Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
northwesten
Amarr Trinity Corporate Services
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 14:07:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Euriti Edited by: Euriti on 26/04/2008 14:02:57
Originally by: Bish Ounen No.
Insurance doesn't need to be removed, it just needs to be made more realistic.
1) No payout for criminal behavior (suicide gankers get no payout)
2) No rewarding criminal lifestyles. (no real insurance company would) Thus, overall payout for any situation based on sec status. (High sec status = full payout, low sec status = low payout)
3) No payout for SD You pop your own ship, it's just like intentionally crashing your own car. No Insurance payout, and higher rates in the future.
That would fix most, if not all of the OP's concerns.
You are a ******* moron.
Stop suggesting piracy nerfs and forcing every PvPer to grind bloody missions even more. We do it enough, no need to make it even worse.
yer and? be a pirate you take the risk! if you lose ships all the time then dont be a pirate end of. I wouldnt call it a nerf i call it balancing! so STFU
Trinity Corporate Services
|
Dingi223
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 14:13:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Dingi223 on 26/04/2008 14:14:33 Edited by: Dingi223 on 26/04/2008 14:13:58 Edited by: Dingi223 on 26/04/2008 14:13:42
Originally by: Euriti You are a ******* moron.
Stop suggesting piracy nerfs and forcing every PvPer to grind bloody missions even more. We do it enough, no need to make it even worse.
And you are equally a moron. Piracy without risk leads to ganking. Everyone can make as many real world examples as they wish, let's introduce real world insurance - premiums and payout are based upon risk and the accident itself.
I can guarantee you that if you drove a BMW around to ram armored cars off the road for cash heists, a) your insurance will absolutely skyrocket, and b) insurance wouldn't be paid out during the activity.
Why should people be able to fly a T1 battleship, use blob warfare, and after get the entire ship reimbursed after that 200th time? Personally I agree there should be a change to the insurance system. It creates a price floor, encourages massive blob warfare, and prevents you from actually waging economic wars, or wars of attrition.
Warp in, kill 50 battleships, 500 million paid out by insurance, 50 battleships back. You can't:- Target supply routes or mining ops to try cripple the manufacturing lines since the biggest reimbursement of losses is just paid in insurance ISK
Use hit-and-run tactics to wear down resources, war of attrition
Oh I know, let's just continually have massive fleet wars with 100's of ships, and the create a thread about fleet lag and how poor EVE is. Try open your eyes into other possibilities
|
Janu Hull
Caldari Terra Incognita Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 14:14:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Astarte Nosferatu
Removing insurance wouldn't benefit only the miners, but PvP might become less of a blobfest with less people flying Battleships.
How many deathstar POSes do you think would be dropped when it no longer became possible to get a reasonable return on ship destruction from an all out attack if carriers and dreadnoughts become virtually impossible to replace quickly. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone in 0.0 has billions of ISK at their disposal, or an alliance industry backbone that pumps out endless numbers of free ships to be zerged mindlessly unto the breach.
Easy to replace ships keeps the sovreignty map constantly in motion. Make ships harder to replace, and the pace of military campaigns out beyond empire grinds to a crawl. It won't stop, but you'll see a MASSIVE slowdown, as even a successful battle may cause enough losses to reduce an assault force below the necessary critical mass needed to maintain momentum.
Imagine expending massive firepower against a sovreignty deathstar to put it in reinforced under heavy defensive fire, only to find out your victory cost you so many capitals that you won't be able to capitalize on that success when the POS comes out of reinforced? If anything, that might actually ENCOURAGE the blob, because the perceived necessary level of overwhelming force required to sustain a campaign actually increases at the outset in order to account for far higher irreplacable losses in combat.
In the event of an emergency, my ego may be used as a floatation device. |
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 14:22:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Janu Hull Contrary to popular belief, not everyone in 0.0 has billions of ISK at their disposal, or an alliance industry backbone that pumps out endless numbers of free ships to be zerged mindlessly unto the breach.
That's your problem then. You should have an industry backbone. There are too many half-assed alliances holding space with no real financial/industrial strategy other than ratting and buying replacement kit from local carebears, subsidised by the game.
Bandures > tommy you like a cowboy harry ) |
Euriti
Gallente SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 14:35:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Dingi223 Edited by: Dingi223 on 26/04/2008 14:14:33 Edited by: Dingi223 on 26/04/2008 14:13:58 Edited by: Dingi223 on 26/04/2008 14:13:42
Originally by: Euriti You are a ******* moron.
Stop suggesting piracy nerfs and forcing every PvPer to grind bloody missions even more. We do it enough, no need to make it even worse.
And you are equally a moron. Piracy without risk leads to ganking. Everyone can make as many real world examples as they wish, let's introduce real world insurance - premiums and payout are based upon risk and the accident itself.
I can guarantee you that if you drove a BMW around to ram armored cars off the road for cash heists, a) your insurance will absolutely skyrocket, and b) insurance wouldn't be paid out during the activity.
Why should people be able to fly a T1 battleship, use blob warfare, and after get the entire ship reimbursed after that 200th time? Personally I agree there should be a change to the insurance system. It creates a price floor, encourages massive blob warfare, and prevents you from actually waging economic wars, or wars of attrition.
Warp in, kill 50 battleships, 500 million paid out by insurance, 50 battleships back. You can't:- Target supply routes or mining ops to try cripple the manufacturing lines since the biggest reimbursement of losses is just paid in insurance ISK
Use hit-and-run tactics to wear down resources, war of attrition
Oh I know, let's just continually have massive fleet wars with 100's of ships, and the create a thread about fleet lag and how poor EVE is. Try open your eyes into other possibilities
I can assure you that you loose a fair bit on getting popped in a battleship since fittings cost money. Insuring it costs money (30%) and rigs cost money, and yes many people rig their battleships.
Without the insurance people would just need to carebear even more rather than PvP in, yeah you guessed it, a PvP game.
|
Euriti
Gallente SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 14:37:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Janu Hull
Originally by: Astarte Nosferatu
Removing insurance wouldn't benefit only the miners, but PvP might become less of a blobfest with less people flying Battleships.
How many deathstar POSes do you think would be dropped when it no longer became possible to get a reasonable return on ship destruction from an all out attack if carriers and dreadnoughts become virtually impossible to replace quickly. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone in 0.0 has billions of ISK at their disposal, or an alliance industry backbone that pumps out endless numbers of free ships to be zerged mindlessly unto the breach.
Easy to replace ships keeps the sovreignty map constantly in motion. Make ships harder to replace, and the pace of military campaigns out beyond empire grinds to a crawl. It won't stop, but you'll see a MASSIVE slowdown, as even a successful battle may cause enough losses to reduce an assault force below the necessary critical mass needed to maintain momentum.
Imagine expending massive firepower against a sovreignty deathstar to put it in reinforced under heavy defensive fire, only to find out your victory cost you so many capitals that you won't be able to capitalize on that success when the POS comes out of reinforced? If anything, that might actually ENCOURAGE the blob, because the perceived necessary level of overwhelming force required to sustain a campaign actually increases at the outset in order to account for far higher irreplacable losses in combat.
This guy is right.
And northwesten, don't EVER comment on piracy and risks when you're just a mining carebear, honestly.
|
5pinDizzy
Amarr Pwnage Distribution Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 14:38:00 -
[37]
I do have a problem with insurance, and only one problem, some of you touched on it, but not all.
The only thing I'm unhappy with is the insurance on battleships, they dont always cost a great deal more to lose then battlecruisers, especially not when its a suicide gank battleship that'll have nowhere near the right fittings.
Particularly tier 1 battleships, they're very cost effective for the severe dps output they can inflict.
Removing insurance for battleships seems a little harsh, but I think something around there would be along the right lines. As any ship worth its salt can withstand a suicide gank from smaller ships except in large groups.
|
Wet Ferret
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 14:38:00 -
[38]
Insurance is mostly fine. It allows people to PvP without massive personal losses. Without it people would spend more time grinding ISK and less time shooting eachother. I cannot see how this would be good
Removing payouts for suicide attacks in high-sec could be a good thing from a balance standpoint. Currently, the risk of being suicided discourages undocking with even moderately valuable cargo, as it costs nearly nothing to gank a hauler (and in some cases, you can even get more from your insurance than you paid for the ship and fittings).
Insurance on self-destructing is perfectly fine. It's a convenience. And so what if it's not realistic? It would be dumb to remove it, as you'd only need to undock and shoot at the station or ask a corpmate to blow you up to accomplish the same thing.
But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started.
|
Tommy TenKreds
Animal Mercantile Executive
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 14:40:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Euriti I can assure you that you loose a fair bit on getting popped in a battleship since fittings cost money. Insuring it costs money (30%) and rigs cost money, and yes many people rig their battleships.
Without the insurance people would just need to carebear even more rather than PvP in, yeah you guessed it, a PvP game.
Go back to Guildwars.
The distinction you make between carebearism and pvp is artificial. Industrialists and financiers are not all carebears and if you had a decent approach to managing wealth creation and ship production, you wouldn't need to be using insurance to subsidise your "pvp".
Pew-pew is not strategic pvp any more than sitting in Jita making 0.01 ISK adjustments to your market orders.
Bandures > tommy you like a cowboy harry ) |
Euriti
Gallente SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 14:43:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Wet Ferret Removing payouts for suicide attacks in high-sec could be a good thing from a balance standpoint. Currently, the risk of being suicided discourages undocking with even moderately valuable cargo, as it costs nearly nothing to gank a hauler (and in some cases, you can even get more from your insurance than you paid for the ship and fittings).
I agree with your points except this one. Ganking a hauler that is warping to zero and hasn't gimped itself completely by fitting expanders. You can actually get a haulers align time down to 5 seconds which is not enough to target it, scan it and gank it.
I must say though that a slight adjustment to ships baseprice (lowering it a tad) would be nice for insurance since you can't blow yourself up and earn money anymore.
|
|
ZzZGilletteZzZ
Caldari ZzZDefZzZ
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 14:44:00 -
[41]
Originally by: WashuChanUK
So say, you take your car to...I dont know, Iraq. Your driving along, happy as can be. You park up to visit the local "cafT" shall we say and enjoy a nice ice cold bottle of Quafe. Mean while, some bumbling idiot in a Challenger tank accidently "parks" on your beloved pride and joy. It's not your fault your car was destroyed but the insurance company turns round and states "oh, well because you were in a semi-dangerous area we arent going to pay you squat".
In other words no.
In northern Ireland during the troubles it was either expensive or next to impossible to get your car insured depending on the area you lived in.
|
Doonoo Boonoo
Amarr Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 14:52:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Everyone Dies Edited by: Everyone Dies on 26/04/2008 12:35:06
Originally by: Bish Ounen No.
Insurance doesn't need to be removed, it just needs to be made more realistic.
1) No payout for criminal behavior (suicide gankers get no payout)
2) No rewarding criminal lifestyles. (no real insurance company would) Thus, overall payout for any situation based on sec status. (High sec status = full payout, low sec status = low payout)
THIS
...Is wrong.For many reasons.
Why would anyone with a positive sec status need insurance seeing as how all they do is missions all day in hisec at zero risk?
Positive sec status is also gained by ratting in 0.0.So you want people who belong to huge alliances that own large chunks of 0.0 to have full insurance?
What about newer players who have no sec status?
|
small chimp
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 15:02:00 -
[43]
Can someone please think of the carebears?
Boost carebears, nerf pirates!
PS: OP's arguments are lame.
|
Rafein
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 15:19:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Euriti Edited by: Euriti on 26/04/2008 14:02:57
Originally by: Bish Ounen No.
Insurance doesn't need to be removed, it just needs to be made more realistic.
1) No payout for criminal behavior (suicide gankers get no payout)
2) No rewarding criminal lifestyles. (no real insurance company would) Thus, overall payout for any situation based on sec status. (High sec status = full payout, low sec status = low payout)
3) No payout for SD You pop your own ship, it's just like intentionally crashing your own car. No Insurance payout, and higher rates in the future.
That would fix most, if not all of the OP's concerns.
You are a ******* moron.
Stop suggesting piracy nerfs and forcing every PvPer to grind bloody missions even more. We do it enough, no need to make it even worse.
Where do these "PvP" carebears keep coming from?
It's risk Vs. reward. Your putting your ships on the line to destroy someone else's ships.
However, you can pick the time/place/method of attack, so balancing it, if you do get killed aggressing someone else, you should lose insurance.
And the only way a Pirate is grinding missions to be a Pirate is if they are doing it wrong.
|
MarleWH
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 16:39:00 -
[45]
We should take insurance away from miners. They don't need it with all that dirty mining they do. |
brinelan
Caldari Victory Not Vengeance Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 16:42:00 -
[46]
to the OP, you sir have never insured a t2 ship... most t2 ships don't insure for nearly what you pay for the ship. |
Jecob
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 16:58:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Bish Ounen No.
Insurance doesn't need to be removed, it just needs to be made more realistic.
1) No payout for criminal behavior (suicide gankers get no payout)
2) No rewarding criminal lifestyles. (no real insurance company would) Thus, overall payout for any situation based on sec status. (High sec status = full payout, low sec status = low payout)
3) No payout for SD You pop your own ship, it's just like intentionally crashing your own car. No Insurance payout, and higher rates in the future.
That would fix most, if not all of the OP's concerns.
I agree, it's like insurance fraud they are insuring it with full intention of destroying it to claim on it. If people want to suicide gank it should be coming out of their own pocket and not the pocket of the insurance company. |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 17:03:00 -
[48]
Also, I think we all need to have to file taxes on all our in game income, including ratting. |
Freya Runestone
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 18:02:00 -
[49]
No. Insurance needs to stay, removing it completely is a bad idea. Insurance is there so you can afford to buy a new ship when you lose your old one, and should be there for that reason.
Also. I think you should leave the inflation discussion to that economist guy with a funny name I can't remember. Whatever his name is, I'm sure he knows a hell of a lot more about it than you, and that he has access to better data than you (I suppose ANY data qualifies as "better")
|
Janu Hull
Caldari Terra Incognita Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 21:23:00 -
[50]
Originally by: brinelan to the OP, you sir have never insured a t2 ship... most t2 ships don't insure for nearly what you pay for the ship.
Take the Buzzard, as an example. Market cost 14 million plus. Platinum insurance payout on destruction...630k roughly...
Breaking the economy, really...
In the event of an emergency, my ego may be used as a floatation device. |
|
Brun Thorvald
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 21:37:00 -
[51]
Shorter debate
OP ; EvE is a harsh, cold universe. Remove insurance.
Whiners ; Waaaaaaa, but I wanna fly ships I cant afford to lose in PvP.
Me ; Remove insurance. Dont fly ships you cant afford to lose.
|
Slate Fistcrunch
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 21:40:00 -
[52]
Remove insurance for all ships other than tech 1 frigates, destroyers, cruisers, industrials, and mining barges.
Helps noobs. Removes the other problems (affect on mineral market, disparity in end cost of flying tech 1 versus tech 2 combat, etc.)
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Umbra Synergy Final Retribution Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 21:44:00 -
[53]
as much as I like trolling and flaming in threads like these I'm going to weight in with something serious
the insurance system DOES need an overhaul but I don't see removing it as a solution
cut the isk value for po but increase the "replacement" ship up to something similar, ie lose a vagabond, be replace with a stabber
Originally by: Cecil Montague They should change that warning on entering low sec to:
"Go read Crime and Punishment for a few days then come back."
|
Maneeter
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 22:07:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Maneeter on 26/04/2008 22:07:59
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba
2. It causes inflation. After the destruction of the insured ship the [MONEY<=>GOODS] balance is affected twice: MONEY increases AND (unlike ratting or missions for example) GOODS decreases. The destruction of an insured battelship contributes several times more to inflation than any level 4 missions (can do the maths on this if required. Note: if you like to criticise this, you need some basic understanding on how infaltion works, if you don't have this, please resist the desire to flame on this particular statement).
I don't intend to flame you on this but you really are wrong when you say that insurance causes inflation. First of all their are two types of Inflation the EVE market and they are Cost-Push and Demand-Pull inflation, their effect on EVE's economy is minor.
In a real economy these would be controlled through the use of interest rates, however with no eve bank where you can save or borrow money, and no housing market this simply does not apply.
Inflation in a macro economic environment is easy to understand as long as you don't use wikipedia! All the economic knowledge on wikipedia is basic, and probably not written by economists. Instead I would suggest going on amazon and buying a good economic textbook, I recommend this.
If you arn't at all interested in economics and cba too read into it, then I propose to you this. IF insurance was causing inflation, then the massive amounts of ships insured and lost each day would gradually push prices up and up and up, due to the fact that CCP do not intervene in the market this effect would not be stopped because no eve player would be willing to sell their goods at a much lower price to stabilize prices. If you project your so called theory in a graph, by now a most items would cost billions of ISK.
Before you go on a rant saying 'Do the maths yourself' and 'I is like teh 1337 person who can like look at the market nd make up what I think is happening and whine about insurance cos I got suicide ganked!' Just cut the Bull****. Go to university and get a Masters in Economics like I did, and then look at the situation again.
Thats all I have to say
|
Conrad Rock
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 22:15:00 -
[55]
Removing insurance means more lame style plays where people don't risk too much. CCP knows that will kill Eve.
|
Stuart Price
Caldari Black Water.
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 22:29:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Stuart Price on 26/04/2008 22:33:01 Edited by: Stuart Price on 26/04/2008 22:32:16 So basically, the OP wants to completely restrict pvp to people who are rich enough or have access to the resources to replace the entirety of their losses.
How are people going to learn pvp if they can't insure their losses? Particularly early on. It'll create a massive, clanging gap between the people who are rich and good at pvp, the people who are not rich and have no real pvp experience, and the people who are rich because all they do is missionrun. The market will likely suffer as a result of far fewer ship losses meaning far less demand.
Pretty much everyone loses except the 23/7 missionrunners. Right up until they realise that everybody in the entire game is either in Motsu or Jita.
There is already a meaningful way of punishing your opponents. t2 can't be insured for anywhere NEAR its value. Mods and rigs can't be insured at all. t2 ships, mods and rigs all make you better in combat so the tradeoff is risk less isk for a smaller chance of winning, or risk MUCH more isk for a greater chance of winning. The risk/benefit curve is steep as hell to boot, since even when fitting a battleship I often spend more than the initial ship cost on fittings, rigs and insurance (which actually costs to take out remember?).
Is that not enough risk for you? "I got soul but I'm not a soldier" |
OffBeaT
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 22:39:00 -
[57]
i can see this idea for empire ganking as in low sec but not in 00 systems as you cant prove the dude that ganked yu was a pirate. he could be a reble or freedom fighter or alliance member but you cant prove he is a pirate in a 00 system.
|
Anne Smith
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 23:02:00 -
[58]
How about this? When you collect Insurance, instead of giving you ISK it gives you a ship instead. The ship is delivered to an NPC station of your choice. That way, you can't blow up ships for an ISK profit since it's impossible to get back more than you lost. |
Blind Man
Cosmic Fusion When Fat Kids Attack
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 23:13:00 -
[59]
people actually insure ships
rofl
|
OffBeaT
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 23:15:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Anne Smith How about this? When you collect Insurance, instead of giving you ISK it gives you a ship instead. The ship is delivered to an NPC station of your choice. That way, you can't blow up ships for an ISK profit since it's impossible to get back more than you lost.
its simple just make a licence for marketers/makers of ships so they are known in the biz of selling ships buy concord. this licence can make it so you cant insoure more then 2 ships a day for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |