| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rollerrat
   |
Posted - 2008.03.21 22:56:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Rollerrat on 21/03/2008 22:57:32
Obviously, people suiciding and beeing concorded is a stretching of the system. One that has been around for ages. And while thats not really too bad, what I dont like is the inconsistency this makes. Simply put, there is simply no way insurance offices are making money!
If EVE is the peak of capitalism, how can insurance offices be run with a loss? Obviously if you happened to get shot when robbing Fort Knox your wife would never be able to cash in your life insurance? No?
One way this could be fixed is to simply not pay out money when getting killed by concord, or getting killed by a player that has kill rights on you, or getting killed in 0.0. Thats a start.
Now, if you repeatedly get killed. Your insurance cost should raise conciderably, if you on the other hand is a player mostly staying out of trouble. You should pay less in insurance.
IMO insurance payouts should allso only be possible on common ships, that are frequently on the market. And the value of an insurance should be based on the current average market price of the ship.
Say ARV of a ship is 10 millions, then insuring it for 100% value would give you 7 millions. And cost say 20% of ARV per 3 weeks at base cost. If you get a (insured) ship killed every week the cost would raise to 25-30% of ARV per 3 weeks. For every week you dont get a (insured) ship destroyed the price should go down.
Basing insurance payouts on the security level of the zone would allso help.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ready to get flamed now, first post made in MD so I know I have it coming! =)
Allso, I see no reason why players shouldnt be able to invest in insurance. I think this should be a viable option for the people (read:tards!) with 100 billion+++ in their pockets.
|
Kylar Renpurs
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 23:11:00 -
[2]
I've been contemplating a player-run insurance system since it was mentioned in passing by Chronotis (iirc). Thing is, a player-run insurance company *may* work in the current world of EVE. Big thing being that unlike the NPC insurance (where you can get premium insurance to cover entire cost straight off the bat) , a player-run insurance company would need to offer poor 'returns' initially (to the level that both the company and the player would lose out, player moreso, if they lost their ship), and this would gradually increase over time.
As a mid-point, you could provide a system exactly the same as the npc insurance to a loyal customer over, say, 6 months. Over time you could offer to insure unnamed mods, then named mods, then T2 ships/mods, and if you really wanted to go extreme, capital ships and faction/officer mods. Payouts would utilise the killmail API. Deaths would also have an affect on rates too. (y'know, you join up with an insurance company and are rating 4, lots of prangs in your car leaves you there at rating 4, never having a prang gives you rating 1 for life sorta thing, cheaper rates, better deals.)
A fully fledged system, well, I haven't thought that far ahead. I definately wouldn't have the time for it, but I think it could work if people realised long-term commitment to payments was going to help them more (module insurance, cheaper than NPC insurance even)
 Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Improve Market Competition! |
Ortos
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.03.21 23:20:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Ortos on 21/03/2008 23:22:54
I managed to totally miss the point of my last post. Because im a ******.
My point is, the insurance system as it is (AFAIK!) contributes to inflation instead of deflation. And the very point that the people benefitting the most from the insurance system is the worst coustomers.
A player run high end ship insurance system is a very good idea though. =)
Oh, and this is my first thread in MD. Ure supposed to be extremely hostile and flame me, possibly throw in a few scam shouts somewhere.
Edit: Is there any way to change your primary forum troll? Getting ****ed off posting with wrong char all the time.
|
Hexxx
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 01:35:00 -
[4]
Can't say a completely disagree with any of your points here.
I'd like to see insurance be a player run affair...but then I don't really PVP these days and I assume the people it would hit the hardest would be them.
Supposedly (note the term) EVE had suffered some deflation and that the current inflation is "healthy".
p.s. We only flame people that are blatantly stupid and/or obnoxious and/or lazy.
Director | www.eve-bank.net
|
Kazzac Elentria
Sanctuary
Aegis Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 01:47:00 -
[5]
Insurance in EVE serves a single purpose, that being to create a baseline price and bottom end strike on all mins. It is one half of a system put in to ensure commodity stability by ensuring prices stay within X. NPC sell orders for shuttles, mining lasers, etc.. are what create the other half.. or the top end.
End of story really.
If you want anything else other than what we have in place. You will have to create a player run insurance corporation. Which... is entirely doable really. Just need to research your potential customers enough to ensure that the period payments from your customers exceed your outgoing insurance claims. |
Shadarle
LI0NS Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 02:03:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Rollerrat
Ready to get flamed now, first post made in MD so I know I have it coming! =)
Shockingly your post is far more intelligent than we get from some more regular posters here.
Though I will say it is not totally original either, it does combine almost all the good points into one cohesive post.
Most of the people here would agree insurance should be modified (some would say removed). The general agreement among most is that you should not get payed if you are killed in an illegal act. Basically, if Concord kills you then you don't get payed. That change alone would be a great start.
As to charging people more who die more, that is actually a decent enough idea. Even if not taken to any extreme, just increase the rates by up to 10-25% and reducing it for those who buy insurance and do not die can renew their insurance for greatly reduced rates, even as much as 50% off re-insuring your ship.
You can't really remove insurance for PvP / 0.0 imo, but others may disagree.
It would be interesting if an in game mechanic was added to allow player based insurance. Basically allowing corps/alliances to insure ships and if that ship dies within X days they get Y ISK back. The corp could choose to charge whatever they wish and then could assign insurance points to a particular ship. This will not happen though as it would take a massive amount of coding, add lots of confusion, increase database hits, etc.
|
Shadarle
LI0NS Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 02:04:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
End of story really.
Not really the end of the story. Those upper bounds have been changing quite a bit lately, so the story is still being modified by CCP all the time. Who knows if they won't tweak insurance as well.
|
Kazzac Elentria
Sanctuary
Aegis Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 02:08:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
End of story really.
Not really the end of the story. Those upper bounds have been changing quite a bit lately, so the story is still being modified by CCP all the time. Who knows if they won't tweak insurance as well.
Won't argue that point.. I guess I should have worded it slightly different.. point being that insurance exists as a tool for the developers to put boundaries on what would inevitably be a boundless problem.
I don't see insurance getting a tweak.. as bottom ends are far from being reached. Top ends on the other hand... yes I could see sell orders go into effect again if things get even wonkier than they are. |
Matthew Munro
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.03.26 00:17:00 -
[9]
I've been interested myself in a player run insurance system, I have been working out a lot of the issues I've seen posted as well as some I haven't.
Biggest problem I see is how to stop suicide abuse there are so many ways to do it. The obvious ones like self destruct, getting corp mates to blow you up, concordokken or belt/gate rates. They are the easy ones to deal with. Stuff like warping to a POS or flying randomly till pirates find out are far harder to deal with.
I think excess would be a good way to deal with some of this, if you're in lowsec you get hit with an extra 10% (pulled from backside figure), 0.0 space not your alliance sov, 15%.
Now to the insurance rating problem, someone takes a policy out for a small ship, gets rating 1, then insurance a far larger ship for 1 month, then gets it pop, nice bit of scam profit potential.
My personal solution for this is not to sell insurance on a ship or a module, but just to sell an insurance amount. With each block been work 1mil for example, you buy 100 blocks till they're rating one, you want to go buy say 10000 now, they start back at rating 4. Would also making doing cargo insurance easier, cause I wouldn't blame someone for not wanting to list their exact cargo and run.
Solves a few easy scam potentials I notice with some of the proposed systems. Other advantage is you then don't have to care about what is insured until they claim. Guess it's more like home contents insurance, you insure for upto $x amount, not a specific item. Seems a bit too harsh to go back to rating 4 for each new module, maybe a loyalty thing would move your insurance module start rating.
Anyway these are just a few random ideas I've had in my head about player run insurance, figured I'd share them.
|
Finideach
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 03:01:00 -
[10]
I've done some work with Captive Insurance groups that provide insurance for Workers Compensation programs of industrial companies. There's two prongs to this approach:
The first is that the State's Workers Compensation Board provides the upper end of insurance (in terms of cost) as a funder of last resort, the more claims you have against you the higher the modifier applied to your industry rate. Currently there is no element like this in Eve to create the upper payment amount to gain insurance for an activity - and minus the intervention of CCP I don't see this happening.
The second element are the private Captive Insurance companies. They usually qualify and maintain qualification of participation through regular audits using point systems, not to rate someone's risk, but to rate their qualification to participate. The reason it's called Captive is that in addition to premiums there is an extensive amount of money that the insured puts into the system to begin with - which is held "captive" as a form of collateral. One's audit score determines how much "captive" funding is required - improvements in score can reduce the amount resulting in a refund while declines can result in demands for greater captive insurance as well as possible removal from service.
The system works because the audits can ensure that the participants are performing due diligence to mitigate risks. But WC is an *expected* risk of running any business - so it works for the industrial companies because it incents good behavior in mitigating WC and provides insurance at far cheaper rates than the State (that upper limit).
Sometimes there are prohibited activities that automatically deny a payout - criminally negligible or otherwise illegal acts. An Eve based Captive Insurance could specify such barred payout mechanisms (suicide gank in high sec for example or death by corp/alliance mate).
Other insurance rules apply (matching premiums to risk and payouts with deductibles). Usually the captive amount is enough of an incentive to avoid self-ganking/griefing, and the audit/qualificaiton provisions are enough to weed out the wannabees.
If anyone wants more details discuss here or Evemail me in game.
|
Kylar Renpurs
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 03:29:00 -
[11]
Quote:
Biggest problem I see is how to stop suicide abuse there are so many ways to do it. The obvious ones like self destruct, getting corp mates to blow you up, concordokken or belt/gate rates. They are the easy ones to deal with. Stuff like warping to a POS or flying randomly till pirates find out are far harder to deal with.
You'd have to stagger an awards system, make a system which benefits the company at first, and begins to benefit the customer after a few months of subscription.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Improve Market Competition! |
Finideach
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 03:39:00 -
[12]
There's two other options to deal with suicide ganks.
A) Don't insure them. They're excluded in the policies - this would of course reduce the value of the product to those who wanted it.
B) Enable a system of reciprocity. Not sure how this would work but if the gankers hit one of the insured ships they suffer a consequence in some fashion (use mercs to suicide gank the suicide gankers). This wouldn't stop the behavior, but might make it unprofitable to pursue it against insured ships - and you'd have to find some way to make that known.
C) Insure them only if they follow the protocol - i.e. when audited (randomly) they are flying high value targets under convoy/escort.
D) Provide the convoy service in conjunction with their insurance - at a premium. "We'll escort you and if you pay our fees your losses are insured."
Somewhere between A-D is just a matter of costs, profits and operational management. What other options do you guys think will work?
|
Kylar Renpurs
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 03:51:00 -
[13]
Reserved for a post this arvo since I'm at work, but you could offer insurance conditions, like, only insure reasonable destructions (Sure, i'll replace your merlin up to 30 mil isk worth of kit, but not the fact it was carrying a Gist X-type XL Shield Booster because it's asking to be popped. Your charon ganked in hi sec carrying 2 bil worth of kit will be covered though, but the policy payments will match). Basically any insurer would have to lay down strict guidelines.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Improve Market Competition! |
Astorothe
Aperture Science Industries
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 04:06:00 -
[14]
I have serious reservations that this would be profitable due to the many ways in which it could be exploited, including being exploited intentionally to harm the corporation that runs it.
I think this is one of the systems that should probably stay under CCP's control - though it needs serious overhauling and some of your points are very interesting and could be used by CCP.
So in summary, good points, but I don't think it's profitable.
Deus Ex Machina ~ Eve Corporation, Web Design, Gaming News, Music & Gadgets Blog |
Finideach
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Delta.Green
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 04:15:00 -
[15]
Exploitable yes - but no more so than IPOs, Bonds or other financial instruments. The key question is not what the risks are - but if there's a market need for it. If the need is high enough someone/group will figure out how to mitigate the risks and deliver it.
I think a key point about the risk is that the insurance need not be for anyone. Even in the real world insurance isn't available universally. The most basic (car) still requires qualification based on past behavior and the most sophisticated far more than that including detailed contracts, policies and audits.
I believe that as the population insured decreases and the level of care in qualifying the insured increases the risks decrease. The question remains: does that smaller population of highly qualified customers require the service enough and can the business be managed to make it profitable?
I'd offer to set something up but I'm still in the growth stage of a new player. All I can offer is real world experience of how these things are done which - may seem counterintuitive - is far more "exploitable" than Eve simply because game mechanics fundamentally limit the infinite opportunities of the real world to the only slightly-less-than-infinite of the game world.
|
Finideach
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Delta.Green
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 04:21:00 -
[16]
So what components are needed to make this work:
1. Viable customer base (segmentation or demographic)
2. Financing (smaller for a pilot quite a bit for a running concern)
3. Management experience (setting up and running a going concern)
4. Statistical knowledge backed by extensive in-game knowledge (what are risks vs. rewards)
5. A good contract writer and red-team trying to break the contract to set up limitations/policies that seek to mitigate exploits
6. Information mining/auditing functions to gather information on customers to determine risk and ensure compliance with policies
7. Neutral 3rd party for rating/credibility
8. Optional: Reciprocity function or security function as discussed if you want to try and "insure" against suicide ganking as described above (i.e. outsource to mercs or get an in-house group)
I would certainly agree this would be a fairly complex undertaking - because failure in any one of the components might risk the entire undertaking. But I don't think it's impossible.
|
Astorothe
Aperture Science Industries
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 04:30:00 -
[17]
I believe it is much more risky than setting up an IPO because you would be competing with the in game system which doesn't need to worry about profitability or risk.
Deus Ex Machina ~ Eve Corporation, Web Design, Gaming News, Music & Gadgets Blog |
Finideach
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 04:44:00 -
[18]
I don't see how this would be competing against the in-game system unless you provided the exact same service? There is a realm of areas where the in-game insurance does not cover (cargo losses, T2 ships over the insured amounts, rigs, implants, potentially even insurance against loss of production capability due to bugs - whatever it might be etc.)
That may be where we're crossing streams here. All along I've been talking about insurance that covers the areas where the CCP system leaves gaps. Kind of like life insurance from your employer - the x1 Salary rate is free to every employee and funded by the company. Above and beyond that rate you must qualify and pay more for.
I agree you wouldn't be able to compete with Eve insurance which is A) Universally available even to criminals and suicide gankers and B) Probably running at a loss because it serves a larger macro function (establishing mineral baselines as described above) rather than being a profitable concern for Eve.
|
Finideach
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 04:50:00 -
[19]
Then again some of your best insurance clients may very well be wealthy pirates. =)
|
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 05:24:00 -
[20]
Monthly premiums. Initial Fee Plan. Diminished returns for continued losses. Cooling off periods. There's plenty of ways for the corporation to penalise people who attempt to rip off the system (or at least make it a very expensive and long-term, little profit venture) and reward those who practice safe flying. Once again, at work so can't detail it but yeah, any insurance system cannot replace the current insurance system, it can only cover the areas it doesn't address (T2, mods, cargo etc..) Killmail API is essential here tho.
PS Anyone know where i can find info on it? I'd like to do some research.
Improve Market Competition! |
Finideach
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 22:27:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Finideach on 07/04/2008 22:34:19
I had a flight today so a bit of noodle time to work out some details and run some numbers. I've decided I'm going to run at least one or two prototype tests of insurance offerings - very limited number of customers - very transparent on this forum - more as a lab test rather than a real business oferring. That way I can fund it all myself and set expectations properly that it's just a test.
I think you and I are on the same path. When you sit down to and brainstorm about writing up policy terms you can actually manage out a lot of the more obvious risk - doesn't mean you're not absurdly exposed but it's a start.
There's also a lot of information out there publicly that can help you gauge the risks that are not as obvious - and that's even before folks like New Eden are up online.
The three big "ah ha!" moments on the plane today was asking myself the question: "what can you prove to relative confidence that someone has lost?" The only answer I got back is that a killmail is a 3rd party method that indicates ship loss, cargo loss and fitting loss. But are there other methods? Is there any way to prove someone lost implants? The information needs to be relatively tamper proof, portable and credible to three parties (customer, insurer, auditer) - and so far an unmodified killmail is the only thing I can think of. Anything else out there?
The other ideas is that one key way to help-along these insurance systems work is to give the customers incentives for doing the right thing and disincentives for doing the wrong thing. And I've got some ideas on that as well.
