EVE Search - Radical idea: remove NPC shuttle sell orders and all ship insurance

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Radical idea: remove NPC shuttle sell orders and all ship insurance

» 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)
Bellum Eternus Gallente Blood Corsair's	Posted - 2007.10.20 22:15:00 - [1] These two things set artificial limits on mineral prices. If they were removed, then the market would be even more player driven. Now that we have the option to undock in a pod, shuttles are no longer an absolute requirement to be made available, and barring that, you still have rookie ships that are non-recyclable. In this day and age of non-insurable T2 ships, why do players need insurance for anything anyway? Sure, it used to be that players had a tough time losing ships three years ago, when the game and it's economy were new, but that's no longer the case. New characters start off with 800k+ SP, are able to earn enough to be in a battlecruiser inside of two weeks. Anyway, comments? I'm sure everyone is full of them. Bellum Eternus [Vid]Blood Corsairs - Day One
Ebodhisatva Gallente hunter killers	Posted - 2007.10.20 22:19:00 - [2] Originally by: Bellum Eternus These two things set artificial limits on mineral prices. If they were removed, then the market would be even more player driven. Now that we have the option to undock in a pod, shuttles are no longer an absolute requirement to be made available, and barring that, you still have rookie ships that are non-recyclable. In this day and age of non-insurable T2 ships, why do players need insurance for anything anyway? Sure, it used to be that players had a tough time losing ships three years ago, when the game and it's economy were new, but that's no longer the case. New characters start off with 800k+ SP, are able to earn enough to be in a battlecruiser inside of two weeks. Anyway, comments? I'm sure everyone is full of them. 2 weeks New character: 2 weeks for a new ship to play further?, Good luke EVE, i'm trying another game, this is just a trial... Originally by: CCP Prism X You wont have any LPs. You need LPs with said Corp and like I said I just nuked your LPs.
Arana Tellen Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.20 22:19:00 - [3] Remove insurance and say bye to selling anything lol. --------------------------------- Core 2 Duo E4300 1.8ghz @ 3ghz
Commoner Caldari Backyard Gankstars	Posted - 2007.10.20 22:26:00 - [4] Originally by: Bellum Eternus These two things set artificial limits on mineral prices. If they were removed, then the market would be even more player driven. Now that we have the option to undock in a pod, shuttles are no longer an absolute requirement to be made available, and barring that, you still have rookie ships that are non-recyclable. In this day and age of non-insurable T2 ships, why do players need insurance for anything anyway? Sure, it used to be that players had a tough time losing ships three years ago, when the game and it's economy were new, but that's no longer the case. New characters start off with 800k+ SP, are able to earn enough to be in a battlecruiser inside of two weeks. Anyway, comments? I'm sure everyone is full of them. Tempting idea. I highly doubt it will have the desired effect. i think it would: a) Limit the pvp in eve, less people willing to put the ship on the line, less pewpew. b) Less mineral demand, as people would be hesitant to get their ships killed. Although im in favor of the free market, i don't think it would work well in eve. Commoner out. The worst pvp'er in EVE :
lofty29 Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.20 22:33:00 - [5] Originally by: Arana Tellen Remove insurance and say bye to selling anything lol. That made sense... --- Latest Video : FAT- Camp
Commoner Caldari Backyard Gankstars	Posted - 2007.10.20 22:37:00 - [6] Originally by: lofty29 Originally by: Arana Tellen Remove insurance and say bye to selling anything lol. That made sense... Probably a hint. I think it's because shipsellers won't be selling any ships, as people are too affraid to lose their investment with no insurance. Just a theory though.. The worst pvp'er in EVE :
Kobushi	Posted - 2007.10.20 22:44:00 - [7] Originally by: lofty29 Originally by: Arana Tellen Remove insurance and say bye to selling anything lol. That made sense... Insurance is a big isk sink...remove that and expect a lot of inflation.
Rhaegor Stormborn Pestilent Industries Amalgamated	Posted - 2007.10.20 22:46:00 - [8] Originally by: Commoner Tempting idea. I highly doubt it will have the desired effect. i think it would: a) Limit the pvp in eve, less people willing to put the ship on the line, less pewpew. b) Less mineral demand, as people would be hesitant to get their ships killed. Although im in favor of the free market, i don't think it would work well in eve. Commoner out. a) Good, Less Blobs. b) Maybe slightly, but I doubt it. I am all for a true free market, and either no insurance or less insurance. Rhaegor Stormborn Fleet Admiral - Pestilent Industries Amalgamated [PIA] Recruitment Thread
Toria Nynys Minmatar	Posted - 2007.10.20 22:49:00 - [9] You've got it backwards. Insurance is an ISK source. Remove it, and... interesting things will happen. I suspect it'll be more like the t1 module market -- massive stagnation, glut of supply and plummeting prices until we're looking at 20M isk battleships or thereabouts. Remember that many manufacturers consider minerals they mine to be 'free', so it could happen. Miners will be recycling their characters in droves. =)
Pirate Tom	Posted - 2007.10.20 22:52:00 - [10] Or possibly have the insurance pay out an adjusted market average (dropping extremely high and low values in order to present a clearer view of the value), which would the price of insurance to adjust and not set an hard limit on the maximum price of a ship. You'd have to ignore the extreme highs and lows in the market to get it to work because you know there would be people who would set a whole bunch of orders at extreme high prices in order to force the average up for insurance fraud purposes, and there's always the people who are buying stupidly low (f.ex all the battleship buy orders you see for 100.00 isk). Insurance is a big part of PVP, but having it set to a fixed amount does unfairly cap the prices. Q. Oh noes! but noobs won't be able to afford ships no more!!1!!1 A. The price of trit will go up commensurate with the price of the ships. Guess what. Mining is profitable. More so without mineral limits. Q. But I don't mine! I'll never be able to afford anything if prices go up after they remove the artifical price floors! A. You just work a little harder to get into a new ship... or you deal with some mining boredom now and again to boost funding as needed. My thoughts boil down to this. The economy is strong now, and getting stronger. There is no longer any need for an NPC market to supply anything more than blueprints (and trade goods that are not available in other methods, such as robotics, etc) Let your player driven economy evolve to the next stage. A player maintained economy.

Bellum Eternus Gallente Blood Corsair's	Posted - 2007.10.20 22:52:00 - [11] Edited by: Bellum Eternus on 20/10/2007 22:56:35 So far, a few points have been made, but IMO they're pretty weakly supported. More inflation due to no ISK sink from insurance? What? What do you call losing ISK from losing ships? Not an ISK sink? People won't buy ships due to fear of losing them/less PVP due to fear of losing ISK: again, what? Sure people might start flying smaller ships (BCs instead of BSs, T1 cruisers instead of BCs), but plenty of people already fly T2 ships that are uninsurable, plus the mission noobs fly maxed out faction everything anyway, which is also uninsurable. Sure, there may be a few less BS on the field, but is that a bad thing? With the above proposed ideas, you would know that if a guy is on the grid with a BS, you know he's committed to the fight and is putting his ISK where his mouth is, so to speak. No different than flying a CS or HAC as it is now. ISK won't inflate, sales won't drop, and the noobs will still get along just fine. Edit: Another thing- the cost of the actual ship hull is probably one of the lesser costs of a ship setup, unless it's a faction or T2 hull. Between rigs and T2 or faction modules, the ships themselves end up being a small part of the overall cost of the setup. People are already playing with and losing very large amounts of ISK per ship, especially since the introduction of rigs. Additionally, even if you DON'T have insurance, you still get about 50% of the ship's cost reimbursed for FREE, which IMO is completely lame. In todays game, there is no need for it. Bellum Eternus [Vid]Blood Corsairs - Day One
insidion Caldari Last of the Technocracy	Posted - 2007.10.20 23:26:00 - [12] Ultimately I'd have to agree. Either make an insurance system that makes sense or just get rid of it altogether.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.10.20 23:29:00 - [13] The insurance system does make sense. For lesser skilled players, it eases the blow of losing a ship (they still have to pay fittings/insurance again), and for more experienced players, it probably doesnt matter anyway as they'll be flying T2.
UGWidowmaker Caldari The Ankou The Reckoning.	Posted - 2007.10.20 23:31:00 - [14] just make it so that when y in war our in war and you loose your ship to an alliance/corp you are in war with u will not get any insurance... this would also make it so there would be a looser... OMFG I am the widowmaker stay tuned.
Pirate Tom	Posted - 2007.10.20 23:31:00 - [15] Edited by: Pirate Tom on 20/10/2007 23:32:18 Originally by: Elmicker The insurance system does make sense. For lesser skilled players, it eases the blow of losing a ship (they still have to pay fittings/insurance again), and for more experienced players, it probably doesnt matter anyway as they'll be flying T2. I think my idea would work to both help remove the hard limit on mineral prices and allow T2 ships to be insurable. ... and Widowmaker... Fix your grammar so I can quote you without getting a headache, then I'll respond once I figure out what you're trying to say.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Blood Corsair's	Posted - 2007.10.20 23:41:00 - [16] Originally by: Elmicker The insurance system does make sense. For lesser skilled players, it eases the blow of losing a ship (they still have to pay fittings/insurance again), and for more experienced players, it probably doesnt matter anyway as they'll be flying T2. Ok, so allow any player with less than 4 months play time to insure ships, and after that, no more insurance. Additionally, all players after 4 months get moved to a war-deccable npc corp. Heh. Oh, and no ships larger than a BC should be insured by noobs. If they can afford to fly a BS, they can afford to pay for another one. Bellum Eternus [Vid]Blood Corsairs - Day One
Selena Rayne Minmatar Obsidian Conclave	Posted - 2007.10.20 23:57:00 - [17] As big of a sandbox EVE is the game still needs a little guidance to function properly. Unfortunately the community as a whole are not very good at working together for a greater goal or even mature enough to control this universe on their own...it would go to hell.
Shoukei Boobs Ahoy	Posted - 2007.10.21 00:00:00 - [18] Originally by: Kobushi Insurance is a big isk sink...remove that and expect a lot of inflation. insurance produces massive quantities of isk out of thin air. its not isk sink at all. here be signatures!
Nahia Senne Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.21 00:01:00 - [19] This idea is not radical in any way. Its just the next step in EVE evolution. One that will be taken sooner or later to make the game more dynamic and fun.
Pirate Tom	Posted - 2007.10.21 00:10:00 - [20] Well despite the blatant ignoring of my responses by the OP I continue to have ideas and after discussing it with a friend, I believe a better way to set a variable insurance rate would be to .... Monitor the moving average (probably 2 days, to smooth out massive fluctuations but still allow reasonably quick response times) of the components used in construction, including minerals, components and reaction products. Insurance rates would be adjusted daily, based on the build cost of a non-researched BPO, with some small factor in there to allow merchants to still make a profit and be at/under the insurance cost. And while we're at it, make players who constantly collect insurance payouts pay higher rates, and players who religiously insure ships but rarely lose them pay less.

sableye principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.10.21 00:46:00 - [21] I never insure any of my ships anyway from pure laziness Join The Fight With Promo Today
Karyuudo Tydraad Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services	Posted - 2007.10.21 01:51:00 - [22] I like the idea. And the massive ISK sink it provides. Sure, I can no longer fit a Drake that can permanently tank sentry turrets and only lose a couple million ISK overall when it goes pop, but it just adds a little more risk to my ventures. T2 ships are uninsurable, but there certainly is no shortage of those. It sounds like a step in the right direction for the Eve economy.
Enteris Caldari The Empire Nation	Posted - 2007.10.21 06:15:00 - [23] I am completely against this. Now, I Rat, and my main (2 accounts) uses his very good refining rates to turn minerals and salvage into rigs and minerals for my drakes and ravens. Now, for a mere 12? M isk, I can insure that at least there is some return on the cost mineral-wise from the drake. If worst comes to worst, and I'm out of drakes (I always try to keep 4, 2 for PvP, 2 for ratting/PvE purposes) I just buy one from handy nice people in my alliance, or pay the ISK on the top for megacyte and zydrine in empire, and frig it out to swap. As much as it sucks, you KNOW many people PvP with tech 1 ships still. I don't dare fit tech 2 ships for that very reason, I bring rigged drakes to a fight only if I feel its going to be worth it. (obviously, a chance for survival) Of course its a good idea in theory, but the execution would just hurt way too much.
Terminus adacai Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.21 08:55:00 - [24] I agree with moving insurance and getting rid of shuttle glut npc market. In fact, let's get rid of all npc ships and modules on the market and make it truly player driven. Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
iiOs	Posted - 2007.10.21 08:58:00 - [25] Edited by: iiOs on 21/10/2007 08:58:43 I havnt insured anything for years... good idea btw
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.10.21 08:58:00 - [26] Originally by: Rhaegor Stormborn a) Good, Less Blobs. b) Maybe slightly, but I doubt it. a) more blobs, since risks increase and ppl tend to try to minimise them b) game would become more static, so market would get quiet since ppl would not have isk to buy, no minerals to sell, and in the end no stuff to buy... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Commoner Caldari Backyard Gankstars	Posted - 2007.10.21 09:03:00 - [27] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Edited by: Bellum Eternus on 20/10/2007 22:56:35 So far, a few points have been made, but IMO they're pretty weakly supported. More inflation due to no ISK sink from insurance? What? What do you call losing ISK from losing ships? Not an ISK sink? People won't buy ships due to fear of losing them/less PVP due to fear of losing ISK: again, what? Sure people might start flying smaller ships (BCs instead of BSs, T1 cruisers instead of BCs), but plenty of people already fly T2 ships that are uninsurable, plus the mission noobs fly maxed out faction everything anyway, which is also uninsurable. Sure, there may be a few less BS on the field, but is that a bad thing? With the above proposed ideas, you would know that if a guy is on the grid with a BS, you know he's committed to the fight and is putting his ISK where his mouth is, so to speak. No different than flying a CS or HAC as it is now. ISK won't inflate, sales won't drop, and the noobs will still get along just fine. Edit: Another thing- the cost of the actual ship hull is probably one of the lesser costs of a ship setup, unless it's a faction or T2 hull. Between rigs and T2 or faction modules, the ships themselves end up being a small part of the overall cost of the setup. People are already playing with and losing very large amounts of ISK per ship, especially since the introduction of rigs. Additionally, even if you DON'T have insurance, you still get about 50% of the ship's cost reimbursed for FREE, which IMO is completely lame. In todays game, there is no need for it. I fly caldari, can't really be arsed to fly their t2 ships (Nighthawk...maybe...)....or their T1 cruisers for that matter! I think this might hurt people who lose alot of ships...or aren't very good / fly solo in the world of massive blob / gang warfare. Yes people might downgrade to a lower shipclass, only to be oblitorated by the t2 counterpart. One of the reasons people fly big is prolly because some of the t2 counterparts are insanely powerful. (Gallente CS's, Gallente Recons). Sales on the larger vessels will definately drop you said it yourself, people will be flying smaller ships. But you are right, maybe we will see increased cruiser sales. The point about the ship itself being one of the lesser costs is true. 60m on rigs 90m for ship and 75m for the assorted t2 mods needed. (BS). Insurance (full insurance) will likely only cover 30-40% of the total shipcost (fittings included). But 30-40% is something, it might alow me to outfit a comparable setup right away. The argument shouldn't be economic, but on of gameplay, i think there will be overall less pewpew going on in the world of eve if this was introduced. Insurance shortens the recovery time after a loss, afterall if you lose money doing pvp, you don't wanna spend a whole week ratting to make up for your loss. The couterargument to the above would be that people downgrade a shipclass, so the loss becomes negliable. But then again, who wants to invest in a ship which doesnt stand a chance against the toys many of the more skilled foes use. You know you gotta invest big to fight many of the skilled pirates, which as you said, operate in T2 ships. A cruiser won't cut it when i often see gangs of 3-4 pimped t2 ships sitting at gates. Fly safe! Commoner out! The worst pvp'er in EVE :
Terminus adacai Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.21 09:03:00 - [28] Originally by: Laboratus Originally by: Rhaegor Stormborn a) Good, Less Blobs. b) Maybe slightly, but I doubt it. a) more blobs, since risks increase and ppl tend to try to minimise them b) game would become more static, so market would get quiet since ppl would not have isk to buy, no minerals to sell, and in the end no stuff to buy... How would the market get quiet or go static? Trust me, producers will quickly get into the market to cover the lack of supply.... No isk to buy? No minerals to sell? What logic is this? Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2007.10.21 09:07:00 - [29] Insurance is primarily needed for newer players, but also for casual players who might not have time or skill to replace their ships on a constant basis. As such removing all insurance is a bad idea. It would lead to fewer subscriptions in the long run. At the same time you could put some additional limits on insurance. For instance you could have insurance invalidated when you are destroyed by Concord. (For example if you set fire to your home in real life or crash your car on purpose then it is likely there is an escape clause in your insurance policy that will allow the insurance company not to pay you :) ). Also with some car insurance is that they will not insure a vehicle if you drive it in some areas. You could remove insurance payments in 0.0 then. (Although I'm not sure this would be a good idea.) If you remove NPC shuttle sells you will see the price of everything rise. NPC shuttles creates an artificial cap on the price of Tritanium. Without it it is likely within a few months ships could cost two to three times what they currently do. This would of course hurt the newer player more than the older one but would be a barrier to someone coming into the game and is thus a bad idea (even though this is a recommended idea by the economist in the last econo report, I think it would be detrimental to the game). Shuttles basically cap trit price at 3.6 ISK, without them there is no real cap and it is likely in some places Trit might rise as high as 6 to 8 ISK a unit, trit is also the most common mineral used in everything.
Terminus adacai Caldari	Posted - 2007.10.21 09:09:00 - [30] Edited by: Terminus adacai on 21/10/2007 09:10:25 And trit is easily obtained by, hold your hat, mining VERY common ores.... The point being that if there is demand, there will be supply, plain and simple... Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.



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.