EVE Search - The real fix for ship insurance

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The real fix for 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)
Brucette	Posted - 2008.04.21 12:25:00 - [1] There has been much talk about the liklyhood of insurance policies responding even in the event of criminal activity recently. People argue one way and the other - hurts silly noobs who turn off their warnings, encourages suicide ganking... etc. What about concord-sanctioned wars? The correct fix is obvious and fair: No insurance for any hull > cruiser. Protection for the noobs. Keeps the combat serious.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Insurgency	Posted - 2008.04.21 12:28:00 - [2] Effectively you want to ~double/triple the price of battlecruisers and battleships...? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Brucette	Posted - 2008.04.21 12:49:00 - [3] Originally by: Malcanis Effectively you want to ~double/triple the price of battlecruisers and battleships...? Yes. Meaningless combat is for WoW.
Tchell Dahhn Amarr Deny Reality	Posted - 2008.04.21 12:50:00 - [4] Originally by: Brucette Yes. No. The Tchell Dahhn Manifesto
Papa Ina SniggWaffe	Posted - 2008.04.21 12:54:00 - [5] Okay, but a pair of Vexors, thorax, probably Ruptures and god knows what else can still suicide Hulks in highsec.
DrefsabZN	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:00:00 - [6] The fix is simple, no insurance payout for criminal acts. Noobs who turn off warnings still commit criminal act's, In real life you still commit a crime even if you didn't know it was a crime. Some people say this may be a steep learning curve but what in eve isn't? Suicide ganker's are just griefer's they went out into low sec and 0.0 looking to try and make some people cry. The good ones even managed to do this to a few of them, but they want more targets. So what do they do they come to empire and exploit a whole in the game mechanic's to force PvP on those that don't want or are not prepared for PvP. Im not saying what they are doing is wrong, but they are criminal's and should be treated like such. There's always going to be tension between the 2 groups of players, the PvE/Industrial/Traders VS the PvP'ers. The PvP'ers sadly have a large amount of people who want to force PvP with those that don't want/arn't looking for a fight. They want easy target's that can't fight back. Killing someone that has 0 chance of taking them out makes them feel big and strong. These people spoil the balance meaning sa***uard's like concord have to be put in place to stop pure noob/non combat character slaughters. Just because some blood crazed exploiters like a flaw in the game mechanic's it doesn't mean it should stay in place. Let them still be able to gank if they want but make it so it cost's them to do so.
Brucette	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:03:00 - [7] Originally by: Papa Ina Okay, but a pair of Vexors, thorax, probably Ruptures and god knows what else can still suicide Hulks in highsec. ? and? I want to improve the game. This is not yet another anti-ganking whinefest. I was tempted to suggest that only frigates get insurance, but new characters have 800SPs now... dunno. Probably worth thinking about.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:06:00 - [8] Originally by: DrefsabZN So what do they do they come to empire and exploit a whole in the game mechanic's to force PvP on those that don't want or are not prepared for PvP. It's not exploit of game mechanics. It's intended game mechanics. People who do not in fact read the player guide and say what's exploit are either ignorant or trying to sell us their vision of what should be intended as 'intended game mechanics'. Suicide ganking IS a intended game mechanic. Not wanting or being prepared for PvP in this game is something which is totally irrelevant, because you always can be subjected to PvP, like it or not, as soon as you undock. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Brucette	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:07:00 - [9] Originally by: DrefsabZN The fix is simple, no insurance payout for criminal acts. Please go complain in someone else's thread. In any event, what about CONCORD-sanctioned combat? I can't imagine that any sane insurance company would cover that either. The whole idea of big cheap ships is counter to the design influences that guide EVE. We need to take steps to make it nastier and more ruthless sooner rather than later. And that doesn't mean gankfest 2008. The combat needs to be more personally expensive for the participants. All of them.
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:10:00 - [10] For insurances to be balanced it have to be: 1. Everyone gets insurance, no matter what. 2. No one gets insurance. If the game is to remain balanced, there is no middle ground.
DrefsabZN	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:17:00 - [11] How is it not an exploit of the game mechanic's if you are using something to commit criminal actions that should cost you your ship to get away with not actually suffering any loss? Im not complaining im pointing out what I see to be the fix for the issue. Im not saying ganking shouldn't be done. But killing people in empire is a criminal offense thats why concord comes and kills you. What insurance company out there will replace your car if you trash it Ram raiding some place? None. The choice to do something in game that is classed as illegal is fine, but it need's to carry the consequence of if you do it you have some comeback. At the moment the current insurance system allows for criminal actions with out consequence. Show me where in the play guide or dev blogs where this was an intended effect? As i've already stated I've never been a victim of a gank, and nether have any of the people I play online with (well not high sec ones anyway). I only have an issue with exploit's, and from the sounds of things this is an exploit because you can kill people in empire (without war dec's) and suffer nothing for it.
Tchell Dahhn Amarr Deny Reality	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:23:00 - [12] Originally by: DrefsabZN How is it not an exploit of the game mechanic's if you are using something to commit criminal actions that should cost you your ship to get away with not actually suffering any loss? Suicide ganking does cost you your ship. You need to pay for Insurance, and while you do get some of the money back, you never get all of it back. The Tchell Dahhn Manifesto
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:24:00 - [13] Originally by: DrefsabZN How is it not an exploit of the game mechanic's if you are using something to commit criminal actions that should cost you your ship to get away with not actually suffering any loss? WTS clue. OK, some maths based on current EvE prices. Hurricane price (roughly, sometimes a mil more/less) = 33.000.000 ISK Premium insurance for said Hurricane = 10.900.000 ISK Total costs = 43.900.000 ISK Premium insurance payout when said Hurricane explodes = 36.500.000 ISK Total costs - payout = 7.400.000 ISK 7.400.000 ISK != nothing Now take into account that you need actual fittings and stuff and you add a bit of extra ISK there, even with T1 will drive it up to 8M probably - which is not 'nothing'. (Incidentally, the lower price cap of ships is determined by insurance as well - if ship prices were such that total-costs - payout was 0 ISK or so, industrialists would self-destruct them in front of station.) Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Alski Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:25:00 - [14] Originally by: Brucette The whole idea of big cheap ships is counter to the design influences that guide EVE. Why? Originally by: Brucette The combat needs to be more personally expensive for the participants. All of them. Why? What good effects do you think this will have on Eve? Originally by: Brucette I want to improve the game. How would this improve the game? Its pretty hard to take anything you say seriously when you don't quantify anything that you suggest. Would you care to explain why insurance is bad? Or perhaps share with us exactly how having no insurance would make Eve a better game or how it might improve combat? - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:26:00 - [15] Originally by: DrefsabZN How is it not an exploit of the game mechanic's if you are using something to commit criminal actions that should cost you your ship to get away with not actually suffering any loss? Im not complaining im pointing out what I see to be the fix for the issue. Im not saying ganking shouldn't be done. But killing people in empire is a criminal offense thats why concord comes and kills you. What insurance company out there will replace your car if you trash it Ram raiding some place? None. The choice to do something in game that is classed as illegal is fine, but it need's to carry the consequence of if you do it you have some comeback. At the moment the current insurance system allows for criminal actions with out consequence. Show me where in the play guide or dev blogs where this was an intended effect? As i've already stated I've never been a victim of a gank, and nether have any of the people I play online with (well not high sec ones anyway). I only have an issue with exploit's, and from the sounds of things this is an exploit because you can kill people in empire (without war dec's) and suffer nothing for it. What about ratters bringing their ships against hordes of combat fitted Pirate NPCs hellbent on your destruction. Call a insurence agent and ask what it costs to insure a Mondeo if you want to take it to a warzone.
DrefsabZN	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:27:00 - [16] Edited by: DrefsabZN on 21/04/2008 13:30:07 This is true, but the cost of this is to low because if they pick the loot up from the guy they gank they make enough to cover this with easy from even a poorly fitted ship. Maybe raising this cost could help (for example getting less of your insurance payout), meaning only those people with really expensive setup's are worth ganking. At the moment you can turn a profit ganking people with basic setups and that just seam's crazy to me. I don't think ganking should be removed just made so that its something thats an investment and if you pick the right targets pays off, if you don't then your left with a nice isk dent in the wallet. Because it seams like its to cheap and easy to do right now. As has been stated it can cost 8mil+ to get a gank ship going, well one decent gun for a ship capable of mission running could cost more than that. Meaning almost any mission runner trader or pvp'er out there can turn a ganker a protit.
Meirre K'Tun Helios Incorporated Insurgency	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:30:00 - [17] Originally by: Brucette There has been much talk about the liklyhood of insurance policies responding even in the event of criminal activity recently. People argue one way and the other - hurts silly noobs who turn off their warnings, encourages suicide ganking... etc. What about concord-sanctioned wars? The correct fix is obvious and fair: No insurance for any hull > cruiser. Protection for the noobs. Keeps the combat serious. so, you want that titans take out 3 times the amount of isk as they do now with one blast? sounds like a good idea!
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:32:00 - [18] Originally by: DrefsabZN This is true, but the cost of this is to low because if they pick the loot up from the guy they gank they make enough to cover this with easy from even a poorly fitted ship. Maybe raising this cost could help (for example getting less of your insurance payout), meaning only those people with really expensive setup's are worth ganking. At the moment you can turn a profit ganking people with basic setups and that just seam's crazy to me. I don't think ganking should be removed just made so that its something thats an investment and if you pick the right targets pays off, if you don't then your left with a nice isk dent in the wallet. Because it seams like its to cheap and easy to do right now. That is ok, if players who loose their ships on the harder missions also get their payout decreased. Same with players who loose their ships against rats of a level higher than their ship or players who get ganked by higher SP players. Its obvious that they didn't play it safely and where somewhere they shouldn't have been. If it is so cheap and easy to do, try it yourself. See how easy it is to make a profit. If players who commit criminal acts get lower payouts, its going to become harder to pirate, in a environment, where it is already hard to be a pirate (especially a low-SP one like me).
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:33:00 - [19] Originally by: Meirre K'Tun Originally by: Brucette There has been much talk about the liklyhood of insurance policies responding even in the event of criminal activity recently. People argue one way and the other - hurts silly noobs who turn off their warnings, encourages suicide ganking... etc. What about concord-sanctioned wars? The correct fix is obvious and fair: No insurance for any hull > cruiser. Protection for the noobs. Keeps the combat serious. so, you want that titans take out 3 times the amount of isk as they do now with one blast? sounds like a good idea! Actually that makes it seem like a good idea now, because personally I wish titans had a bigger impact on wars.
Princess Gally	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:36:00 - [20] Why not just change the insurance mechanics? For instance, make the insurance fee cheaper and the longer your ship stays intact, the more insurance refund you would get if you loose your ship. But you could remove the sytem i don't care. I've never insured any of my ships yet, too poor for that. Paranoia keeps me safe and is cheaper than insurance. -------------ONCOMING REVOLUTION------------ Miners united. Set your Trit prices to 8.00! --------------------------------------------
Lord WarATron Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:42:00 - [21] To be honest, all insurance needs to be removed. A insured battleship costs almot nothing other than mods (and t1 rat loot mods are basically almost no loss) Loss's should mean something. -- Billion Isk Mission
Tchell Dahhn Amarr Deny Reality	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:45:00 - [22] Originally by: Lord WarATron To be honest, all insurance needs to be removed. A insured battleship costs almost nothing other than mods (and t1 rat loot mods are basically almost no loss) Loss's should mean something. BoB going to continue to replace your ships when you lose them in combat, if they suddenly double in cost? The Tchell Dahhn Manifesto
DrefsabZN	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:50:00 - [23] Yup Id defiantly agree with this applying to everyone. People being stupid going up against things they should be should should get less to. The trade off for the harder missions is the higher reward's/bounties so id be happy to see reduced payout for these as well.
Brucette	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:54:00 - [24] Originally by: Alski Its pretty hard to take anything you say seriously when you don't quantify anything that you suggest. Would you care to explain why insurance is bad? Or perhaps share with us exactly how having no insurance would make Eve a better game or how it might improve combat? Well, I'm not sure that quantification is really appropriate in an opinion piece about internet spaceships... There is a great deal of rhetoric from CCP regarding what a nasty harsh world they have created here. I guess I think it's just a bit too soft. Hence we have people who utilise the softness, and people who whine about them. Seems real simple to kill two birds with one stone. The biggest improvement, I think, is that most of the whiners about suicide ganking would stop filling up these pages with endless complaining, and their biggest complaint would become irrelevant.
Brucette	Posted - 2008.04.21 13:56:00 - [25] Originally by: Lord WarATron To be honest, all insurance needs to be removed. A insured battleship costs almot nothing other than mods (and t1 rat loot mods are basically almost no loss) Loss's should mean something. Yay. I'd be prepared to be flexible on T1 frigates, since they're almost free anyway.
Elysa Madou	Posted - 2008.04.21 14:04:00 - [26] First off: If you manage to get suicide ganked, it's probably your fault. Both sides take losses. Saying it's an exploit to weigh your losses and accept them for the intended gain is like saying it's an exploit to make money off missions or ratting, because you have to spend ammo, but you're actually making money ather than losing it! Since your character doesn't actually die, your ship is an expendable asset just like ammo. If it's worth it, what does it matter when it dies? Now to a real point: Remove/Nerf Insurance. I think the biggest "help" to the game would be increasing the variety of ships on the field. It would also help fight the "blob" we all complain about. Think about it- In a fleet engagement, almost everyone will be in a battleship. (Except cap pilots if caps are used. And maybe dictors/tacklers.) If you have everyone on both sides of an engagement in battleships, then it becomes about numbers. 50 BS vs 75? It's obvious where it's going. 50 vs 100? Etc. When the same ships are fighting the same ships, it becomes a game of numbers. Now, if it cost you 150 mil to lose a battleship (not the paltry amount you lose now with insurance), they might not be cost effective to take out. Perhaps you'd see more battlecruisers. Cruisers. Frigates. (As it is now, a frigate is worthless aside from a suicide tackler). As nice as I think it'd be to go back to a point where battleships are mildly rare and actually a battlefield presence (not expendable), I don't think it would work at this point in EVE. The game has matured too much. Too many people flying tech2 ships would make the smaller ships remain obsolete. HACs, Recons, Command Ships etc.. are not rare. Most players can probably fly several varieties of T2 ships. They should be better, but when they're this common, they'd dominate.. and we'd have the same event even with an insurance nerf. Same thing for Capital Ships. They're not rare. They're not impressive even, anymore (Moms and Titans are a bit different, but still.). With such an abundance of carriers, stepping down from the battleship blob would be, again, suicide. Obviously, these ships and skills cannot be taken from players to make the ships less common. That's the inherent problem with removing insurance. It won't force people into different ships, it would only make them work harder to get the ships they already use. Oh, and if theres ANYTHING eve needs more of, it's people hiding in a station or POS because they don't want to die. We have that enough now even with insurance. TL;DR: No insurance is a nice concept, but it wouldn't work in practice.
Alski Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.21 14:11:00 - [27] Originally by: Brucette Originally by: Alski Its pretty hard to take anything you say seriously when you don't quantify anything that you suggest. Would you care to explain why insurance is bad? Or perhaps share with us exactly how having no insurance would make Eve a better game or how it might improve combat? Well, I'm not sure that quantification is really appropriate in an opinion piece about internet spaceships... There is a great deal of rhetoric from CCP regarding what a nasty harsh world they have created here. I guess I think it's just a bit too soft. Hence we have people who utilise the softness, and people who whine about them. Seems real simple to kill two birds with one stone. The biggest improvement, I think, is that most of the whiners about suicide ganking would stop filling up these pages with endless complaining, and their biggest complaint would become irrelevant. Every big change made to any game needs to be thought through and the pros and cons evaluated and weighed against each other, if you don’t have that then all sense of balance can go the window fast. If the biggest improvement is to stop people whining about suicide ganking, then I put it to you that there is no improvement at all. I care about people whining a lot less than I care about having fun in this game, and if my idea of fun is PvP without 3 times more grinding on rats every time I lose a ship, then this idea does nothing for me. So again I ask, what are the advantages of removing insurance for everyone who is NOT effected by suicide ganks? - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
Conrad Rock Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.04.21 14:27:00 - [28] The most obvious answer is screw the noobs.
Orar Ironfist Incarnation of Evil Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.04.21 14:32:00 - [29] Originally by: DrefsabZN The fix is simple, no insurance payout for criminal acts. So you effectively want to nerfbat piracy into nothing then? The game is fine the way it is just chill out and play it, or dont chill out and find a new game Pirate for Life(no matter my sec)
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.04.21 14:37:00 - [30] Edited by: Le Skunk on 21/04/2008 14:44:23 Originally by: DrefsabZN What insurance company out there will replace your car if you trash it Ram raiding some place? None. What insurance company will insure you in your car in a war zone (0.0) I would agree to removal of insurance for criminal acts (even though this is the 5000000th time someonse posted it) as long as 0.0 ers get no insurance either. Or people who die in low sec. Or people who die in missions more then 5 times. Also people who die afk Also people who dont take due care and attention when killing rats. Also people under 30 million skillpoints pay more, as they are a higher risk of gettgin blown up due to lack of skills. Noobs sholdnt get insurance either. Huge risk The great thing is... when ive suicide ganked in the past... i used an uninsured stealth bomber. So your changes wouldnt have affected me at all. So lets stop people gogin on about criminal act insurance nerfing talking about ram raiding cars- its illogical and it wont even work. SKUNK

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.