| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Archangel Raphael
Army Of Angels
   |
Posted - 2008.03.17 11:50:00 -
[1]
To go straight to the point, scrap the current insurance system and replace with one where you buy a policy to cover x amount of isk.
Eg, player buys a kestrel , say 250k isk , he then fits a further 100k isk of fittings, he then opens up the insurance tab and buys a policy, in this case say 350k isk total payout and names the policy, lets say "kestrel + mods" . and he then pays x amount for the policy.
The cost of the policy is simply a % of the total payout
As many more people are climbing into t2 ships and capitols (where we can all agree the current insurance systems leaves alot to be desired) this new system will provide a much fairer payout. Also in regards to suicide ganking, which again the current insurance system seems to be area of debate, this new system would perhaps provide some comprimises for both the suicider and the victim.
This is just a initial thought and i appreciate there will be alot of room for alterations and adjustments, but seeing as this is a discussion forum i thought i would bring it up 
|
Tamia Clant
New Dawn Corp
New Eden Research
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 11:54:00 -
[2]
It's exploitable.
Alt 1 sells Kestrel to Alt 2 for 500 Million.
Alt 2 insures it, and gets it destroyed, receiving 500 Million in insurance.
Alt 2 sends money back to Alt 1, which now has 1 billion in the account.
Looking for queue-free research slots? Click here!
|
Sha4d13
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 11:56:00 -
[3]
T2 and capitals arent SUPPOSED to be insurable- and ditto expensive mods.
Make everything 100% insurable- takes away all of the risk, and all of the fun.
|
knifee
The Illuminati.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 11:56:00 -
[4]
how would you decide what a mod is worth? if its base price, then its not much use. if its player set then its too exploitable.
www.eve-dev.net - making a good thing better
|
CRUSH BOSS
BigMek Industries
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 12:07:00 -
[5]
I agree.
Then we could tank concord even LONGER.. and kill more miners.
Hell, faction fitted suicide ganks .....
Best idea yet. !!
We fight for the ONE - We die for the ONE
Don't troll in your signature please. -Hango |
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 12:27:00 -
[6]
Wouldn't work as others has pointed out.
Insurance needs to change in a number of ways....
1: Insurance payout needs to be adjusted dynamically. Perhaps taking the lowest 'for-sale' price in high-sec every week and making that the payout for that week (make it 1/5th for T2).
2: Caps should not be insurable.
3: Change payout percentages.
High-sec: 100% payout
Low-sec: 50% payout
0.0: NO insurance payout at all.
4: No insurance for ships killed by CONCORD.
 Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Talen Kross
T Miners
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 12:38:00 -
[7]
Insurance is perfect the way it is. Complaining that your insurance doesn't cover your T2 ship is wrong. You just paid too much for your ship. Insurance is based on the base price of the minerals required to build it. If you were to go out and mine the ore and make the ship yourself it would cost just below the 100% insurance cost. This doesn't take into account initial capital cost or the time involved. But that is why you can sell for a profit. The only reason that certain ships and modules are at their current prices is that that is the price that people are willing to pay.
Originally by: "Desi"
Originally by: "spiralJunkie"
if Vegeta is going, only I can beat him
You will need to spend atleast 6 episodes powering up before you do that.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 12:41:00 -
[8]
Having no 0.0 payout might be acceptable if there was a way to recover some of the minerals from the wreck.
Eg: a special salvager module which requires a lot of CPU so it's only practical to fit on industrials (why else does a Badger II have 1000 base CPU?) and which retrieves, say a base of 25% plus 10% per level of Salvaging skill, of the minerals.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Tim Mc
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 12:58:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Kerfira
Wouldn't work as others has pointed out.
Insurance needs to change in a number of ways....
1: Insurance payout needs to be adjusted dynamically. Perhaps taking the lowest 'for-sale' price in high-sec every week and making that the payout for that week (make it 1/5th for T2).
2: Caps should not be insurable.
3: Change payout percentages.
High-sec: 100% payout
Low-sec: 50% payout
0.0: NO insurance payout at all.
4: No insurance for ships killed by CONCORD.
1. Sure, base on average Jita pricing.
2. Obviously, means people will use them less liberally.
3. That would hurt alot. Remember CCP want people to move out. I would suggest that getting Insurance in 0.0 be managed by the corporation who owned the outpost. Would be interesting to try to maintain an insurance policy for an alliance, some alliances would make insurance free and paid for with taxes, others would make insurance high and others not offer it.
4. Nah, I support suicide ganking. Anyway, accidents can easily happen where neutrals are shot by concord.
|
TimMc
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 12:59:00 -
[10]
Ah **** that was my alt, playing with more interesting faces.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |