EVE Search - Petition for making INSURANCES more REALISTIC

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Petition for making INSURANCES more REALISTIC

» 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 - 0 post(s)
Cauchy Schwarz	Posted - 2007.07.19 14:59:00 - [1] Edited by: Cauchy Schwarz on 19/07/2007 14:59:28 Edited by: Cauchy Schwarz on 19/07/2007 14:59:09 hi, i want to stand up for making insurances more realistic! it is a great game feature but its still to one-dimensional following improvement ideas: basic ideas: if you die at dangerous or forbidden activities you must have paid more money for insurance to get the same money back which youll get for dying at civilian or lawful activities. activity-based insurance class suggestions: empire travelling insurance (very cheap): activity "traveling": covers dying 100km within a starbase,stargate or alliances pos (at the empire), when the "traveling" criterion is not clear enough: only bases, stargates and POS of factions and corps with which the char has a certain positive standing counts. the needed standing depends on the level of the insurance outerrim travelling insurance (costly): covers dying while "traveling" in lowsec long-haul travelling insurance (costly): includes empire and outerrim traveling freelancer insurance(average): dying 100km within any mission bookmark. mining insurance (very cheap): dying 100km within any asteroid belt. expedition insurance (cheap): dying 100km within any moon, archeological site, deadspace etc. war insurance (very costly): covers dying 100km within enemys pos business insurance (average): includes mining, expedition and long-haul traveling. concerning costs: a package is relativly cheaper than the sum of its components. e.g. mining 500ISK + expedition 500ISK + longhaul traveling (empire 600ISK, outerrim 1200ISK) 1500ISK = 2500ISK. business only costs 2000ISK. and so on. there should be more packages available [*]if the distance to certain objects in space is not a good criterion for insurance, you could buy insurances for kills by certain corps or fractions AND by the differentiation in agressor and victim. puh, way to long post. let me see if i made myself clear...
John McFly Ganja Labs Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.19 15:02:00 - [2] Why say within 100km? Just say on the same grid. Or are you specifically trying to prevent snipers from getting insurance?
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.07.19 15:03:00 - [3] do you realize how dumb, and needlesslly complex this idea is? ______________________ DubanFP> I stopped capitalizing the g in goonswarm a little while back. I find they no longer deserved the little bit of extra effort required to press the shift key.
Brutor Shaun	Posted - 2007.07.19 15:13:00 - [4] Ship killed by Concord = No payout. Otherwise things are fine as they are. Bookmark Idea - My skills
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.07.19 15:15:00 - [5] Originally by: Brutor Shaun Ship killed by Concord = No payout. Otherwise things are fine as they are. Do you realize how many ships would get blown up by people who make mistakes, and then be REALLY screwed because there was no payout? ______________________ DubanFP> I stopped capitalizing the g in goonswarm a little while back. I find they no longer deserved the little bit of extra effort required to press the shift key.
Incantare Caldari Darkness Inc.	Posted - 2007.07.19 15:18:00 - [6] Sucks for them, but that's how it should be.
Malakai Draevyn Caldari The Lions of New Avalon	Posted - 2007.07.19 15:22:00 - [7] Originally by: Cauchy Schwarz ---8<--- SNIPPAGE ! Originally by: DubanFP do you realize how dumb, and needlesslly complex this idea is? While the OP is an interesting concept, I will agree that it is an overly complex solution to a problem. Personally, I'd be more for insurance payouts for expensive faction ships (Something a bit closer to the actual average purchase price would be good) and a payout for the modules fitted would also be useful. I'm not saying that losing a ship+modules shouldn't inconvenience the pilot... but losing something like a Caldari Navy Caracal + T2 kit would pay out somewhere around 4.5M ISK, whereas the average price for one plus a full rack T2 fittings would be closer to 50M ISK. I know there's the old addage of "Don't fly anything you can't afford to lose" but getting under 10% of what you paid for it really bites into the wallet-strings. ..:: MD ::..
Willow Whisp Sadist Faction	Posted - 2007.07.19 15:22:00 - [8] Originally by: Incantare Sucks for them, but that's how it should be. I Agree, actually. We should also add to the list no insurance payout for any t1 industrial who's cargo was worth more than the ship itself, and for any t2 industrial that had no tank fitted. Also, dying while on autopilot should get insurance voided. If we are going to get "Realistic" with insurance payouts, then we also need to prove that the loss was not due to neglect, and all the above categories would fall under "Neglect". Check any competent corporate insurance policy when regarding theft, and improperly secured property. ... Sadist Faction is recruiting
Aille Pluthrak Caldari Racketeers	Posted - 2007.07.19 15:22:00 - [9] It's to complicated. CCP would mess it up.
Banana Torres The Green Banana Corporation	Posted - 2007.07.19 15:34:00 - [10] I have an idea, reduce the prices of all t1, non faction ships by a factor of 10 and get rid of insurance. If you fly t2 or faction then you can afford to make good your losses. This would also have the benefit of getting rid of the insurance ISK source.
Ares Lightfeather Gallente	Posted - 2007.07.19 15:37:00 - [11] Edited by: Ares Lightfeather on 19/07/2007 15:37:38 Actually, it's a pretty simple system... and pretty good one too. I agree with the "on the same grid" comment too. I like it a lot. Doesn't solve what I think is the problem for insurance (that insurance have a fixed value, therefore setting the ship price to a certain value), but still, it's a good step, if it ever was implemented.
Dietes Marcellus	Posted - 2007.07.19 15:38:00 - [12] Edited by: Dietes Marcellus on 19/07/2007 15:37:54 Originally by: Banana Torres I have an idea, reduce the prices of all t1, non faction ships by a factor of 10 and get rid of insurance. If you fly t2 or faction then you can afford to make good your losses. This would also have the benefit of getting rid of the insurance ISK source. This would cause inflation nothing would be worth anything unless you can afford the extra high price of T2, dividing eve into the rich and the poor class
Andargor theWise Collateral Damage Unlimited Hammer Time.	Posted - 2007.07.19 15:40:00 - [13] Originally by: Brutor Shaun Ship killed by Concord = No payout. Otherwise things are fine as they are. This has been suggested many, many times. I approve of this message and/or service. - Got grief? Revelations MySQL Database
Delusion 'Fel Minmatar Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.07.19 15:44:00 - [14] In real life, ive got a nasty little car in my driveway that cost a couple of hundred, thats insured for a couple of thousand. In Eve ive got ships worth millions of ISK and in some cases im lucky to ***** a million in insurance payouts.... Id rather see an extension of the options we have than a total overhaul. Let me choose the payout I need to replace my trusty T2 assault frigate and its load out, then let the system tell me what i can expect to pay for the cover. I know me and my Wolf are small fry compared to many, but id rather pay through the nose now and never need to claim for insurance than pay next to nothing and barely be able to afford a well kitted Rifter as a replacement. =============================================== Virtua Duce Delusion
Red Harvest	Posted - 2007.07.19 15:48:00 - [15] Originally by: Brutor Shaun Ship killed by Concord = No payout. Otherwise things are fine as they are. QFT! Maybe a little extra insurance for the modules fitted.One that takes the market value into account not the mineral one.
Tegashi	Posted - 2007.07.19 15:49:00 - [16] I think it's fine the way it is. Replacing the fittings even after the 100% payout is still a significant cost of ISK/Time/Inconvenience. Why do folks feel it necessary to make losses even more painful then they really need to be?
Rabbitual Ferrier	Posted - 2007.07.19 15:56:00 - [17] One thing that immediately springs to mind is that this system would reward Suicide Ganking (in high sec, within 100km of a station or gate) - yet punishes pirates in low sec (where they belong). I like the idea of No Insurance for Concord kill (but that also would end up affecting mission runners for Thukker and certain other dubious groups possibly - although maybe that should be extended to customs and faction navy (non-mission drones). That said Suicide Ganking is a legitimate 'exploit', like Jet Can Mining, it wasn't intended, its annoying but its really also an example of how 'cloning' might effect psychology (although suicide alting is another matter..) Either that or have Concord take Pods, and crimes in high sec allow for Podkilling.
Zoi Opia Raw Edge O X I D E	Posted - 2007.07.19 16:24:00 - [18] Over-engineering at its best. Ever heard of a KISS principle? Or "if it isn't broken, don't fix it"? It might sound like a nice idea, but why? Do we really need another layer of micro-management?
OneSock Silentia Mortalis Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.19 16:39:00 - [19] Way too complex. I'd make just a couple of simple changes. 1. No insurance payout for self destruct or suicide gank/concordokken. 2. More expensive insurance for low sec/0.0 residents (or cheaper for high sec), to better reflect the risks of where you live.
Marilda Amarr Big Brother Holding Company	Posted - 2007.07.19 16:48:00 - [20] Insurance does need to be fixed but this is way too complicated. If concord kills you = no payout Premiums or access to cover = based on player sec status and/or sec of the system. ------ Yes but does it make money?
Matthew Cooper Minmatar Who What When Where Why and How	Posted - 2007.07.19 16:48:00 - [21] My vote is to remove the built-in insurance system entirely. Let players start up their own insurance operations if they feel there is a need for it, that way it is guaranteed to be a semi-realistic system. Signature starts here: Originally by: Tarminic Stop posting with your alt Kieron.
Erim Solfara Amarr House of Solfara	Posted - 2007.07.19 17:20:00 - [22] If you want to make it work a little more 'realistic' then make everyone start off with a standard premium, the more ships you lose, the higher this gets. It'd kill pvp though, so I don't think it's a good idea. I'd like to see no payouts for ships lost to concord, or whilst criminally flagged (that would mean -5.0 pilots as well), and have the payout a percentage of the average market value of the ship, ignoring outliers to make sure people don't put up ridiculous sell orders to get their insurance payouts up. A new tool in the fight for balance?
ArchVonBaron The Black Ops	Posted - 2007.07.19 17:26:00 - [23] Originally by: OneSock Way too complex. I'd make just a couple of simple changes. 1. No insurance payout for self destruct or suicide gank/concordokken. 2. More expensive insurance for low sec/0.0 residents (or cheaper for high sec), to better reflect the risks of where you live. So just because i live in 0.0 means I should have to pay more for insurance. I dont like Empire and never will, so I shouldt have to pay more isk to insure a ship which probably costs a little more then its empire counterpart unless there was a higher insurance pay out.
Vixeon Nisi Corp	Posted - 2007.07.19 17:39:00 - [24] Why isnt average sale price of all ships used as a base line for insurance? Wouldn't that be a viable solution? IE 100% insurance would pay out what the ship costs as an average over all regions? T2 ships should be insurable, i am sure CCP didnt intend for T2 ships to be uninsurable. T2 ships costs are calculated using the database prices which have always been unrealistic.
Brutor Shaun	Posted - 2007.07.19 17:43:00 - [25] Originally by: DubanFP Originally by: Brutor Shaun Ship killed by Concord = No payout. Otherwise things are fine as they are. Do you realize how many ships would get blown up by people who make mistakes, and then be REALLY screwed because there was no payout? Well that would be a big BOO HOO for Mr Stupid. That's what warning messages are for. Turn them off, or ignore them, no sympathy. Bookmark Idea - My skills
Mari Onette Amarr Gottland Production Transport Mines	Posted - 2007.07.19 17:46:00 - [26] The answer is insurance premiums. Getting blown up by Concord increases the cost of insurance by %10 (or whatever number is balanced), each time you get killed by Concord; until you become completely uninsurable. Over time, this premium decreases back to normal levels. This allows highsec ganks with battleships to still be profitable, but only for very specific purposes, and for limited periods of time. Anyone who's doing it too much rapidly finds himself paying more for his insurance then he did for the ship in the first place. It also allows carebears who accidentally shoot stations or something because they turned off their "are you sure you want to be an idiot", to get concorded with minimal damage to their wallets and self esteem. ------ I am in blood! Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more, it would be as tedious as going over. -MacBeth
Sebesto Minmatar Destination Unknown	Posted - 2007.07.19 17:47:00 - [27] Originally by: Brutor Shaun Ship killed by Concord = No payout. Otherwise things are fine as they are. Out of all the ideas here. This is the only one that should be implemented.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.07.19 18:47:00 - [28] Originally by: DubanFP Originally by: Brutor Shaun Ship killed by Concord = No payout. Otherwise things are fine as they are. Do you realize how many ships would get blown up by people who make mistakes, and then be REALLY screwed because there was no payout? A large majority of the people who make these "mistakes" tend to ignore warnings that pop up. So that's their fault then. Now, on the rest of this thread. I know EVE is supposed to be a "Sandbox", but Claims Adjuster is not a profession that the game really needs.
Adonis 4174	Posted - 2007.07.19 19:01:00 - [29] No. How will you get people into lowsec if they know their insurance doesn't cover it? ----- Currently playing: Hello Kitty Online Character: Evil Kitty of DEATH
Occara	Posted - 2007.07.19 19:04:00 - [30] Originally by: Delusion 'Fel In real life, ive got a nasty little car in my driveway that cost a couple of hundred, thats insured for a couple of thousand. No you don't. You have a car that you have "a couple thousand" (probably more like 25-100k) in liability insurance. Our EVE ship insurance is like collision insurance. (which you cannot get in a value of more than the car you are insuring.)

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.