreme, but with some tweaking of building requirements a very possible and maybe desirabel thing yes. I'd expect that they would adjust the build costs down to about equal to the cost of plat insurance on the ships. The penelty for losing your ship is the cost of your modules, plus the cost of your insurance. Unless you've got access to easy money in the game, that is rather expensive for most folks. If some people think the price of insurance is too low, then people have too much money. Given that it is my understanding that Jenny is sitting on some T2 BPOs, Jenny's idea to abolish insurance strikes me like Bill Gates claiming that people should give up 50% of their income to charity because 'hey look at me, after giving away 50% of my income, I can _still_ affoard my oppulant lifestyle without tightening my belt'. Having insurance issue a new ship would be bad. Totally removing insurance is worse. T2 insures for peanuts so you already have the option flying ships with no effective insurance. Even T2 BPO holders lose the market value of the ship everytime one gets blown, so they lose as much isk as the rest of us (even if they do have a free isk with little effort machine to replace the lost isk).
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.27 23:13:00 - [18] Originally by: Rod Blaine Yes, but take for example our current results v ascn. 1000 BS dead in a month versus about a fraction of that in losses I think (dont have exact numbers here atm, it's just an example). Currently it hurts too little tbh. But if that would really be crippling, wouldn't it overpower gorups like us that will throw everythying they have into every fight to dominate (and thus do so most of the time) ? The effect of the gap between the 'better' alliances and the 'lesser' widens with the cost of death in the game. Currently, it doesn't really need to widen by more then a bit tbh. Just enough to make it less easy to keep up pure tech1 warfare for all eternity purely based on insurance and isk making alts. That is the idea of control, power and domination. The weak will not survive and strong will thrive. Weaker alliances can combine to overthrow BoB, an example, if BoB becomes too big. Current game model is like, "BoB is strong, who cares?" because nobody is afraid they can lose a lot if nothing is done. It is also hard to kill an alliance fast but if insurance is removed, you can easily wipe an alliance fast, an example, RA if you can force them to lose enough. The gap between PvPers and Carebears would be the same because nobody dares to call each other pot, kettle. Removing insurance would also make people respect their ships and plan when and how to use them. Nobody will fly battleships unnecessarily or play one person army. --------- It's great being a Caldari, ain't it? Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Azerrad InExile	Posted - 2006.10.27 23:16:00 - [19] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire That is the idea of control, power and domination. The weak will not survive and strong will thrive. Weaker alliances can combine to overthrow BoB, an example, if BoB becomes too big. Current game model is like, "BoB is strong, who cares?" because nobody is afraid they can lose a lot if nothing is done. It is also hard to kill an alliance fast but if insurance is removed, you can easily wipe an alliance fast, an example, RA if you can force them to lose enough. The gap between PvPers and Carebears would be the same because nobody dares to call each other pot, kettle. Removing insurance would also make people respect their ships and plan when and how to use them. Nobody will fly battleships unnecessarily or play one person army. So blob the hell out of them or don't bother fighting?
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.27 23:17:00 - [20] Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 27/10/2006 23:22:08 Originally by: Illuminaty Given that it is my understanding that Jenny is sitting on some T2 BPOs, Jenny's idea to abolish insurance strikes me like Bill Gates claiming that people should give up 50% of their income to charity because 'hey look at me, after giving away 50% of my income, I can _still_ affoard my oppulant lifestyle without tightening my belt'. Not really. People like Jenny would also suffer because people are more careful with their ISKs. Current market, ISKs and game model favour throwing ISKs away left and right. When something like HAC prices are out of the normal, they go to forums and cry about them. They did not respect their ISKs in the first place. --------- It's great being a Caldari, ain't it? Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!

Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.27 23:22:00 - [21] Originally by: Azerrad InExile So blob the hell out of them or don't bother fighting? If people were to lose 200M to 500M in battleship blobs, would you really think they might dare to blob in the first place? If they blobbed and assumed they would win and they were proven wrong a few times, they would not dare to blob anymore. With insurance, people do not lose that much ISKs when you kill them. They get hurt a bit, come back fighting in new battleships after a few seconds. --------- It's great being a Caldari, ain't it? Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Azerrad InExile	Posted - 2006.10.27 23:32:00 - [22] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire If people were to lose 200M to 500M in battleship blobs, would you really think they might dare to blob in the first place? I think they wouldn't engage in any fight in which the odds aren't heavily in their favor. If they are putting more isk on the line in every battle people probably wouldn't engage unless they have 2x or more the number of people. You already see that to an extent in the game where people will just dock or run if they don't outnumber their enemy. I suppose its a good way to ensure only the super rich engage in PVP, but I don't think that is really a desirable goal from a gameplay point of view.
Al Thorr Caldari The Wheel	Posted - 2006.10.27 23:37:00 - [23] must admit I agree with Ms spitfire on this. All insurance should be removed. Ok for the 'older' players at least. newer players then yes a ship loss is more of a game breaker. but as the adage goes - If you cant afford to lose it dont fly it. makes losing a BS for example much more interesting. If all ships are to pvp then all ships must have one common denominator. and the ships stats should have more of a bearing in the equation and not just how much the insureance payout is. anyhow just me thoughts bubbling to fore Regards Al Thorr "You cant polish a turd" - The new rendered font is living proof.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.27 23:39:00 - [24] Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 27/10/2006 23:39:46 Originally by: Azerrad InExile Originally by: Jenny Spitfire If people were to lose 200M to 500M in battleship blobs, would you really think they might dare to blob in the first place? I think they wouldn't engage in any fight in which the odds aren't heavily in their favor. If they are putting more isk on the line in every battle people probably wouldn't engage unless they have 2x or more the number of people. You already see that to an extent in the game where people will just dock or run if they don't outnumber their enemy. I suppose its a good way to ensure only the super rich engage in PVP, but I don't think that is really a desirable goal from a gameplay point of view. Depends. If Starbases/Outposts/Player Owned Stations could be destroyed and not only conquered in 0.0, people would help to protect them from destruction and not play dock/undock game or ignore hostiles when they are around. They will/must/have to fight or take severe losses. It is like a task is given to you, if you accomplish it, you live or else you die. If you want to live, you will/must/have to accomplish it. May be make EvE hardcore? --------- It's great being a Caldari, ain't it? Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Azerrad InExile	Posted - 2006.10.27 23:47:00 - [25] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Depends. If Starbases/Outposts/Player Owned Stations could be destroyed and not only conquered in 0.0, people would help to protect them from destruction and not play dock/undock game or ignore hostiles when they are around. They will/must/have to fight or take severe losses. It is like a task is given to you, if you accomplish it, you live or else you die. If you want to live, you will/must/have to accomplish it. Conquering a station already is a big loss for the previous owner. They can no longer dock, access any of their stuff, etc... It is already a pretty huge incentive to fight back. However, general PVP gangs don't have a chance in hell of taking down a station unless you want to give all POS/outposts/conquerable stations a severe nerf in defenses/HP. Regardless conquering stations is pretty irrelevant to removing insurance. Originally by: Jenny Spitfire May be make EvE hardcore? Following the same reasonsing, should we get rid of clones as well?
Red Ochre	Posted - 2006.10.27 23:57:00 - [26] sadly i run level 4 missions in my faction bs alot with no problems, except in the midst of deadspace, hate that one, pvp play time on the other hand would be quite brief in it i think . insurance would be tough to figure though. while i would like to insure for full price, going without is just as good with my playstyle, i can plan, recon, then execute the mission with a fair chance of success, with pvp, primary doesnt live long, and gank squads are not forgiving to people that make mistakes in eve.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.27 23:57:00 - [27] Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 28/10/2006 00:05:44 Originally by: Azerrad InExile Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Depends. If Starbases/Outposts/Player Owned Stations could be destroyed and not only conquered in 0.0, people would help to protect them from destruction and not play dock/undock game or ignore hostiles when they are around. They will/must/have to fight or take severe losses. It is like a task is given to you, if you accomplish it, you live or else you die. If you want to live, you will/must/have to accomplish it. Conquering a station already is a big loss for the previous owner. They can no longer dock, access any of their stuff, etc... It is already a pretty huge incentive to fight back. However, general PVP gangs don't have a chance in hell of taking down a station unless you want to give all POS/outposts/conquerable stations a severe nerf in defenses/HP. Regardless conquering stations is pretty irrelevant to removing insurance. Not general gangs but in fleets. Removing POS then decide removing stations. Conquering stations means they can be taken over again. Removing them means you eradicate people from living in that area unless a new station is built. Quote: Originally by: Jenny Spitfire May be make EvE hardcore? Following the same reasonsing, should we get rid of clones as well? I do not mind. I think it is a good idea but not sure how it relates to EvE's prime fiction. Insurance is a different. Why would any organisation insure a ship that may die in battles? --------- It's great being a Caldari, ain't it? Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Azerrad InExile	Posted - 2006.10.28 00:11:00 - [28] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Not general gangs but in fleets. Removing POS then decide removing stations. Conquering stations means they can be taken over again. Removing them means you eradicate people from living in that area unless a new station is built. I would have no problem with stations being destroyed instead of conquered, but even your standard fleet doesn't have a chance in hell of doing so. It is still going to take a couple days to take out all the POS from system and requires a fleet of dreads along with a BS fleet to support them. People fight to maintain keep the station now even when it doesn't get destroyed... changing the conquering system isn't going to motivate them to fight that much more. If anything its just less of an incentive to build outposts, most will just congregate in NPC stations. Originally by: Jenny Spitfire I do not mind. I think it is a good idea but not sure how it relates to EvE's prime fiction. Insurance is a different. Why would any organisation insure a ship that may die in battles? No clones at all would mean that when you get podded you role a new character since yours is now floating frozen in space or rotting in someones cargohold. It would change the prime fiction, but the prime fiction is just written around game design, not the other way around. Why have an insurance system? To promote PVP. The game is more fun with it than it would be without since you don't have to work as hard for isk to have fun shooting at other people. Why would the fictional insurance corporation in game keep insuring ships at the same rates even after they keep getting destroyed? They probably wouldn't, but the goal of the game isn't to create a realistic simulator, the goal is to get people to have fun playing the game and get them to keep paying their $15 monthly fee.
Erotic Irony RONA Deepspace Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.10.28 00:35:00 - [29] Edited by: Erotic Irony on 28/10/2006 00:36:32 I wouldn't mind seeing the changes listed at the bottom of this blog revisited and seriously considered. The insurance related ones coupled with the local changes certainly make war a more frightening possibility. ___
Illuminaty ISS Logistics Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.28 00:46:00 - [30] The situation with ASCN is a symptom of some areas of the game simply giving out too much money. Insurance isn't the problem. The fact that money is worthless to many people is. If an alliance that didn't have access to super rich space was to lose a bunch of battleships, they would start checking the seats for loose change. The vast majority of 0.0 space is pure and unadulterated crap. The handful of systems in 0.0 space that are not crap give out way too much money. They need to make most 0.0 space a little bit better, and nerf the bejesus out of the high end 0.0 systems. This way, big alliances don't have a firehose connected to their wallet drowning them in isk to the point where the isk itself becomes meaningless. ASCN just got done building a 160 billion Titan. Now they've lost 1000 battleships and they seem to be laughing it off. They lost fully loaded freighters with T2 and POS equipment and the only 'cost' seems to be their time. They also lost a whole bunch of dreads and they just shrug and buy new ones. They are sitting there absorbing a beating from one of the most combat effective alliances in the game, and they seem to be shruging it off. Too much money. So that is how I see it. Insurance isn't a problem. The problem is how much isk that _some_ people have in their wallet. How much more profitable is buiding vagabonds than building stabbers? How much more effective is T2 than T1? Right, the disparity right there should tell you that your making too much money. Nerf vagabond BPOs, -1.0 systems, complexes, and all the other absurd isk outlets that let people who control them insure 1000 Tech1 battleships like it was comedy. Then make the low end stuff (low-sec and crap 0.0) more profitable. Actually make 0.0 space into something other than a bunch of fortified enclaves of people dumping gobs of isk into their wallet, and surrounded by huge swaths of empty worthless systems.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.