| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Calgorac
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
   |
Posted - 2008.04.16 21:45:00 -
[1]
instead of giving isk for destroyed ships
give the minerals it actually requires to build the ship.
if your piloting a ship that gets destroyed the minerals would appear in the station hanger where your current clone is located.
this would take the upper limit off of mineral prices.
and allow for a real market
For Buy back option Contact "James Omerand" ingame.24 billion under Management |
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 21:54:00 -
[2]
based on a 0-ME print? and if you had made the previous ship with a 30ME print, what about the potential profit? It could be very profitble to continously build and destroy your ships with that different each time ending up in your pocket.
Sorry Calgorac, just needed to show you the one hole in your idea
--
|
Calgorac
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 21:56:00 -
[3]
would require tracking of the build ME of the ship to impliment I guess
otherwise it wouldnt work
For Buy back option Contact "James Omerand" ingame.24 billion under Management |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 21:57:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 16/04/2008 22:01:23
Once you had one ship, you'd just use the same minerals again and again. Demand for minerals would all but disappear - they'd be removed from the game at a tiny fraction of the current rate. The market would shrivel, and the chances are that no-one would ever bother mining again.
Also, holy mineral teleportation, Batman!
Not a good idea 
My research services
Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
Selene D'Celeste
Caldari
The D'Celeste Trading Company
|
Posted - 2008.04.16 22:12:00 -
[5]
No offense Cal, but the teleporting minerals does seem a bit silly.
|
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 00:20:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Calgorac
would require tracking of the build ME of the ship to impliment I guess
otherwise it wouldnt work
and the db folks at CCP would cry since "foul", with further bloating of the database.
--
|
Finideach
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 00:33:00 -
[7]
And underlying precept of your point (whether you meant it or not) is that there is also a time penalty incorporated into the insurance payout (since presumably it would take time to convert minerals into isk or sell them on the market).
Putting teleporting minerals aside for a moment and sticking with the time penalty aspect. In beta tests for Planetside they found that players were using deaths to "teleport" across the map as a form of travel and "suicide waves" were very common to bum-rush towers. There was a recommendation to add a sliding scale of time penalty to respawn timers - and it helped mitigate (although not eliminate) some of the undesired behavior.
To apply that theory here - if the basic Eve CCP insurance payout had increasing time lags between ship death and payout based on # of ships destroyed in a period would that be an idea? A rough ballpark might be:
Lose 1 ship in a week - 5minute delay to payout
Lose 5 ships in a week - 1hr delay payout
Lose 10 ships in a week - 1 day delay to payout
Cons are that this obviously may unfairly punish those in a wardec scenario who are losing a lot of ships and may not mitigate undesirable behavior because their reward compensates for any delay in payout.
I'm not taking a pro or con side here - just keeping insurance discussions going with new ideas. =)
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 01:30:00 -
[8]
The easiest solution to insurance is to simply stop paying out insurance if you are killed by concord or if you self destruct.
If you want to go beyond that then have decreasing payouts the more people die in a certain period. If you die once in a week or month you get normal payout, twice 99%, three times 95%, four times 90%, five times 75%, and then cap it at 50% or some such for future deaths.
This is more work than is needed though, just implementing the first solution basically should fix insurance. |
Astorothe
Aperture Science Industries
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 04:31:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Shadarle
The easiest solution to insurance is to simply stop paying out insurance if you are killed by concord or if you self destruct.
I've seen this mentioned by lots of people and it's spot on I reckon. |
Jackie Fisher
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 08:31:00 -
[10]
Whilst cutting down on scamming opportunities is clearly necessary it is really a secondary issue.
The key issue is that those who want to be customers are likely to be bad risks and those who are good risks and likely to be profitable customers are less likely to use the service. Until a way can be found of æcherry pickingÆ customers before you make a loss on them player run insurance is a non-starter.
|
Midas Man
Caldari
Dzark Asylum
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 10:14:00 -
[11]
How about increasing insurance cost based on a noclaims bonus type of thing like in real life.
Market prices of NPC seeded goods go up if lots are bought so its not too far fetched an idea to implement.
so if you take out insurance platinum insurance at 1 mil for a ship value of 10 mil and you don't claim that month you can renew that insurance for say 950k next month 900k etc down to a lower extreme.
If you claim on an insurance in that month price would change to insurance cost + 5% and if a claim is made again before the month is out on that policy another 5% is added. only when a customer doesn't claim for a full month would the price start falling also have a high end to cost something like 50% of ship value being the lowest payout.
|
Miss CJB
Gallente
In White Suits
Elite Trade Group
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 13:13:00 -
[12]
any changes to the insurance system will have some majar changes to the market, it'll be good for some and bad for others. i believe this is the reasion ccp havent made any changes to it yet.
changing it to minerals just creates the same problem it has with isk, except for minerals instead.
the solution i would like to see is that insurance as we know it is removed, but the game mechanics to be implemented wich would enable a play run insurance company to operate. |
Finideach
|
Posted - 2008.04.17 13:19:00 -
[13]
From what I've gathered the two main benefits folks are seeking are:
1. Modifications will make it more "realistic" (thematic)
2. Modifications will deter "bad" behavior (game design)
Although #1 is a valid objective - it's a never-reached yardstick. #2 I think is trickier because the motivations for "bad" behavior go far beyond just the gain made by the Eve CCP insurance payout.
The results of the survey and subsequent data analysis located here seems to indicate that there are opportunities for player run insurance companies in areas outside of CCP Eve's coverage and methods.
Even though I enjoy discussions of game mechanics and will offer my tinkering ideas (who wouldn't) I do think leaving CCP Eve's insurance as is and letting players fill in the gaps (if the market wishes them too) is probably the best approach. Given it's wide impacting nature changes to the CCP Eve insurance system may have unforseen consequences based on what they change.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |