| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xandralkus
Morior Invictus.
Velocitas Eradico
3
   |
Posted - 2012.01.12 23:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
The cost of insuring a ship is disproportionate to the actual risk it mitigates. As things stand right now, insurance basically reduces the cost of losing a ship to almost zero. This should not happen.
I suggest that the frequency of being killed is actually factored into the insurance price, proportionate to the relative cost of the ship. Throwing away a frigate or cruiser won't make insurance premiums go up that much, but if you lose a battleship or larger, the insurance price needs to be a significant percentage of the ship itself. Players would then actually have to pick and choose what they insure.
Tracking the ISK value of the pilot's insured losses for the last six months should be a relatively easy way of determining the cost of insurance.
Also, how about conditional insurance? Highsec-only insurance should be relatively cheap - but if you venture into lowsec or nullsec, then your highsec insurance will not pay out. Obviously, lowsec insurance would be considerably more expensive, and nullsec even more so.
Ultimately, insurance needs to be rebalanced to stop people from exploiting it, and having the cost go up as the pilot loses insured ships should work nicely.
Once the exploit situation is taken care of, there is no reason that modules, implants, T2 ships, and strategic cruisers couldn't be insured. Obviously the cost of the blueprint would have to be considered, but that should be a relatively incosequential addition.
Eve has the worst UI ever. Seriously, if not for the pretty ships and effects, it would be just as bad as a command prompt. And they won't even let us change it!?-áEven repeated swearing fails to demonstrate how much it truly sucks that CCP does not allow UI addons and modification! |
Quibblin
TenTon Inc
Malicious Rage
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 00:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
Xandralkus wrote:
I suggest that the frequency of being killed is actually factored into the insurance price, proportionate to the relative cost of the ship.
so you wanna screw over pvp pilots who lose ships on a daily basis...
Xandralkus wrote:
Ultimately, insurance needs to be rebalanced to stop people from exploiting it, and having the cost go up as the pilot loses insured ships should work nicely.
do u have any idea what you are talking about now a days, like really... where was this over a year ago when there was actual Real insurance exploiting going on to where people were making hundreds of millions a day just blowing up their own ships.
Xandralkus wrote:
there is no reason that modules, implants, T2 ships, and strategic cruisers couldn't be insured.
How About No, just for that comment I can tell u are trolling. |
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
449
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 00:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
I just don't get it OP. I don't see the problem.
*climbs up on the soapbox next to OP*
OMG! Insurance is an exploit! Again?!?
OMG! I can see my house from here!
*climbs down from soapbox*
Wait a minute, CCP fixed insurance. So you can't possibly be complaining except that its a "crutch" to continue PVP because it reduces the risk not helps smack it across the face with a brick that risk just MUST BE HARSH!!!! (caps, bold, and 4 exclamation points for sarcastic effect) so you must lose it all. This is a game is it not? You can lose it all in real life, but why does EVE need total loss instead of reduced loss?
As for anything not T1, it doesn't insure for full cost because thats the risk of bringing something better then your opponent. T2/T3 have way better stats then T1, so you obviously have the edge. Having the edge is the risk, so if you lose it it should cost more amirite? |
Vizvayu Koga
28
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 00:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
This has been discussed many times before.
Even when I actually use the insurance all the time and it saves me (an many other people ofc) a lot of isk, I have to agree that the current insurance system is silly to say the least. It makes no sense at all if you look at it objectively.
IMO a good, simple and elegant way to "fix" this (I mean to make it "less silly") would be to have standings with the insurance company. So the more ships you loose the higher the insurance costs. And the standings should gradually increase with time when you have insured ships.
Of course it's just an idea, and only valid if CCP agrees there's a problem with the current insurance system. I believe they will because they fixed the insurance payout for ships killed by concord... simply because it was, in their own words, "silly".
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
4336
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 00:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
Xandralkus wrote:The cost of insuring a ship is disproportionate to the actual risk it mitigates. As things stand right now, insurance basically reduces the cost of losing a ship to almost zero. Eh, no. It reduces the cost of losing a ship to maybe 20-60% if you're flying a T1 hull.
Quote:Ultimately, insurance needs to be rebalanced to stop people from exploiting it No. Quite the opposite. Insurance is there to encourage people to lose ships, not to discourage it. The GÇ£exploitsGÇ¥ you're talking about is the system doing exactly what it's supposed to do.
It's not a business GÇö it's a game mechanic meant to make people willing to get blown up more often.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
139
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 01:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
Xandralkus wrote:insurance basically reduces the cost of losing a ship to almost zero.
Can you show me where I can get the insurance money for my modules then? A decent t2 fit will cost more than the hull most of the time, and isn't paid back. |
Andiedeath
Sefem Velox
55
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 05:03:00 -
[7] - Quote
I have to say I dont even pay insurance premiums ingame anymore for most PVP ships. The amount you get back just inst it worth premium for t2 and faction ships. May as well loose the extra 7mil and put the time to do it or the money invested into playing the market with some skill books or doing an extra faction warfare mission.
Although yes it would be good the insured sum was a better percentage of the actual average market sell price, not average market price (which I believe currently includes those stupidly low buy orders). Please tell me if I'm wrong there. |
Goose99
666
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 05:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
It would absolutely screw sov null entities that field large amount of insured BS in blob form. That said, supported. +1 Insurance is a huge isk faucet. Once that's removed, whatever isk you have will be worth far more. It'd be good for the economy. |
Xandralkus
Morior Invictus.
Velocitas Eradico
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.14 23:30:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ships, modules, implants, and the like should be insurable to 100% of value - but with risk. Namely, the risk of losing them while insured and getting screwed with not being able to cheaply insure such things again for a while. Even the 20-60% mitigation of the repeated ISK losses for T1 hulls is a disproportionate mitigation of risk in return for ISK spent.
Insurance should not make ships disposable. It should not assist in making them disposable. Insuring a ship needs to be a calculated choice, with a calculated risk attached.
Eve is a cruel and heartless game universe. IF any sort of risk-mitigation exists against losing ships (insurance), then it certainly should not be a viable choice in the long run.
Eve has the worst UI ever. Seriously, if not for the pretty ships and effects, it would be just as bad as a command prompt. And they won't even let us change it!?-áEven repeated swearing fails to demonstrate how much it truly sucks that CCP does not allow UI addons and modification! |
Swiftsoul Tian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.15 07:49:00 -
[10] - Quote
I like the idea to make the insurance risk related, e.g. pop in 1.0 sector = 100%, 0.9 sec = 90%,...., 0.0 sec = 0% payback.
Would be an easy improvement ^^
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power.
Cascade Imminent
215
|
Posted - 2012.01.15 07:56:00 -
[11] - Quote
punish pvp'ers, only incentivise low-risk activities and areas
surely this will be a step foward towards the grand vision of EVE |
Goose99
672
|
Posted - 2012.01.15 16:50:00 -
[12] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:punish pvp'ers, only incentivise low-risk activities and areas
surely this will be a step foward towards the grand vision of EVE
We should all have free ships. Respawn ftw
Oh wait, action and consequences.
Btw, you don't get punished for pvp, you get punished for getting killed. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
4430
|
Posted - 2012.01.15 17:07:00 -
[13] - Quote
Goose99 wrote:It would absolutely screw sov null entities that field large amount of insured BS in blob form. That said, supported. +1 Insurance is a huge isk faucet. Once that's removed, whatever isk you have will be worth far more. It'd be good for the economy.
Among the ISK faucets, it's the next smallest one. If you want to reduce the influx of ISK, it's far better to cut all bounties by 10% GÇö it would have the same effect as completely removing insurance, but would not have nearly as drastic an effect on those affected since it's spread out over far more people.
Swiftsoul Tian wrote:I like the idea to make the insurance risk related, e.g. pop in 1.0 sector = 100%, 0.9 sec = 90%,...., 0.0 sec = 0% payback. That would make it rather pointless, and if anything it should be the other way around.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Goose99
673
|
Posted - 2012.01.15 17:29:00 -
[14] - Quote
Goose99 wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:punish pvp'ers, only incentivise low-risk activities and areas
surely this will be a step foward towards the grand vision of EVE We should all have free ships. Respawn ftw Oh wait, action and consequences. Btw, you don't get punished for pvp, you get punished for getting killed.
Tippia wrote:Goose99 wrote:It would absolutely screw sov null entities that field large amount of insured BS in blob form. That said, supported. +1 Insurance is a huge isk faucet. Once that's removed, whatever isk you have will be worth far more. It'd be good for the economy. Among the ISK faucets, it's the next smallest one. If you want to reduce the influx of ISK, it's far better to cut all bounties by 10% GÇö it would have the same effect as completely removing insurance, but would not have nearly as drastic an effect on those affected since it's spread out over far more people. Swiftsoul Tian wrote:I like the idea to make the insurance risk related, e.g. pop in 1.0 sector = 100%, 0.9 sec = 90%,...., 0.0 sec = 0% payback. That would make it rather pointless, and if anything it should be the other way around.
You grossly underestimate size of insurance payout faucet. I remember dev once put it at more than 2/3 of bounty payout amount. (No, I can't find that link) Granted, it was before insurance nerf. But I can't imagine it falling to anywhere nearly as low 10%. Bounty nerf is a step in the right direction, but not to pay for insurance payout. Consequences of sucking at pvp should not be bore by anyone except the person making the choice.
Sec balancing looks good as is. Eve's "insurance" is basically welfare for noobs. 0.0 vets should take consequences of their actions as they are. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
4430
|
Posted - 2012.01.15 17:40:00 -
[15] - Quote
Goose99 wrote:You grossly underestimate size of insurance payout faucet. I remember dev once put it at more than 2/3 of bounty payout amount. (No, I can't find that link) I found this old thing GÇö that was before the nerf, and back then it was a ratio of 8:1 for bounties to insurance on the payouts alone; 10:1 if you included the costs to actually get those insurances to begin with.
GǪand I don't even want to think about where incursions would fit on that list these days. 
Quote:Sec balancing looks good as is. Eve's "insurance" is basically welfare for noobs. 0.0 vets should take consequences of their actions as they are. Insurance is a means to incentivise combat and large-scale losses to keep the economy going. Disincentivisng them where such losses are more common doesn't make any sense (but neither does it make sense to remove the incentives for highsec combat GÇö the whole idea of gradating insurance by security is pretty silly to begin with).
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Aglais
Liberation Army
43
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 00:00:00 -
[16] - Quote
If it costs me a hundred million ISK to have a battle-ready Drake, most of the cost being insurance, that will only give me the ISK back to repurchase the ship and fittings when it dies, I still lose about 40million ISK. And that's stupid. It will make PvP less accessible, and probably break the game. Only the RMT people will probably be able to afford to lose ships on a basis that's even remotely close to how often they are now.
Not supported. |
Goose99
673
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 00:56:00 -
[17] - Quote
Aglais wrote:If it costs me a hundred million ISK to have a battle-ready Drake, most of the cost being insurance, that will only give me the ISK back to repurchase the ship and fittings when it dies, I still lose about 40million ISK. And that's stupid. It will make PvP less accessible, and probably break the game. Only the RMT people will probably be able to afford to lose ships on a basis that's even remotely close to how often they are now.
Not supported.
Then you should buy game time and sell us plex. Fail at Eve in style. |
Xandralkus
Morior Invictus.
Velocitas Eradico
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 21:27:00 -
[18] - Quote
Aglais wrote:If it costs me a hundred million ISK to have a battle-ready Drake, most of the cost being insurance, that will only give me the ISK back to repurchase the ship and fittings when it dies, I still lose about 40million ISK. And that's stupid. It will make PvP less accessible, and probably break the game. Only the RMT people will probably be able to afford to lose ships on a basis that's even remotely close to how often they are now.
Not supported.
The grand rule of Eve - Do not fly what you cannot afford to lose. Insurance should not be a PvP-augmenter - justified by the clear and present fact that CCP does not allow ship, module, and implant respawns. If they actually wanted to incentivize PvP, there are MUCH better ways they could have gone about doing it.
The solution: Don't insure your drake unless you actually plan on keeping it alive for a substantial period of time. If you do plan on throwing it away, don't count on free ISK handouts to subsidize your loss.
It's a cold and unforgiving world on the outside of that station. Get used to it.
Eve UI wouldn't suck if CCP allowed UI addons. |
Miss Whippy
Bloody Limeys
68
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 16:08:00 -
[19] - Quote
Swiftsoul Tian wrote:I like the idea to make the insurance risk related, e.g. pop in 1.0 sector = 100%, 0.9 sec = 90%,...., 0.0 sec = 0% payback.
Would be an easy improvement ^^
This would give carebears even less reason to venture into lowsec, it's already hard enough trying to find good bear as it is.
Highjacking every thread possible in the campaign to END THE CLICK FEST and RUBBISH NAVIGATION in EvE. |
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2059
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 16:55:00 -
[20] - Quote
yeah let's discourage people from taking risks in this game, great idea
while we're at it, take away free rookie ships, take away free tutorial ships and basically make life for newbies miserable because they should not enjoy this game at all whatsoever until they have 50 million SP and tens of billions in the wallet, that'll keep the subs rolling in
yeah no i'm not actually running for csm7
got you lol!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
7333
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 19:22:00 -
[21] - Quote
Haven't seen one of these threads for a while.
Congrats on winning the Beat that dead horse, thread of the month! Award.
CCP Zulu.....
Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Averyia
The Nephilims
Tactical Nuke
20
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 19:30:00 -
[22] - Quote
How is the cost of losing a ship basically zero. Lets see I spend 100 mil on a BS, pay some 30 mil in insurance, and get a pay out of about 95mil. When you factor in to 50 - 100 mil worth of modules, rigs, ammo, drones, at no point is the cost of losing a ship basically zero. Ever.
The closest this came to being true was before the insurance change and when ships prices had reached a true low. I could by a raven at almost 75 mil and get like 99% return on the ship lost (minus modules) even when factoring the cost for the insurance.
Right now, prices for ships are up and cost for insurance is down. Don't believe. The raven now is back to its 100mil+ price range. The Rohk is at a high of close to 150mil. And the insurance pay out is usually less than the cost of the ship, WITHOUT factoring the cost of insurance.
All warfare is based on deception and logistics. Battles and soldiers are secondary priorities. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |