| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin.
Black Legion.
2176
   |
Posted - 2015.04.28 14:45:40 -
[1] - Quote
The case for dank(er) replacement insurance.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin.
Black Legion.
2176
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 14:52:45 -
[2] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I remember the days when ideas were in the body of the post and not some stupid link to a third party site.
But then there would be no pretty embedded pictures...which reminds me, post is missing something important...Thanks!
Would you like to know more?
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin.
Black Legion.
2176
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 15:04:43 -
[3] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:
Feyd, it seems like you are suggesting we tackle risk aversion by removing risk. I'm a bit surprised that you are advocating this position.
Removing you say...
Would you like to know more?
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin.
Black Legion.
2177
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 15:11:32 -
[4] - Quote
Danalee wrote:I fear the risk-averse will remain risk-averse no matter what... Even if they get 100% of their ship refunded and something extra to make the pain go away. Look at nullbear land, no amount of full SRP can make those bears any less risk averse than they already are. (obligatory digg @ nullsec, love you guys)I would love to know why people are risk averse. I think it isn't isk but am subscribing here to find out what it is. D. 
Alliances typically replace doctrine ships, lost during a fleet. Not sure a dude hopping in a Sleipnir and 1 v 1'ing someone gets SRP.
Would you like to know more?
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin.
Black Legion.
2177
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 15:18:32 -
[5] - Quote
Sibyyl wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Sibyyl wrote:
Feyd, it seems like you are suggesting we tackle risk aversion by removing risk. I'm a bit surprised that you are advocating this position.
Removing you say... Removal of 95% the risk is akin to total removal. And it wrecks the market.
Does 'better' mean it has to be 95%?
We have insurance today, already. Is there a middle ground of elasticity that both decreases risk-aversion while not melting down the markets? Are there additional ways to buff the market in cases that did happen, like NPC buy orders?
These are important questions, if someone is going to decry 'risk aversion' and lack of gudfights in EvE. I see lots of that, what I don't see is people confronting the elephant in the room, in that risk aversion is primarily driven by ship replacement costs.
IMHO.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin.
Black Legion.
2180
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 18:03:41 -
[6] - Quote
Hipqo wrote:This will only bring one thing.
Diminish the value of ships to the point where a big fat killmail will mean nothing, because the dude got it back for 95% of the value.
One of the greatest things of EVE, is having to pay alot of money for stuff you loose, because you **** up.
By doing something like this, you basicly say "screw you" to the ingame economy and market, and will force everything to be sold for pennies, because people only need to buy it once, and get 95% returned upon destruction.
Basicly this idea, is about making actual ships function in almost the same way as the new SKIN system, where you just need to buy something once, and then you can get it back easily, with little to no effort.
Also, like others have pointed out, people will simply stop flying arund for hours, because theres no point in trying to get a blingy t3 back to your home, from hostile territory, when you can just blow it up and pay a couple of mills to have it in your hangar again.
Not to mention the complete destruction of ISK value, the ability to plex for ISK and exchange ISK for AUR, all that would die in a heartbeat, because ISK will be worth nothing.
Bad idea is very bad, casual scum!!!
Does it have to be 95%?...
Do we already have ship insurance, and the sky hasn't fallen, and I am just talking about a change in degrees? (As opposed to net new idea)...
These are important questions someone not mired in dogma and hyperbole should consider when evaluating any new idea.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
| |
|