The final was to use risk factors (and some form of risk rating system) to modify payments made either into the captive and the regular premium. As I said above - there's some information out there that could help you with some of that risk modifiers, and claims made could add to it over time - but like the customer incentive - the risk modifier can work both ways. As the risk modifier lower the customer should get a little kickback to incent them to want to do that, as it gets higher obviously their costs get hire until/if they decide it's not worth it yet.
Big question mark of course is what is the market for these services (because I think there's several offerings that are different) and what is the market willing to bear in terms of pricing.
|
Tasko Pal
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 01:36:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Finideach
The three big "ah ha!" moments on the plane today was asking myself the question: "what can you prove to relative confidence that someone has lost?" The only answer I got back is that a killmail is a 3rd party method that indicates ship loss, cargo loss and fitting loss. But are there other methods? Is there any way to prove someone lost implants? The information needs to be relatively tamper proof, portable and credible to three parties (customer, insurer, auditer) - and so far an unmodified killmail is the only thing I can think of. Anything else out there?
The other ideas is that one key way to help-along these insurance systems work is to give the customers incentives for doing the right thing and disincentives for doing the wrong thing. And I've got some ideas on that as well.
The final was to use risk factors (and some form of risk rating system) to modify payments made either into the captive and the regular premium. As I said above - there's some information out there that could help you with some of that risk modifiers, and claims made could add to it over time - but like the customer incentive - the risk modifier can work both ways. As the risk modifier lower the customer should get a little kickback to incent them to want to do that, as it gets higher obviously their costs get hire until/if they decide it's not worth it yet.
Big question mark of course is what is the market for these services (because I think there's several offerings that are different) and what is the market willing to bear in terms of pricing.
I may have the mechanics down wrong, so please correct me if I make a mistake.
I thought about that a while ago and some things just didn't work for me. First, you need an unmodified killmail. How do you verify a killmail is unmodified? As I see it, someone has to go into your corp or your account and gawk at the killmail directly. That probably rules out insuring cheap t2 ships (most frigate hulls) just due to the trouble. Second, we have limitations on knowledge. There's no obvious way to confirm that the ship you insured is the one that popped. Killmail just tells you what type of ship popped. For example, I don't see an insurer being able to insure three particular titans once each. You could insure against the loss of up to three titans. That's a different story. So you can't insure particular ships or equipment.
You have to worry about the risk of overinsuring. For example, if I have 300 billion insurance on my titan, then effectively, I'll be ahead a hundred or so billion isk, if that titan pops (titan plus officer fit comes to around 200 billion so I gather). Wild and crazy times are upon us! So obviously, you don't insure a titan that highly right? Well, how do you know that the guy hasn't gone to every insurer and gotten a ton of insurance on that titan? At the least, you're looking at sharing some degree of customer information with your competitors perhaps through a neutral third party.
Virtually all insurance would be high odds gambles with the insuree controlling the odds. There's be plenty of opportunity for scams and fraud. And the insurers would probably have to be both extremely picky and incredibly methodical hardasses to make profit in this area.
|
Daghandelaar
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 01:53:00 -
[23]
The hardest things about starting a player run insurace corp would be the massive startup capital required to even run at a loss while you build risk assessment data to be able to level out the premiums for current customer base and what premiums for new clients.
The other being a large enough customer base to build this data and afford the current premiums. More Clientele = Less Premiums in the begining.
Though with those being the two biggest obstacles I do believe I will be spending sometime with a friend soon brainstorming on this and see if the beginnings of a bussiness plan can be worked out with future progress bussiness steps or goals some would say.
|
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 02:03:00 -
[24]
Quote:
I thought about that a while ago and some things just didn't work for me. First, you need an unmodified killmail. How do you verify a killmail is unmodified? As I see it, someone has to go into your corp or your account and gawk at the killmail directly.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I mentioned it in my last post, but isn't there some way to access the Kill log of another character through API keys now? By providing that key as part of becoming a client, there's security provided by the insurance company by being able to confirm losses and provide the servic, and security for the insurance company by having this monitoring system.
Quote:
There's no obvious way to confirm that the ship you insured is the one that popped. Killmail just tells you what type of ship popped.
Does it matter? Your customer bought *A* insurance contract for *one* Harpy (for example). In the real world, there's a difference. But in EVE, it *really* doesn't matter.
Quote:
For example, if I have 300 billion insurance on my titan, then effectively, I'll be ahead a hundred or so billion isk, if that titan pops (titan plus officer fit comes to around 200 billion so I gather).
Truth of the matter is you don't insure that 300 billion isk titan until you've made 100 billion off that customer.
Improve Market Competition! |
Finideach
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Delta.Green
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 03:46:00 -
[25]
Or insure to "replace" rather than to "compensate".
What is the scam folks normally think of with insurance? I purposefully blow up my ship to get tons of isk.
What if you didn't get isk - but instead were just given a replacement of the ship you just got destroyed. Assuming you even get away with the scam - what have you gained? The same ship you already had. Sure you can go put it on the market and try to make some by selling it - but you could've done that before. As posted above - the insurance doesn't need to be tied to a ship, it can be tied to the player and move as he moves ship - depending on their premiums paid and coverage levels.
And I don't think it takes tons of capitlization because I think the worst thing to do in Eve is make insurance universal or even close to universal. Even though the purpose of insurance is to use large numbers to spread risk - because of the unique mechanics of Eve it is probably to control risk through another mechanism (selection criteria, risk related premiums, captive prepayments) than to try and "spread it around".
I've also got a name for the prototype Insurance Company test - EFlak! (like the Duck).
|
Finideach
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Delta.Green
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 03:51:00 -
[26]
Is there any use of non-market options with ship manufacturers out there? In the case above of the Harpy - you could, as soon as the policy is created, place an option (say X% of the current Harpy Price) to buy a Harpy at Y Price within Z days.
For every month your insured player doesn't destroy their harpy you've gained (Monthly Premium - Option Price - Operating Costs)= Net Profit. Even if the option expires unstruck it's cheaper than holding an inventory of Harpies. And if the Harpy does go poof - you've got a secure means of getting it (hopefully at a steep discount for the ship manufacturer). Given that players switch ships frequently - the option would probably be better structured as "I pay Xisk to reserve the right to purchase Ym of isk worth of ships at Z% discount of retail within A days."
|
Palava
Substantial Logistics
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 06:03:00 -
[27]
Every Sandbox has its edges.
|
D'Tann
Phoenix Industries
Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 14:00:00 -
[28]
Edited by: D''Tann on 08/04/2008 14:00:35
I see a lot of reference to pvp/0.0 and pirates...dunno about anything outside of my little area of space and old corps mates gone pirate but, I don't know anyone who uses the in-game insurance on any pvp or even lowsec ships. If you take into account the number of people losing ships who don't insure them, it kinda of balances out the losses for ccp insurance. I know I have finally stopped insuring even high sec ships due to the premiums. Pay the rates for a year w/o losing a ship and it's not such a (financially) good idea to buy the insurance anymore.
|
Ulstan
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 16:18:00 -
[29]
It's best not to think of EVE's current insurance system as an insurance system at all.
As you say, it flagrantly breaks/ignores anything a real insurance company would care about, and as such there's no way they are making any kind of a profit, like a real insurance company would aim to do.
Instead simply consider it a game mechanic with two functions:
1) Making a ship loss less harsh for a newbie
2) Widening the effective price gap between T1 and T2 ships for PvP, so that attritting your foe by flying weaker but far cheaper ships is a valid strategic plan
I think a player run insurance operation would be pretty interesting, but you know everyone and their dog would set out to abuse it so it would pretty much need to be limited to hi sec miners only or mission running ships or something, and then I guess it would primarily be considered 'anti suicide gank' insurance.
I do think insurance payouts for suicide gankers should be removed, but not primarily from a realism standpoint, as the current implementation of insurance fails spectacularly at even approaching a real world insurance company. Rather, I think it would adjust the bar for what is and is not lucrative enough to suicide gank to a more reasonable height.
|
Aleksanteri
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 03:22:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Palava
Every Sandbox has its edges.
I like that. I should use that.
The idea of an insurance system that merely replaces your vessel is more palatable than 'privatizing' the system. New players NEED to know that when they take risks they're going to be covered and be able to 'start over' as it were if they get blown out of space. Otherwise, I'd've been ****ed and left.
None of this excuses stupidity (drug-running, etc.), of course.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |