| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shakuul
Caldari
O RLY corp
YTMND.
   |
Posted - 2007.10.29 21:12:00 -
[1]
I understood the purpose of insurance to be softening the harshness of ship loss, so while you lose the mods and so forth you have enough isk to buy another one. The intended beneficiaries of insurance are new players can be set back significantly by a single ship loss. However, once you get the hang of things you will lose ships less frequently and when you do you should quickly be able to replace the ship. CCP seems to be sort of acknowledging this by making insurance on T2 ships basically worthless.
I think insurance does several things that seem bad for the game/inconsistent with the sandbox idea:
1) Injects an excessive amount of ISK into the economy, possibly outweighing the smaller ISK drains like market fees, NPC item sales, and so forth (although I have no way of estimating this)
2) Does not make sense from a free market point of view. No insurance company could constantly run at a loss, as NPC insurers do. This is similar to shuttles, where NPC corps continue to sell at an artificially low price.
3) Subsidizes activities like suicide ganking. While they are a legitimate part of the game, they should not be artificially encouraged.
4) more?
At the very least insurance could be limited to characters less than six months old or something like that.
|
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 21:40:00 -
[2]
This issue is touchy because you have two competing forces at work.
1.) Economics
2.) Playability/Fun
Which one is more important? Where can the two be balanced suffeciently with each compromising to meet somewhere in the middle?
Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
|
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 22:03:00 -
[3]
My opinion is insurance shouldn't be paid when the ship was self destructed or destroyed by concord. In all other cases it doesn't seem to be as prone to abuse. You could add on corp mates/alliance mates, but that would be easy enough to get around.
<sig>
Tired of the inane ramblings of the incompetent? Click here
</sig> |
Drethon
Gallente
Lutin Group
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 22:07:00 -
[4]
One thing to remember is that if the economy crashes, its quite possible that the fun could be gone pretty quick.
"I may not believe in what you believe in but I will fight to the death to protect your right to believe." |
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 22:09:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Drethon
One thing to remember is that if the economy crashes, its quite possible that the fun could be gone pretty quick.
My rule in life is it has to get worse before it will get better. Cut loses short.
<sig>
Tired of the inane ramblings of the incompetent? Click here
</sig> |
Norjia Blacksteel
Gallente
Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing
Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 22:15:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Norjia Blacksteel on 29/10/2007 22:14:53
Originally by: Dr Slurm
My opinion is insurance shouldn't be paid when the ship was self destructed or destroyed by concord.
THAT is a good idea, I think.
----
Norjia Blacksteel
CEO
Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 22:22:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Norjia Blacksteel
Edited by: Norjia Blacksteel on 29/10/2007 22:14:53
Originally by: Dr Slurm
My opinion is insurance shouldn't be paid when the ship was self destructed or destroyed by concord.
THAT is a good idea, I think.
Indeed
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 22:28:00 -
[8]
Insurance is a 100% pure negative.
By making it cheap to fly larger ships, it causes everyone to fly them, resulting in new players getting the shaft.
If it was actually expensive to fly a battleship, people might fly smaller ships more often.
Plus, its a massive inflationary pressure.
23 Member
EVE Video makers: save bandwidth! Use the H.264 AutoEncoder! (updated) |
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 22:36:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Dr Slurm on 29/10/2007 22:36:07
I would rather see insurance completely removed, but I also know that won't happen.
//edit: I have posted a suggestion before to make insurance player run. I think that would be the best solution.
<sig>
Tired of the inane ramblings of the incompetent? Click here
</sig> |
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 22:37:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Insurance is a 100% pure negative.
By making it cheap to fly larger ships, it causes everyone to fly them, resulting in new players getting the shaft.
If it was actually expensive to fly a battleship, people might fly smaller ships more often.
Plus, its a massive inflationary pressure.
I agree 100% with every single thing you said here.
At the same time, I worry about overall "growth" if newbies are beaten senseless by the extremely harsh conditions that an EVE with no insurance would create.
Consulting, IPO Template, and Stock/Bond definitions.
|
|
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 22:37:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Shar Tegral on 29/10/2007 22:40:13
Originally by: Dr Slurm
My opinion is insurance shouldn't be paid when the ship was self destructed or destroyed by concord.
Originally by: Norjia Blacksteel
THAT is a good idea, I think.
Originally by: Shadarle
Indeed
CCP has been dragging its collective feet on this one for years now. So slowly I haven't heard a footstep in the right direction in a year. Originally by: Hexxx
At the same time, I worry about overall "growth" if newbies are beaten senseless by the extremely harsh conditions that an EVE with no insurance would create.
Why don't you just ask those of us who were here before "auto 40%" insurance what it was like. Wasn't so bad tbh. I lost one battleship just a couple of weeks before "Auto 40%" kicked in. Tok me two days to replace it (wasn't mine at that!). Ahhh... the old days when I was always broke. Wait a minute?!? I'm still always broke!
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
Kitex
Blacktag Test Labs
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 05:26:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Shakuul
I think insurance does several things that seem bad for the game/inconsistent with the sandbox idea:
1) Injects an excessive amount of ISK into the economy, possibly outweighing the smaller ISK drains like market fees, NPC item sales, and so forth (although I have no way of estimating this)
2) Does not make sense from a free market point of view. No insurance company could constantly run at a loss, as NPC insurers do.
The degree of isk injection caused by insurance is the core of this debate, at least as far as I'm concerned. Though I think you are probably quite correct in the conclusion that insurance is a substantial ISK faucet, I think it's worth mentioning that it actually acts as an ISK drain for me as a non-PvP'er who loses relatively few ships, and has a boatload of policies expire each month.
Though it's now beginning to dawn on me that I'd probably be better off by not insuring my ships, I'd guess that the number of EVE-wide insurance expirations per month would surprise you. There are a lot of carebears out there.
We'll never know the true scale of the isk faucet unless CCP publishes data, and I'm thinking our best chance of that will be Dr. E's upcoming state of the economy blog. If it isn't published there, it probably never will be.
Blacktag - Buy ships / Fittings / Drones / Ammo in BULK with Delivery! |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 06:10:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Kitex
Though it's now beginning to dawn on me that I'd probably be better off by not insuring my ships,
I realized this a few days after I started playing  I have never once insured a ship. I'd be down a few billion if I insured all my ships. I've lost a total of 2 real ships in EVE, a Raven and a Cormorant. Insurance is the biggest rip for any high sec player, unless you are extremely bad at what you do.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 08:00:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Dr Slurm
My opinion is insurance shouldn't be paid when the ship was self destructed or destroyed by concord. In all other cases it doesn't seem to be as prone to abuse. You could add on corp mates/alliance mates, but that would be easy enough to get around.
----------------------
sig out of order, returning soon
FTEK | Production ~ Research ~ Sales ~ Election Fixing |
LaVista Vista
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 08:07:00 -
[15]
Battleships should be less common. Make them more expensive to fly.
Insurence shouldnt go completely. I still wanna sell alot of ships.
But i wanna see more people fly BC's and stuff. Battleships should be more like capitals, where you should bring a wingman to be any good. So less people should fly them solo as if it was a frigate(Ie. no lost isk on it)
|
Oron
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 08:11:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Oron on 30/10/2007 08:17:32
Edited by: Oron on 30/10/2007 08:13:31
Originally by: Kitex
Though it's now beginning to dawn on me that I'd probably be better off by not insuring my ships,
Well thats really depends on your playstyle. While I dont insure my mission ships and hisec nano-indys - I do insure my PvP ship and nosec haulers, cause I quite sure that I manage to loose them within the time period. ;)
Tho if I lose one of my nosec haulers the insurance typical is a joke. Not alone that they are rigged and well equiped with the fine moduls - they also tend to have full cargo bays. Lost 1bil isk worth of cargo and a clone with full snake imps during last week on pirate supiority (read: on my own stupidity).
Basicly I think the current insurance is okay - well perhabs exclude self destruct and concord gankage that would be fine.
Originally by: Shar Tegral
Wait a minute?!? I'm still always broke!
Traders fortune :p All my isk is in a buy order here and there or bound in a sell orders, or flying around in delivery contracts, and I barly have enoth money left to buy me a cruiser. I tell me everytime - you moron dont put your hole money in trades next time, keep something to pay those dancers all guys keep talking about - but then there is such a lovly opporunity and i cant resist to do it again 
|
Sae Len
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 08:22:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Shakuul
I think insurance does several things that seem bad for the game/inconsistent with the sandbox idea:
1) Injects an excessive amount of ISK into the economy, possibly outweighing the smaller ISK drains like market fees, NPC item sales, and so forth (although I have no way of estimating this)
Well, like other players noted that players insure their ships only to have their insurance expire which is an ISK drain. I had insurance expire on ships that I used to rat in low sec and travel through 0.0 pipes - go figure, they just never got killed.
Originally by: Shakuul
2) Does not make sense from a free market point of view. No insurance company could constantly run at a loss, as NPC insurers do. This is similar to shuttles, where NPC corps continue to sell at an artificially low price.
EVE is not real life and if developers make it so a lot of people will quit playing the game.
Originally by: Shakuul
3) Subsidizes activities like suicide ganking. While they are a legitimate part of the game, they should not be artificially encouraged.
Removing insurance will not stop suicide ganking - just make it a little bit more rare. So a battleship would cost something like 60-70 mil to lose. But haulers with 300+ mil will still look quite lucrative - that's what they go for atm. Not to mention suicide ganks that happen in T2 ships like those pesky stealth bombers going for frigs and shuttles.
|
Ambo
2nd Outcasters
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 08:25:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: Norjia Blacksteel
Edited by: Norjia Blacksteel on 29/10/2007 22:14:53
Originally by: Dr Slurm
My opinion is insurance shouldn't be paid when the ship was self destructed or destroyed by concord.
THAT is a good idea, I think.
Indeed
I really don't understand why CCP have not done this already. There seems to be no negatives at all beyond ****ing off a few empire gank groups and plenty of positives.
|
Robacz
Essence Trade
Essence Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 10:05:00 -
[19]
I am wondering about that too, I posted this in like quazillion empire gank threads (and always got flamed to death), but I have never seen any reply from dev. They said empire ganking is working as intended and won't change though, so perhaps that includes insurance too.
Only reason I can think of are newbie mistakes - new guy gets a Brutix after week of missioning and then he uses smartbomb (which is not smart at all) close to someone or some object and CONCORD pwns him. Or similiar mistake. Without insurance, price for this mistake could be too high.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 10:15:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Robacz
Without insurance, price for this mistake could be too high.
Sounds rational as an argument, truly, but in practice it just doesn't hold up as a reason. Every time I've lost a ship to some sort of bug I've petitioned it. Every time I've gotten my ship back. I don't know anyone who doesn't properly petition "strange" ship losses. Anyone who fails to needs more than insurance to help them out! So I simply say, "Exceptions to a standard are handled via the Exceptions Process". Petitioning works and gets used. Let insurance be lapsed for CONCORD strikes or self destructs and if someone feels that their situation is exceptional... let them petition it.
It's A GIRL!!!!! |
|
|
Paddlefoot Aeon
Neogen Industries
Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:57:00 -
[21]
Insurance is also present as a market control as well. If the mineral market were to crash across the board, it would only crash so far as a "Insurance Payout - Cost of Insurance".
For example (using aprox. numbers), a Megathron insurance pays out 105 mil, and costs 30 mil. That puts a price floor on a Megathron at 75mil. The build cost of a Megathron will never drop below 75 mil, because then it would make more sense to buy and refine for the minerals. Remove insurance, and this limited price control is gone. While I'm all for a free market economy, this is a game and I would rather not live through a dramatic price-crash.
However, I agree that insurance fraud should be taken into account as well. Ships that get self-destructed should not pay out insurance (not even the base value), and ships that are popped by Concord for participating in an illegal act should not have insurance payouts.
Now Recruiting. Click sig for details!
|
Shakuul
Caldari
O RLY corp
YTMND.
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 20:18:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Kitex
The degree of isk injection caused by insurance is the core of this debate, at least as far as I'm concerned. Though I think you are probably quite correct in the conclusion that insurance is a substantial ISK faucet, I think it's worth mentioning that it actually acts as an ISK drain for me as a non-PvP'er who loses relatively few ships, and has a boatload of policies expire each month.
Though it's now beginning to dawn on me that I'd probably be better off by not insuring my ships, I'd guess that the number of EVE-wide insurance expirations per month would surprise you. There are a lot of carebears out there.
We'll never know the true scale of the isk faucet unless CCP publishes data, and I'm thinking our best chance of that will be Dr. E's upcoming state of the economy blog. If it isn't published there, it probably never will be.
I don't think theres a question as to whether or not insurance results in a net gain or net loss of ISK (in terms of ISK in the whole system, not just ISK for one person), its just a question of how much ISK is injected into the system. I've heard of people in deep 0.0 insuring domis and blowing them up simply because its easier than shipping the minerals to empire. This is absurd.
We really shouldn't need an eve economist to tell us something that we could find out ourselves if CCP released the data.
Originally by: Sae Len
Well, like other players noted that players insure their
ships only to have their insurance expire which is an ISK drain. I had
insurance expire on ships that I used to rat in low sec and travel through
0.0 pipes - go figure, they just never got killed.
Right, but for this to be a net ISK drain, there have to be two people that
let their insurance expire for every one that doesn't. Additionally, this
has to outweigh the 40% default insurance payouts.
Originally by: Sae Len
EVE is not real life and if developers make it so a lot of
people will quit playing the game.
Of course not. However, I think artificial price constraints should be
avoided whenever possible, so I would support removing insurance, low priced
NPC shuttles, and things of this nature.
Originally by: Sae Len
Removing insurance will not stop suicide ganking - just make
it a little bit more rare. So a battleship would cost something like 60-70
mil to lose.
Right, suicide ganking will continue, but it won't be subsidized anymore.
That was the only aspect that I was objecting to.
|
Rilder
Caldari
THC LTD
Dogs of War.
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 17:00:00 -
[23]
Meh I suck at any sort of money making so I'd end up just stuck in T1 frigates at the end of the day, and I hate anything smaller then a Battlecruiser.
Would deffinatly cause alot of people to stop pvping imho.
Although no insurence when you lose your ship to concord or self destruct is fine, (but blowing up corpies should still grant insurence, I like shooting corpies, I hate to actually be careful.  .
--
|
Zandree
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 17:21:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Shakuul
1) Injects an excessive amount of ISK into the economy, possibly outweighing the smaller ISK drains like market fees, NPC item sales, and so forth (although I have no way of estimating this)
It also stimulates the market as someone who died has ISK to go buy a new ship and modes. And it makes it less painful for new players to lose their ships and they lose tons on missions and wondering into low sec and 0.0 and thus increases their enjoyment of the game.
Originally by: Shakuul
2) Does not make sense from a free market point of view. No insurance company could constantly run at a loss, as NPC insurers do. This is similar to shuttles, where NPC corps continue to sell at an artificially low price.
There are a lot of things in EVE that do not make sense from real life point of view but it is a game so these kind of arguments are invalid.
Originally by: Shakuul
3) Subsidizes activities like suicide ganking. While they are a legitimate part of the game, they should not be artificially encouraged.
Anyone who has done any suicide ganking knows that the limiting factor is the drop in security status, not the cost of the ship. Insurance does not encourage suicide ganking because the price of ship and mods is not what eventually deters people from ganking others in high sec. A battleship with insurace is 20 mil and without is 60 mil. So what? There are plenty of targets out there carrying 300 mil ISK and over in their flimsy haulers. If you increase price on gank ships 3 times it won't have any effect on suicide gankers (but people might think twice about suiciding ISK farmers, on the other hand, so you'd be indirectly subsidizing them).
As it stands I do not see any good reason to abolish insurance. I think it benefits people to have ISK delivered into their wallets after they lose a ship, especially true for new players, and I really don't see any downsides to having insurance.
|
Sludan Sludin
Gallente
Windmills Etc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 02:46:00 -
[25]
With more information available, player run insurance could work.
Imagine if I could ask another player to insure my new ship. I tell them I'll give them 1M for a 10mil payoff if the ship dies in the next month. Then the other player gets to look at a history of my ship deaths. He or she can judge whether or not I'm worth the risk, and decide whether or not to insure at this rate.
You could even have a system of credit ratings, and insurance brokers could put up sell-orders, insuring x for y over z if credit rating > w.
IMHO, something similar to this would be the best solution for a true market economy, depth, AND fun.
|
Wadaya
Caldari
Trailerpark Industries
|
Posted - 2007.11.05 05:08:00 -
[26]
There was a Dev Blog around this time last year that mentioned removing insurance payouts if you got blown up by Concord. I'll see if i can dig the reference up.
Wad
|
Val Vympel
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 18:49:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Paddlefoot Aeon
Insurance is also present as a market control as well. If the mineral market were to crash across the board, it would only crash so far as a "Insurance Payout - Cost of Insurance".
For example (using aprox. numbers), a Megathron insurance pays out 105 mil, and costs 30 mil. That puts a price floor on a Megathron at 75mil. The build cost of a Megathron will never drop below 75 mil, because then it would make more sense to buy and refine for the minerals. Remove insurance, and this limited price control is gone. While I'm all for a free market economy, this is a game and I would rather not live through a dramatic price-crash.
However, I agree that insurance fraud should be taken into account as well. Ships that get self-destructed should not pay out insurance (not even the base value), and ships that are popped by Concord for participating in an illegal act should not have insurance payouts.
I agree
It is important to remember that this is a game.
RL economics in EVE while interesting to contemplate,would in my opinion have a negative affect on the game.
I experienced a near free market economy in SWG.
I don't wish to experience it again.
Cheers
|
Daeva Vios
PhaseShifter Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.11.06 23:05:00 -
[28]
How about put a hard cap on insurance payout of 5-7m isk? That way every ship can be insured, but it's only really useful for the ships that new players buy...namely, frigates through cruisers.
Once they get up the skills to be able to fly a ship reasonably well without losing it, they'll be more willing to take a chance on flying a larger ship.
Sorry if this was mentioned above, I didn't read the posts...too many, and I was discussing it in-game.
|
Mr Horizontal
Gallente
Brotherhood of Wolves
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 10:48:00 -
[29]
I think the problem with insurance is it insures the wrong stuff!
Really, only T1 ships can be insured as their payout value roughly reflects their market value. The reality is if you have a Faction or T2 ship which are considerably more valuable than their insurance payouts, there's no point in doing it. Also any ship with a rig on it becomes equally uninsurable, when it's these ships that need to be insured most of all!!!
It's kind of like having a stupid ú500 Fiat Panda with fully comprehensive insurance, and then a ú250,000 Rolls Royce uninsured. It makes no sense!
So basically take away the automatic value of the insurance payout, and make a premium price based on 3 factors:
- how often you've claimed
- the value of what you want to actually cover. ie I want my Machariel insured for it's full 650 mill, not just 108 mill!!!
- how many times the premium has been renewed for the same ship
So if your ship survives forever, it's premium becomes lower. If you lose 10 ships in a day, your premium will go through the roof. Higher risk: more premium. Lower risk: less premium.
What is the net effect? More people will use nicer ships for higher risk work :)
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 19:27:00 -
[30]
yeah insurance should be removed from all the higher end ships as soon as possible
____ __ ________
_sig below_
devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried!
_lies above_
CCP Morpheus was here 
Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn
[yellow]Kaem |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |