| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
   |
Posted - 2007.07.24 07:54:00 -
[1]
Remove Insurance Payout in 0.0
It makes sense from a roleplaying / backstory viewpoint:
- Why would insurance companies cover the loss of a ship you took out into lawless space, willingly?
It makes sense from a gaming balance viewpoint:
- It will increase the 'oh i lost a battleship and 50Mil fittings' to 'oh snap i lost 150mil'.
- It will cause people to be ALOT more careful with their ships and take smaller / cheaper ones out instead, causing them to be rarer and more powerful at the same time.
- It will put more stress on the 'healing' side of eve, (logistics, carriers) since a battleship will actually be a valuable asset.
It will reduce blobbing, too, at least the big battleship blobs, since people will be more considerate of what they fly and the consequences. It will give people a better incentive to fly T1 counterparts of currently popular ships, and at the same time reduce the prices of alot of T2 ships further.
What problem will this fix?
It will reduce the big battleship blobs which, in my opinion and that of alot of people i know, isn't a really fun way to play. It will make people more considerate of what they fly, since currently bigger = better most of the times (except solo). It will put more stress on a currently underdeveloped aspect of Eve, that of 'healing'.
Please, serious input. It's not 'my' idea i've seen it proposed several times before and recently given it some more thought and i really do believe it will improve the game.
sup /b/ |
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 07:55:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 24/07/2007 07:56:54
Sounds to me like it would increase blobbing to minimize risk of losing your ship, and overall make people hesitant in fighting eachother at all.
Why risk fighting someone when the reward is some crappy modules worth a few million isk, when you are risking a hundred million to do it?
---
 Originally by: CCP Wrangler
You're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, thats what hello kitty online is for.
|
umop 3pisdn
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 07:58:00 -
[3]
No.
I like being able to fly t1 stuff for cheap, getting pwned by a blob isnt as bad when i get back most of the hull cost of the ship.
Making pvp more expensive and unfriendly to noobs is bad.
What you propose would not make people take out smaller cheaper ships... bs's are used because they are heavy weapon / heavy tank platforms.
Instead, lets boost t1 frigs, AFs and the offensive ability of intys (maybe... they are annoying)
|
DeadRow
Magnificent Beavers
Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 07:59:00 -
[4]
Although a good idea on paper I can't see it happening ingame. I highly doubt it would reduce blobing, most big alliances that do this can most likely afford to replace any BS thats lost.
/DeadRow
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:01:00 -
[5]
The point is to make battleships more rare in 0.0, instead of them being the first thing people think of when confronted with 0.0 warfare (see first 2 replies). That mentality of 'bigger is better' needs to be broken. Not neccesarily less people in the blob, but smaller ships, focusing more on tactics than raw firepower.
sup /b/ |
umop 3pisdn
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:15:00 -
[6]
I like to solo a lot and much prefer small gangs to large ones, I have a lot of experience in all forms of warfare (god put pos's in this game to punish us) and I dont think removing insurance is the answer.
Perhaps the ability of battleships to hit smaller craft is still too high?
No matter what happens blobs will still occur unfortunately.
More costly ships and changes to the game (removal of stab whoring via WCS nerf among others) are what is making blob warfare more common imo.
I cant understand your logic of making t2 ships cheaper by increasing demand but keeping supply the same...
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:20:00 -
[7]
Originally by: umop 3pisdn
I cant understand your logic of making t2 ships cheaper by increasing demand but keeping supply the same...
Demand will decrease actually as more people will consider using cheaper alternatives. Nerfing battleship damage versus small targets will be very hard at this stage seeing as every single weapon and defense system will have to be adjusted accordingly, but it could be a possible solution.
sup /b/ |
Plave Okice
Naughty 40
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:27:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Sounds to me like it would increase blobbing to minimize risk of losing your ship, and overall make people hesitant in fighting eachother at all.
This would happen, hence this is a really bad idea.
|
Laboratus
Gallente
BGG
League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:27:00 -
[9]
It would only make people avoid pvp.
Thus it would suck ass.
Hence, it would be a bad idea.
As a conclusion, I vote Hell no.
___
P.S.
Post with your main.
Mind control and tin hats |
Nahia Senne
Black Eclipse Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:28:00 -
[10]
sounds like a good idea. will make all those bs's something meaningful to lose...
..and im not saying this just because i never insure my ships in the first place 
|
Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Minmatar
Grumpy Old Farts
Gruntfuttocks
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:35:00 -
[11]
Awsome Idea, lets make pvp non-existant unless you have the ability to be online 24/7 grinding isk. Or have some sort of money printing going on.
Seriously i have people in my circle of friends who say this too from time to time, then i ask them whats your wallet at?
Answer, well its not below 150 Billion.
Ok, so YOU can affort it, thats nice and stuff. But what about the guy who actualy has to GRIND hours on end to replace every single t2 fitted BS. That guy that never saw more than 300mil in his wallet at one time.
Less people will pvp if this is implemented, yes it will decrease the blob as les people will be able to afford to fly into pvp. And thus just dont bother to pvp at all. And those that can affort to wont ever solo/small gang again as its 'safer' to outblob anyone since you wont lose a ship then.
As even the rich dont like losing 150 mil every day.
|
Strategos
Banned Society
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:36:00 -
[12]
I got an idea! No! 
---Sig---
Sig removed, not appropriate for the forum. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -Pirlouit
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 08:38:00 -
[13]
I see people still dont get it.
The point is NOT to make people have to grind hours to afford that battleship.
Point is to get them out of that battleship in the first place. Small ships are useful in pvp, really 
sup /b/ |
Darius Shakor
Minmatar
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:03:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Sokratesz
I see people still dont get it.
The point is NOT to make people have to grind hours to afford that battleship.
Point is to get them out of that battleship in the first place. Small ships are useful in pvp, really
People will always go for the biggest gun because they want to win fights.
And ultimately a well sorted alliance will not feel the pinch of a battleship fleet being half decimated as they will have stocks to replace them by their industrial might.
This idea hands advantage to those biggest of the big alliances and does not encourage people to move into 0.0 and start making their own empire from scratch. Which is the whole point of 0.0 space.
------
Shakor Clan Information Portal |
Weyoun 1
Gallente
Soviet Star Federation
Celestial Frontier
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:03:00 -
[15]
No. Remove insurance payout in highsec, not in 0.0!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Sartaron
Amarr
Quantar Swords
SynchronizerZ
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:04:00 -
[16]
Why reduce the amount of BS artificially by removing the insurance?
The problems are the BSs, not the insurance.
Imho BS are just overall too powerful. They need a real drawback. Like less Speed and much longer warp-activation time.
BTW:
The speed and agility gap between any of the ship classes is to small.
|
Daimos Bellurdan
Black Reign
FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:12:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Daimos Bellurdan on 24/07/2007 09:13:38
Remove Insurance Payout for losses in missions
It makes sense from a roleplaying / backstory viewpoint:
- Why would insurance companies cover the loss of a ship you took out into dangerous dead space areas full of hostiles willingly ?
It makes sense from a gaming balance viewpoint:
- It will increase the 'oh i lost a battleship and 50Mil fittings' to 'oh snap i lost 150mil'.
- It will cause people to be ALOT more careful with their ships and take smaller / cheaper ones out instead, causing them to be rarer and more powerful at the same time.
- It will put more stress on the 'healing' side of eve, (logistics, carriers) since a battleship will actually be a valuable asset.
What problem will this fix?
It will put the risk/reward ratio of missions were it should be and finally put missions on par with other means of income. It will put more stress on a currently underdeveloped aspect of Eve, that of 'healing'.
Please, serious input. It's not 'my' idea i've seen it proposed several times before and recently given it some more thought and i really do believe it will improve the game.
---
I know. lets do both and abolish insurance altogether.
|
eve warrior
Minmatar
Infinitus Odium
The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:20:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Sokratesz
I see people still dont get it.
The point is NOT to make people have to grind hours to afford that battleship.
Point is to get them out of that battleship in the first place. Small ships are useful in pvp, really
Not everyone wants to fly around 0.0 in a frig, some of us find frigs to be very lame indeed. ALso how many pilots will use Capital ships in 0.0 if there is no payment of the lost of ships ?
Plz, stop tring to make ppl fly frigs in 0.0, there are more than enuf ppl running around in them. Its actualy nice to come across a bs as the loot is worth more and the risk of flying a bs is alot higher than a frig.
Eve warrior
|
Spank YouLater
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:26:00 -
[19]
Congrats you win the award for the ""Stupidest idea EVER"".
|
cal nereus
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:35:00 -
[20]
First, I want to commend the OP for the organization of the post. :)
Aside from the lag, blobbing is fine in my opinion. A successful tactic, reasonable when taking into consideration human nature. The only major fault is the lag. The problem with blobbing isn't the types of ships used, but the amount. 500 battleships lag as much as 500 frigates right?
|
Barthezz
Paradox v2.0
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:38:00 -
[21]
It'll do nothing to reduce blobbing, if anything it'll increase blobbing for one simple reason:
Safety in numbers
We already see it day after day when we go out in small-gang pvp, people that fight us dont bring equal numbers, they bring more. I cant really blame them as thats the way of the gank.
If anything you want people to risk -more- and to do that I think you could actually beef up insurance to include modules. At additional cost of course you should be able to insure your modules (and perhaps even implants).
However, this insurance should be a little bit different then what you have now and should include the frequency at which you lose ships.
Its pretty normal in car insurance, if you get into an accident your insurance fees go up. Also additionally to this you'd want to only pay out modules that got destroyed. If you didnt lose your ship at the end of the insurance period, you'll get a discount on the next insurance.
Insure a bit below average contract / market prices, even T2 ships.
End result (instead of what happens now), people could possibly think "oh a 5 man gang is coming, lets try and beat them with our 3 or 4 man gang" instead of "lets wait till we have 10 online so we can gank them".
Doubt it'll happen though, but we can keep on dreaming...
|
Gojyu
Gallente
Ever Flow
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:39:00 -
[22]
I'm sorry, although it's a good idea, this will only increase the size of blobs, it won't do anything to decrease them.
|
Copine Callmeknau
Celestial Janissaries
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:41:00 -
[23]
This would in all likelyhood increase blobbing, as small gang and solo you would me more likely to die.
Will increase demand on T2 ships, not decrease it. T2 ships currently have sfa insurance payout so it won't make a difference to them, however people like me who fly T1 ship because I lose very little due to insurance, will move to T2 ships when the only advantage of T1 is gone.
-----
Originally by: Patch86
Depressing as hell though. By the end, you feel like someone's eaten your kitten.
|
Syril Mert
Dawn of a new Empire
Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:42:00 -
[24]
T2 ships cheaper? No. The one advantage T1 has over T2 is that T1 can be fully insured. If I can't fly a bs then I'll fly a T2 ship instead. Demand will increase and so will price.
Remove insurance in high sec instead. With just a little bit of care you don't need it.
|
murder one
Gallente
Death of Virtue
FreeFall Securities
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:42:00 -
[25]
I agree with the OP. Remove insurance. Only remove insurance from everywhere. 0.0, lowsec, highsec. Just get rid of it.
No need for it in todays Eve Economy. Half the players out there fly T2 ships anyway. Faction ships arn't insurable either.
Removing insurance would increase the ISK loss and help control the economy. It would add even more 'real' value to ISK and ships. Losing a battleship would hurt. A lot. Just like losing a HAC or a CS.
It wouldn't stop people from PVPing. But I do think it would push them into smaller ships for costs sake, which is a good thing.
Originally by: Goumindong
it is at the point where it is impossible to determine whether or not you are trolling or if you area really out of your freaking mind.
|
R3dSh1ft
Dark Knights of Deneb
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:45:00 -
[26]
Simply put, insurance means more pew pew.
Why would a life insurance company cover soldiers sent to Iraq? But they do. Not every ship in 0.0 dies. In fact I haven't lost a ship in 0.0 for many months but have insured several - they are making a profit out of me.
DKOD - an awesome synchronised killing machine |
BluOrange
Gallente
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:49:00 -
[27]
I like this idea. Make losing ships a scary and painful thing. Make saving ships something that's really worth doing. And, if you maintain insurance payments in lowsec, it's kind of a stealth-buff to lowsec.
Recruitment FAQ |
BluOrange
Gallente
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:51:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 24/07/2007 07:56:54
Sounds to me like it would increase blobbing to minimize risk of losing your ship, and overall make people hesitant in fighting eachother at all.
Why risk fighting someone when the reward is some crappy modules worth a few million isk, when you are risking a hundred million to do it?
What if wrecks in 0.0 dropped a significant portion of the minerals you'd need to build the ship? It could be less than the insurance payout, more inconvenient, and it would reward the person who holds the field at the end of the battle.
Recruitment FAQ |
Elaine Wiggan
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 09:57:00 -
[29]
It would also STOP people going to 0.0 as you not only increased the risk twofold. People simply will not venture out of lowsec to 0.0
|
Neena Valdi
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 10:23:00 -
[30]
The op seem to not understand removing the insurance payout in 0.0 will badly increase blobing and cloak / wcs whoring.
I'd say, make it worth insuring all t2 ships instead. Less trash fitting, less blobing - more pew pew.
|
Shoukei
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 10:34:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Neena Valdi
The op seem to not understand removing the insurance payout in 0.0 will badly increase blobing and cloak / wcs whoring.
I'd say, make it worth insuring all t2 ships instead. Less trash fitting, less blobing - more pew pew.
in reality, it wont change a thing, aside from people flying cruisers now and then instead of battleships all the time.
|
Neena Valdi
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 10:37:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Shoukei
in reality, it wont change a thing, aside from people flying cruisers now and then instead of battleships all the time.
This have not much sense. Would you be so kind to explain your thoughts?
|
Shoukei
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 10:55:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Neena Valdi
Originally by: Shoukei
in reality, it wont change a thing, aside from people flying cruisers now and then instead of battleships all the time.
This have not much sense. Would you be so kind to explain your thoughts?
it makes a lot of sense. instead of everyone being able to just jump into bs for every single engagement, we will see people use some smaller ships and more tactics.
smart cruiser fleet will eat bs fleet alive, but nobody will use them. why should they when they can just jump into good old bs?
if everyone and their grandfather wasn't able to get a battleship so easily, eve would become a much more varied experience. winning an engagement would mean slightly more than having to npc for a few hours.
|
cal nereus
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 11:10:00 -
[34]
No insurance means a poor nooblet like me would be fairly screwed. I lost two cruisers in the span of half an hour, but thanks to insurance and a friend who helped me salvage and loot my own wrecks, I was able to bounce back quickly.
In the absence of insurance, a young nooblet like myself wouldn't be able to jump into PvP as quickly. Indeed, it would be a general drop in ship use for all players. Players who usually pilot battleships would switch to cruisers, pilots who use cruisers switch to frigates, and some frigate users would just say "screw it" and do some high-sec mining or mission-running.
Removing insurance sounds like a brilliant way to reduce PvP and remove people from 0.0, while insuring that those who stay still blob, but blob in slightly smaller ships across the board. No real change. Instead of people complaining about BS and Capital fleets, it'll be people complaining about the all-powerful Cruiser fleet. :)
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS....
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 11:20:00 -
[35]
Quote:
- It will cause people to be ALOT more careful with their ships and take smaller / cheaper ones out instead, causing them to be rarer and more powerful at the same time.
And this would even destroy pvp more. People not engaging often enough allready!
|
Shoukei
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 11:55:00 -
[36]
Originally by: d026
And this would even destroy pvp more. People not engaging often enough allready!
people do engage, when odds are blatantly stacked in their favor. absence of insurance wont have any impact at all, aside from making people show up in cheaper ships.
if all ships in eve were free, winning an engagement would have become even more meaningless than it is now. lets boost this experience even farther, so when you take down a battleship, you feel like you actually did something.
|
cal nereus
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 12:05:00 -
[37]
Honestly, if there was no insurance, why would I PvP? The cost outweighs the benefit, and therefore, I won't do it. With insurance, the cost is outweighed by the benefit, so I have an incentive to PvP. Correct?
|
Neena Valdi
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 12:07:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: Neena Valdi
Originally by: Shoukei
in reality, it wont change a thing, aside from people flying cruisers now and then instead of battleships all the time.
This have not much sense. Would you be so kind to explain your thoughts?
it makes a lot of sense. instead of everyone being able to just jump into bs for every single engagement, we will see people use some smaller ships and more tactics.
smart cruiser fleet will eat bs fleet alive, but nobody will use them. why should they when they can just jump into good old bs?
if everyone and their grandfather wasn't able to get a battleship so easily, eve would become a much more varied experience. winning an engagement would mean slightly more than having to npc for a few hours.
Which game are you playing and how long since you last time were in 0.0?
|
Seph Res
PPN United
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 12:11:00 -
[39]
the only thing where insurance payout should be removed:
if u selfdestruct ur ship
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected]) |
Great Artista
Caldari
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 12:16:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Seph Res
the only thing where insurance payout should be removed:
if u selfdestruct ur ship
Well now, what about CONCORDOKKENing? 
_______
GA out. |
Chr0nosX
Ore Mongers
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 12:18:00 -
[41]
It would make people more hesitant of engaging. Most people engage these days if they outnumber the enemy this would make people want to have 3x the numbers at least.
In conclusion it would:
Ruin PvP
Ruin Good fights
Ruin EVE
|
Saranda
Omega Fleet Enterprises
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 12:20:00 -
[42]
Removing the insurance wont fix anything.. however t2 ship insurance would maybe increase more t2 ships in the fights.. I dont mind either way.. Aint insuring small or t2 ships anyways and still keep going to pvp with em.
It would only affect the "poor" people out there and hit them really hard.. and I think they have a right to participate in the fun aswell.
Thats my 5 cents.
|
gpYUAN29
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 12:26:00 -
[43]
It makes sense from a roleplaying / backstory viewpoint:
- Why would insurance companies cover the loss of a ship you took out into lawless space, willingly?
Because there are only 150,000 odd podpilots in a Galaxy with a population of thousands of billions and the exclusivity and prestige of having one as a client is worth almost any loss (within reason).
[b]It makes sense from a gaming balance viewpoint:
- It will increase the 'oh i lost a battleship and 50Mil fittings' to 'oh snap i lost 150mil'.
- It will cause people to be ALOT more careful with their ships and take smaller / cheaper ones out instead, causing them to be rarer and more powerful at the same time.
- It will put more stress on the 'healing' side of eve, (logistics, carriers) since a battleship will actually be a valuable asset.[b/]
- It will increase the number of people banding together, causing more blobbing, counter-blobbing etc etc
- It will cause more players to avoid combat
- It is a very bad idea for reasons myriad and unspeakable
|
R3dSh1ft
Dark Knights of Deneb
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 12:31:00 -
[44]
Edited by: R3dSh1ft on 24/07/2007 12:31:12
Originally by: Seph Res
the only thing where insurance payout should be removed:
if u selfdestruct ur ship
haha agreed, far too much of this self-destruct to avoid KM crap now
DKOD - an awesome synchronised killing machine |
Shoukei
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 13:09:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Neena Valdi
Which game are you playing and how long since you last time were in 0.0?
i play this game called eve and i live in 0.0. last time i checked, in eve losses are supposed to hurt. that is what makes it worth killing someone.
what part of it confuses you?
|
Mrmuttley
Guns 'N' Hoses
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 14:10:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Laboratus
It would only make people avoid pvp.
Thus it would suck ass.
Hence, it would be a bad idea.
As a conclusion, I vote Hell no.
A hell no from me as it would encourage isk buying IMHO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Time for a new Sig.
Any Ideas? |
madaluap
Gallente
Mercenary Forces
Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 14:17:00 -
[47]
This really isnt the brightest idea tbh. You are basicly boosting people that fight in empire and mission *****s, while nerfing 0.0. That is allready reason enough to stop this.
Secondly, people dont think the way you do. If dying gets a bigger penalty as now, than they wont downgrade. They will more likely upgrade to capital or big blobs. We might even see more warpcorestab + sensorboost/damps setups.
I understand the motive behind it, but dont forget: nerfing insurance makes T2 ships "cheap", it would increase the price of T2. Changing insurance will have more drawbacks than positive sides, especially if you only nerf 0.0.
_________________________________________________
Breetime
A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA |
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 14:54:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Spank YouLater
Congrats you win the award for the ""Stupidest idea EVER"".
At least im using my head to speak, not my arse.
sup /b/ |
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 14:56:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 24/07/2007 14:57:06
Originally by: madaluap
This really isnt the brightest idea tbh. You are basicly boosting people that fight in empire and mission *****s, while nerfing 0.0. That is allready reason enough to stop this.
Secondly, people dont think the way you do. If dying gets a bigger penalty as now, than they wont downgrade. They will more likely upgrade to capital or big blobs. We might even see more warpcorestab + sensorboost/damps setups.
I understand the motive behind it, but dont forget: nerfing insurance makes T2 ships "cheap", it would increase the price of T2. Changing insurance will have more drawbacks than positive sides, especially if you only nerf 0.0.
Hmz..guess im expecting too much from Joe Sixpack then :(
What i do gather from the replies (as some of the smarter ones may have caught, this was kind of an experimental post), is that people are simply not willing to fly smaller ships.
sup /b/ |
Jehuty Vanricadia
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 15:02:00 -
[50]
Make it work the same was as car insurance does, if you insure your battleship in 0.0 in an outpost it will cost % more due to it being a lawless area.
With car insurance or certainly my one, it would charge me more if my address is registered to some ghetto area, the likelihood of my insurance claim in this area is greatly increased compared with my little sea side village with like 1,000 people, 900 of which are over 60; where I am charged a very low amount due to my location.
Note I have not been driving long either.
|
Imperius Blackheart
Caldari
Trinity Nova
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 15:03:00 -
[51]
Removing insurance would do one thing, remove conflict from 0.0, or at least reduce it, people would be too scared to take any real risks, plus it would make blob warfare the only choice, small gangs a thing of the past. Plus the weaker and poorer would be forced back to empire and 0.0 population will fall further.
|
Shoukei
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 15:07:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Imperius Blackheart
Removing insurance would do one thing, remove conflict from 0.0, or at least reduce it, people would be too scared to take any real risks, plus it would make blob warfare the only choice, small gangs a thing of the past. Plus the weaker and poorer would be forced back to empire and 0.0 population will fall further.
people are already scared to take any risks. now, they would just be scared to take any risks in that nice expensive bs they actually had to spend more than few hours to buy.
eve is meant to hurt.
|
Bluestealth
Minmatar
BlueLabs
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 15:17:00 -
[53]
I am in 100% support of the removal of insurance... as I have been for 3+ years...
O yes... even as a newbie I thought it was broken.
|
Jenna Shame
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 15:36:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Sokratesz
The point is to make battleships more rare in 0.0, instead of them being the first thing people think of when confronted with 0.0 warfare (see first 2 replies). That mentality of 'bigger is better' needs to be broken. Not neccesarily less people in the blob, but smaller ships, focusing more on tactics than raw firepower.
I think what you are really saying is you enjoy flying a support ship.
There are plenty of tactics in alliance warfare beyond the BS blob.
As is it though EvE can't even support BS fleet tactics lag wise. Put trying to do fancy maneuvers in there and it just doesn't work. Get rid of lag and you will see a lot more variations in tactics.
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS....
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 16:46:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: d026
And this would even destroy pvp more. People not engaging often enough allready!
people do engage, when odds are blatantly stacked in their favor. absence of insurance wont have any impact at all, aside from making people show up in cheaper ships.
if all ships in eve were free, winning an engagement would have become even more meaningless than it is now. lets boost this experience even farther, so when you take down a battleship, you feel like you actually did something.
most of the people flee already if you engage them with similar or even less firepower. Higher death penalty wont do any good and as previous posters said probably force blobbing. Rather decrease death penalty and have some MORE PVP.
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS....
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 16:48:00 -
[56]
Edited by: d026 on 24/07/2007 16:48:37
Originally by: Jenna Shame
Originally by: Sokratesz
The point is to make battleships more rare in 0.0, instead of them being the first thing people think of when confronted with 0.0 warfare (see first 2 replies). That mentality of 'bigger is better' needs to be broken. Not neccesarily less people in the blob, but smaller ships, focusing more on tactics than raw firepower.
I think what you are really saying is you enjoy flying a support ship.
There are plenty of tactics in alliance warfare beyond the BS blob.
As is it though EvE can't even support BS fleet tactics lag wise. Put trying to do fancy maneuvers in there and it just doesn't work. Get rid of lag and you will see a lot more variations in tactics.
Btw we mainly fly cruiser sized vessels and smaller if we go roaming (and we do this daily) BS are just to bulky and slow. I never see many BS in our gangs except at gates or in fleet ops..
|
DarkMatter
Sintered Sanity
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 16:49:00 -
[57]
I honestly think it's time to remove all insurance...
Insurance in a war does not make sense.
Insurance payout from death by Concorde does not make sense.
If you go into low sec and die, it's your fault.
If you go to a mission in high sec to fight NPC pirates, don't see why an insurance company would reimburse you...
Only thing that should get insured are Frieghters in high sec, that are not involved in a war.
Building the homestead
|
Mr McKin
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 16:51:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Spank YouLater
Congrats you win the award for the ""Stupidest idea EVER"".
At least im using my head to speak, not my arse.
Is there any difference?
I rate this idea 0/10.
|
Ishmael Hansen
No Quarter.
Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 17:09:00 -
[59]
It will only make the difference between people with large pockets and the poor ones bigger, people with much isk already fly tech 2 ships and don't care about insurance anyway.
Now if you are doing missions or whatever to afford that new cruiser, and you lose it in pvp with no insurance, well less pew pew for everyone.
And no, imo the "stupidest idea ever" was the one of paying $ to ccp and get more sp's with it
|
Death Kill
Caldari
direkte
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 17:32:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Sounds to me like it would increase blobbing to minimize risk of losing your ship,
Dont worry stacking nerf, hitpoint increase and warp to zero took care of that.
Tuxford is in charge remember?
Originally by: myself
The Amarr templar joke is a joke stupid people can laugh at. Its the joke any dumb person can laugh at.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
No Joy Corp
Pride - Honor - Duty
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 17:32:00 -
[61]
This would increase the gap between the rich and the poor within EVE as well as increasing the entry level for 0.0.
If you want that feeling of significant loss fit faction
If you want cause to be more careful... fit faction
If you want more healing.. capital reps are an amazing tool right now and logistics cruisers have recently been tweaked, theres a lot of repping going on these days.
If your suggestion went through more of the wealthier people will fly t2, increasing the prices beyond the availability of a lot of pilots who currently enjoy using them.
As mentioned blobbing will increase and willingness to engage in solo and small gang PvP will drop yet further making PvP less fun for everyone.
In short it alters little for those with deep pockets while reducing enjoyment of the game for the casual player, it worsens the problems you suggest it will fix, would further reduce demand for t1 ships (an already over supplied market) while increasing demand and thus cost of t2 ships once more taking them to yet more unreasonable levels.
If you wish to see more smaller class ships in 0.0 and combat in general then the prices for t2 ships would need to drop to the point where those beyond frigate size are considered worth flying in general PvP, this would require cheaper production, leading to increased demand and supply. Sadly the risk of getting blobbed and the cost of these ships doesn't inspire people to fly most of the ships we have available to us since the battleships are cheaper to replace and generally more effective, the issue snowballs, the more BS there are the more effective BS class weaponry is.
Cost progression is: Frigate, Destroyer, t2 Frigate, Cruiser, Battlecruiser, Interdictor, Battleship, Command Ship, t2 Cruiser.
Cost progression should be: Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, t2 Frigate, t2 Destroyer, t2 Cruiser, Battlecruiser, Battleship, t2 Battlecruiser.
Personal opinion of course. If t2 cruisers were cheaper to replace than t1 battleships we would see a lot more of them in gang warfare... possibly even in fleet for EW, heavy tackling, and other purposes. As it stands these ships simply don't provide performance levels that justify their price.
|
Shoukei
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 17:36:00 -
[62]
Originally by: d026
most of the people flee already if you engage them with similar or even less firepower. Higher death penalty wont do any good and as previous posters said probably force blobbing. Rather decrease death penalty and have some MORE PVP.
at that point, ill stop playing eve and start playing wow. meaningless pvp is... meaningless, pointless and stupid.
|
thatguyinpc
Subach-Tech
FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 18:21:00 -
[63]
Ok I've read through the thread and I've read the OP twice now. I just don't get it, so please spell it out for me, why do you want to force people to either spend a lot more time grinding or to fly smaller ships?
Of course with smaller ships your still spending more time grinding, because those will be uninsurable also right?
Guy
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 18:24:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 24/07/2007 18:24:50
Originally by: thatguyinpc
Ok I've read through the thread and I've read the OP twice now. I just don't get it, so please spell it out for me, why do you want to force people to either spend a lot more time grinding or to fly smaller ships?
Of course with smaller ships your still spending more time grinding, because those will be uninsurable also right?
Guy
1) because everyone's in battleships blobbing up, i consider that bad. battleships should be scarce instead of first choice for pvp. too many ship classes are way underused because bs are so easy to get into
2) well yeah, but less, cause they cost less, relatively. a bunch of cruisers can easily kill a battleship, while costing much less in total isk.
sup /b/ |
thatguyinpc
Subach-Tech
FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 18:29:00 -
[65]
Sorry I still need more clarification. Why is blobbing in a battleship bad? Blobbing in general I get, but not the relevence of ship type.
Guy
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 18:39:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 24/07/2007 18:42:58
Well, my experience on fleet battles isnt as thorough as some others here, but what i've gathered and experienced is that a, say 20+ battleship gang has the firepower to kill any non-capital target within 10 - 20 seconds. This leads to many small, very short fights with relative little risk for any of the participants (provided youre on the right side).
In my opinion, a 20 man cruiser gang would be more 'fun' to fly without insurance. The end result when meeting a lone target would be the same, but when meeting a gang of near-equal size the engagement would become alot more interesting. Harder to outblob people by just saying 'everyone fly battleships and hit primary', and more tactical gameplay.
Battleship blobs don't require much tactics beyond a covops providing warpin points and an FC calling targets. Gangs consisting of multiple, smaller ship classes will bring variety and when played well, will be extremely effective without having the direct punch of a BS blob.
I got the message, its just an idea i got and i wanted to put it out in the open. I'm solely judging from what i read and experienced so it sure as hell doesnt apply to everyone. Hopelessly trying to argue in favour of it will only make me look dumber (if at all possible), so i wont. I'm ****ed off with the blob warfare as it is now, and i had to vent it in some way ;)
sup /b/ |
Aeco Feife
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 18:56:00 -
[67]
DonÆt know how to link to where I talked about this before, and no one would follow it if I did so here is a partial recap of a middle ground:
Principle: Experience Rating - insurance premiums (or payouts) based on expected losses derived from individual experience. When you have a car wreck, your premiums go up because the insurance company now knows more about you. You look less like an average person, and more like a suicidal moron. You look like you will cost them more in the future, so they canÆt offer you the same deal as before. Only really kicks in when losses reach an ôunusualö level.
Application: Pilot / Ship-type Specific Experience Ratings - Every time you ôuseö your insurance contract by collecting after you blow up, your costs for the same insurance (platinum, for example) on the same ship (Caracal) goes up. The deal (your return over premium) gets worse.
The sensitivity of the deal to blowing up can depend on all sorts of sensible parameters such as the sec status of the system, of the pilot, of the opponent, level of the total loss etc. Experience ratings can fall over time. Ideally, a pilot that has lost too many of one type of ship (in too short of time) would find it a better idea to switch to a different ship-type until his premiums fall. Also, premiums could go up if you continually lose ships in the same constellation (unless you have sovereignty or a declared war), because the insurance company sees you are not learning your lesson.
To minimize your premiums, you can:
Not get blown up
Get blown up only in frigates / cruisers
Get blown up in a variety of ships
Get blown up by pilots with opposite sec status
Etc.
Why?
More realistic insurance market (current one is a real black-eye to the economy, could be much better)
Increased death premium, but in small and increasing (and controllable) increments
The strategic ability to beat a common opponent out of a ship class (or area). I used to get brutalized by one guy in a Sabre with regularity. Whenever we got a group together to take him out, he would return a couple hours late in another Sabre. Blowing up an opponents ship would be all the more satisfying if you knew you were doing some direct damage to his ability to come right back with the same thing. This setup doesnÆt prevent anyone from doing the same thing in the same ship all the time, just increases the costs of doing the same stupid things over and over again.
Biggest bonus: More ships in play. In a reasonable insurance market, no corp would insure my alt in a Caracal again. IÆd have to switch to a different ship, at least for a while.
|
thatguyinpc
Subach-Tech
FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 19:06:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Sokratesz
In my opinion, a 20 man cruiser gang would be more 'fun' to fly without insurance. The end result when meeting a lone target would be the same, but when meeting a gang of near-equal size the engagement would become alot more interesting. Harder to outblob people by just saying 'everyone fly battleships and hit primary', and more tactical gameplay.
Battleship blobs don't require much tactics beyond a covops providing warpin points and an FC calling targets. Gangs consisting of multiple, smaller ship classes will bring variety and when played well, will be extremely effective without having the direct punch of a BS blob.
I still don't understand your point of view. If you are facing an equal size gang in equal size ships the tactics are still going to be the same.
The objective is still going to be to pin down your target and focus your fire on them.
As to the death penalty it is still a lot more expensive to lose a BS than a cruiser or frig. Not because of the insurance, but because of the uninsured fittings, and the cost of the insurance as well.
I'm sorry try as I might, I just can't follow your logic / train of thought as to how this would improve the game.
Guy
|
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 19:29:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Princess Jodi on 24/07/2007 19:29:32
No, this is a terrible idea.
Let me put it this way: CCP wants MORE people in 0.0, not LESS. More Risk with constant Reward means people won't go to 0.0.
All your argument does is promote the flying of smaller ships because they are cheaper. By that logic there should never be a ship in existence that cost more than a day or two of isk farming. So say Goodbye to all capitals, T2 ships and T2 items. Yet CCP is working towards T3. So... it ain't gonna happen.
Mind you, I almost never insure my ships. Certainly not the Capitals - if I lose a Capital in 90 days with consistency, then I'm doing something deathly wrong. I will insure the occasionally Fleet BS, because regardless of your setup or skill you will get Primaried and not be able to get out from time to time.
But if you really wanna remove insurance, this is what needs to be done:
1> No insurance for self-destructed ships.
2> No insurance for Conkorded ships.
3> Link insurance rates to the number of ships lost in the last 90 days (normal insurance period.) Increase the cost by 1%? 5%? for each ship lost.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 19:33:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Sokratesz
It makes sense from a roleplaying / backstory viewpoint:
- Why would insurance companies cover the loss of a ship you took out into lawless space, willingly?
*upturned hand, meet front of head*
-
I wish I was a three foot female doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes. |
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 19:53:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Sokratesz
It makes sense from a roleplaying / backstory viewpoint:
- Why would insurance companies cover the loss of a ship you took out into lawless space, willingly?
*upturned hand, meet front of head*
You mean the facepalm? Yeah yeah i get it by now, no need to repeat what 60 others have said before you. Doesnt make you cooler, only makes me very slightly dumber.
sup /b/ |
Yasumi
Solstice Systems Development Concourse
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 19:59:00 -
[72]
No. Period.
|
Seltris
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 20:30:00 -
[73]
It seems to me that your main goal is to increase the number of smaller ships that are brought into the fray... In my opinion, you should be advocating that smaller ships like frigates should be getting a boost in their effectiveness and abilities. A battle ship should be loaded to the teeth with guns and missiles, while smaller ships should be responsible for the light warfare and support through jamming and disabling other vessels. The only thing that needs to be done is make frigates more compelling and necessary to bring into combat.
Removing the insurance will only serve to make the more timid and less wealthy a lot less likely to present themselves for destruction. Increasing the effectiveness of smaller ships and making them actually effective in combat is a much better solution in my opinion. That way people are actually inclined to bring them along. Right now the PVP is way too lopsided and all ships should bring something to the fight. Especially in a well organized fleet.
A fleet should consist of a variety of ships performing a variety of duties to the whole of the effort. It shouldn't just be an assimilation of massive gun ships.
In essence, bring more balance to the relative power of the ships. That would make the PVP aspect a lot more fun and diverse... and there would be no need for dramatic changes that further alienate the small guys.
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 20:42:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Seltris
It seems to me that your main goal is to increase the number of smaller ships that are brought into the fray... In my opinion, you should be advocating that smaller ships like frigates should be getting a boost in their effectiveness and abilities. A battle ship should be loaded to the teeth with guns and missiles, while smaller ships should be responsible for the light warfare and support through jamming and disabling other vessels. The only thing that needs to be done is make frigates more compelling and necessary to bring into combat.
Removing the insurance will only serve to make the more timid and less wealthy a lot less likely to present themselves for destruction. Increasing the effectiveness of smaller ships and making them actually effective in combat is a much better solution in my opinion. That way people are actually inclined to bring them along. Right now the PVP is way too lopsided and all ships should bring something to the fight. Especially in a well organized fleet.
A fleet should consist of a variety of ships performing a variety of duties to the whole of the effort. It shouldn't just be an assimilation of massive gun ships.
In essence, bring more balance to the relative power of the ships. That would make the PVP aspect a lot more fun and diverse... and there would be no need for dramatic changes that further alienate the small guys.
+1 for a sensible post. Yes, that'd be the ultimate goal.
sup /b/ |
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS....
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 21:25:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: d026
most of the people flee already if you engage them with similar or even less firepower. Higher death penalty wont do any good and as previous posters said probably force blobbing. Rather decrease death penalty and have some MORE PVP.
at that point, ill stop playing eve and start playing wow. meaningless pvp is... meaningless, pointless and stupid.
its meaningless already.. eve is a game:)
|
Kage Psychodin
Caldari
The Empire Nation
Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 22:31:00 -
[76]
Good intentions, but no realism.
I can barely afford just MAYBE a raven every 1-2 weeks ratting in 0.0 intensely in my area (syndicate). I don't use BSes when I PvP. But, all of 0.0 has different resources and levels of profitability. all it would become is battle of the bank account, those who can afford infinite +1 BSes until the other side had nothing left.
Another one bites the dust. |
Bluestealth
Minmatar
BlueLabs
|
Posted - 2007.07.26 01:56:00 -
[77]
Originally by: d026
its meaningless already.. eve is a game:)
Yes, and when you realize that you will join me in playing Real Life... trust me its much more exciting then wandering into escapeland. Every action you can take in EVE is pointless and futile in the scheme of things... why even fight?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |