| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zantrei Kordisin
FinFleet
Band of Brothers
   |
Posted - 2008.05.27 02:09:00 -
[31]
Personally, I'm against fixing something that isn't broken.
_________________________________________________________
|
Sir Substance
|
Posted - 2008.05.27 03:07:00 -
[32]
i think there are a lot of issues with insurance. mainly the issues of getting insurance when you loose your ship to concord and t2 insurance though. i wholeheartedly endorse insurance being taken to the table, shaken around and turned upside down.
|
Czanthria
Ad Astra Vexillum
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 04:55:00 -
[33]
--
Knowledge is Power! |
ceyriot
Induseng Enterprises
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 05:42:00 -
[34]
Thumbs up...duh...
Faction Store - Killboard |
Stephannus Calimben
Trill Crabulas
Nihil-Obstat
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 07:51:00 -
[35]
 Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Domosan
No. CCP has the right direction in giving more power to the playerbase in the economy. here is another area where the playerbase should rule. Put insurance in the hands of players. Make it possible for players to create insurance contracts. Loss history should be available for those writing contracts.
Insurance is the largest source of isk in the game. Take that out and a lot of the inflation problems go away
Regards
There are no inflation problems in Eve. Have you not been reading Dr. EyjoG's econblogs/QENs? Eve has had a deflationary economy for what looks like as far back as they have data. And while I don't have data to support this, my supposition would be that insurance isn't even inflationary to any great degree - there's enough people who insure without losing to compensate those who lose their ships.
Besides, NPC insurance(especially the 40% baseline) exists for a good reason - it prevents players from going totally broke off a ship loss. The worst-case is enough money to buy a ship one class down, usually, which is enough to recover without feeling like you've lost everything.
If you wanna see inflation in eve check character prices on the forums. A corpmate of mine bought a 25m sp character in november for 2b. A character like that now goes for 7
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 16:07:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Stephannus Calimben
If you wanna see inflation in eve check character prices on the forums. A corpmate of mine bought a 25m sp character in november for 2b. A character like that now goes for 7
Then I'd say that he ripped off the seller pretty thoroughly, or there are a lot of negative assets/standings clouding pure character value. I had a corpmate who sold his character around the same time for just under 2B, and he was at -9 sec and maybe 13M skill points.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Domosan
The Singularity Amalgamation
Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 16:29:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Domosan
No. CCP has the right direction in giving more power to the playerbase in the economy. here is another area where the playerbase should rule. Put insurance in the hands of players. Make it possible for players to create insurance contracts. Loss history should be available for those writing contracts.
Insurance is the largest source of isk in the game. Take that out and a lot of the inflation problems go away
Regards
There are no inflation problems in Eve. Have you not been reading Dr. EyjoG's econblogs/QENs? Eve has had a deflationary economy for what looks like as far back as they have data. And while I don't have data to support this, my supposition would be that insurance isn't even inflationary to any great degree - there's enough people who insure without losing to compensate those who lose their ships.
Besides, NPC insurance(especially the 40% baseline) exists for a good reason - it prevents players from going totally broke off a ship loss. The worst-case is enough money to buy a ship one class down, usually, which is enough to recover without feeling like you've lost everything.
Your post shows you don't understand what inflation is. Also, it shows that you did not read my post.
(1) When a ship is built by a player (since almost all ships in eve are player built) and sold to another player, no isk is created in the economy. When a ship is blown up (that is insured) CCP creates isk to give to the ship owner. That is inflationary as now more money is in circulation than is demanded. Go read uncle milty if you don't understand that inflation is a monetary problem, not a general price level problem
(2) I do not want to take insurance away. I want to have the player run economy take over the insurance system because then the problem of inflation that i described above, goes away. This requires that CCP introduce tools into the game that would allow players to judge the risk of issuance ship insurance so that they could profit from the contracts they write. This would result in a solution to all the problems noted because (a) no one would insure suicide gankers unless they were profitable to do so (ie they would have to target high value targets only to pay for the insurance losses or not get insurance) (b) tech 2 ships would be insure at market levels.
Free markets work. CCP please give the players the ability to run the insurance market
Regards
|
Talkuth Rel
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 18:21:00 -
[38]
Issue supported.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 19:02:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Domosan
Your post shows you don't understand what inflation is. Also, it shows that you did not read my post.
(1) When a ship is built by a player (since almost all ships in eve are player built) and sold to another player, no isk is created in the economy. When a ship is blown up (that is insured) CCP creates isk to give to the ship owner. That is inflationary as now more money is in circulation than is demanded. Go read uncle milty if you don't understand that inflation is a monetary problem, not a general price level problem
(2) I do not want to take insurance away. I want to have the player run economy take over the insurance system because then the problem of inflation that i described above, goes away. This requires that CCP introduce tools into the game that would allow players to judge the risk of issuance ship insurance so that they could profit from the contracts they write. This would result in a solution to all the problems noted because (a) no one would insure suicide gankers unless they were profitable to do so (ie they would have to target high value targets only to pay for the insurance losses or not get insurance) (b) tech 2 ships would be insure at market levels.
Free markets work. CCP please give the players the ability to run the insurance market
Regards
I have an economics degree and I'm a card-carrying Conservative - you really don't need to lecture me on the lessons of Milton Friedman. I am well aware of how inflation functions, and how it is "always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon".
What you don't seem to be grasping is that money is not the only factor in the price level. The price level is directly proportional to the money supply(well, money supply times money velocity, to be precise, but I don't think insurance changes will alter velocity), yes, but it is also inversely proportional to the goods supply. And for as far back as I've ever seen data, the goods supply has been increasing as fast as the money supply, if not faster. There are constantly more ships, more modules, and generally more stuff being added to the game, and they're being added faster than money is.
As such, while I'll agree that insurance in its current incarnation is probably an inflationary pressure(though less so than you're probably thinking, because the premiums are a pretty big isk sink), it is not contributing to an inflation problem, because there is no inflation problem, because there is no inflation. There is deflation, not inflation - price levels are falling, and the value of the isk is increasing.
As for your suggestion of a player-run insurance market, it's totally infeasible - the problems of adverse selection and moral hazard would absolutely annihilate any profits that could exist. There's nobody in this game with enough time to be an insurance adjuster for the amount of losses that happen daily, and I can't imagine that there's anybody with the inclination either. Besides, the profession would require a legal(i.e., game rules) environment that gave adjusters full access to the data around your loss(i.e., the killmail), and I don't think forcing private data around to make the industry function is viable. On top of that, this game is set up to be explicitly pro-scammer, meaning that a functional financial industry is a near-impossibility. If the SEC's response to fraud was "LOL, in your face!", you wouldn't see much of a stock market either.
Besides, the fundamental reason for the CCP-run insurance market, as previously stated, is to prevent player ruin. Player-run insurance won't do that, because the 40% baseline won't be there.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Pattonator
Shinra
Shinra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 19:04:00 -
[40]
My biggest problem that I see with insurance is that if a ship is personally insured it is lost when having corpmates move them in carriers?
Insurance should not disappear until someone else actually boards or flies the ship not when it is simply placed in the care of another character. |
|
|
Acidictadpole
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 19:38:00 -
[41]
Supported. Insurance is broken.
|
JafoPBCFR
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 20:56:00 -
[42]
Agree T2 needs a fix.
Also i agree that Insurence shouldnt cover Self Destruction or Ship used in the act of a crime.. RL insurence wont pay if Loss was due to Criminal activity by the policy holder. And if you destroy your car and try to make a claim its fraud.
|
AtomizerX
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 02:10:00 -
[43]
You know, I was thinking more about insurance payments for self-destruction. I do agree that it shouldn't be paid for self-destruction, but there are ways around that that makes it irrelevant. You could have a corp member destroy your ship. Take away the ability to receive payouts in that situation, and then you could just create a new character in an NPC corp to blow up your ship. Or you could just strip the ship and fly it into an enemy camp; they'd be happy to do the job for you.
Every single situation above is insurance fraud by the original ship owner, regardless of whether or not the party destroying the ship knows it. It just becomes harder and harder to prove fraud in this case, especially if you just let the enemy destroy the ship; there's no way to prevent that kind of abuse.
|
Yuki Santara
Yurai-Tenshin Zaibatsu
Celestial Imperative
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 02:16:00 -
[44]
Originally by: AtomizerX
You know, I was thinking more about insurance payments for self-destruction. I do agree that it shouldn't be paid for self-destruction, but there are ways around that that makes it irrelevant. You could have a corp member destroy your ship. Take away the ability to receive payouts in that situation, and then you could just create a new character in an NPC corp to blow up your ship. Or you could just strip the ship and fly it into an enemy camp; they'd be happy to do the job for you.
Every single situation above is insurance fraud by the original ship owner, regardless of whether or not the party destroying the ship knows it. It just becomes harder and harder to prove fraud in this case, especially if you just let the enemy destroy the ship; there's no way to prevent that kind of abuse.
Definitely, without an investigative body it doesn't make sense to even attempt to disallow suicide fraud (maybe prices and payouts should take this into account though...).
On the other hand, no payout for suicide attacks makes perfect sense, because no investigation is necessary (the event is already recorded by CONCORD) and it's not possible to game the system. Furthermore, this isn't just insurance fraud, but insurance fraud used to gain profit in the process. 
|
procurement specialist
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 02:31:00 -
[45]
Originally by: JafoPBCFR
Agree T2 needs a fix.
Also i agree that Insurence shouldnt cover Self Destruction or Ship used in the act of a crime.. RL insurence wont pay if Loss was due to Criminal activity by the policy holder. And if you destroy your car and try to make a claim its fraud.
actually it is still allowed unless specifically excluded. It is instead vandalism and propety damage, possibly arson depending on how it is done and that is jail time still.
lawyer got insuarance company to to pay for smoking his expensive cigars and losing them in series of small fires. judge ruled insurance did not specify he could not smoke them himself and his claim was awarded. insurance counter sued for arson against insured property.
|
Flaming Lemming
Puppeteer Press
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 04:07:00 -
[46]
Approve : No insurance payouts for concord kills or self destruct.
I'm not as sure about how to rebalance insurance payout amounts though, I do feel that T2 losses should hurt.
|
cain mjolnir
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 04:23:00 -
[47]
I agree with improving T2 ship insurance somewhat. But no matter how much you higher t1 insurance ur still gonna get suicide ganked. Also you seem to forget a ganker loses his privileges in empire which means doing some mindnumbing ratting. I'll agree to nefing up suicide ganking if ratting is made more interesting cause its bloody boring or more intersting ways to up your sec status.
I'm not gonna waste my precious sec status on a t1 hauler with +4 I'm gonna wait for that dumbass afk with 200mil+ or if im really bored Ill go with a 100mil but everytime I gank its a few hours of mindnumbing asteroid hopping. So I vote YES cause Im still gonna gank your lilywhite ass no matter how high you make it for me. Actually you will be doing me a favour I won't have to waste my time on the crappy 200mil kills Ill go straight for the ones with a bil in loot, more profit less ratting thanks pal 
|
Aya Otosaki
Titan Indurstrial
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 08:02:00 -
[48]
remove insurance
-----
Ignorance is my strength. |
Zeknichov
Dark Prophecy Inc.
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 09:24:00 -
[49]
Yes insurence needs to be fixed. People **** out isk much quicker now compared to 3+ years ago. Insurance should be removed from the game, not increased to benefit T2 ships.
|
abbagabba
Monster Raving Loonies
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 10:00:00 -
[50]
Insurance ideally would cost a bit more for all T1 ships but should still be payed on self destruct and concordoken.
T2 ships, no, fine as it is. Noone seems to consider what will happen if you start handing out T1 level insurance on T2 ships, demand will boom as people start losing them and I doubt the moon mineral market could keep up. Most of that extra isk injected into the economy will probably end up in the hands of the big moon holders as prices will undoubtably rise.
|
|
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 10:39:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Slickdrac
Originally by: Esmenet
The insurance is working as intended.
T2 is supposed to be expensive.
This TBH
You want to pay more for an edge, that's your own doing.
This is correct. If we want to avoid T2 being the 'new standard', then leaving insurance payouts as it is good.
Furthermore, there's a fundamental difference between T1 and T2 production: T2 production relies on moon mining, which is a rather finite source. Anything which drives the demand upwards will push prices up as well.
So, a definite NO to doing anything with T2 insurance payouts.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 10:46:00 -
[52]
I support the removal of insurance for konkordokken. That said, I cannot support the upgrading of insurance to fully cover the loss of T2 ships, (not until T3 becomes prevalent anyway) Flying the shiny ships is supposed to be risky, it has consequences. T2 ships have benefits, the drawback to flying them is that you can't get adequate insurance on them to be fully covered, if you could, NO ONE, except those that dont have the skills yet, would fly T1
If the t2 ships are fully covered by insurance, it would also mean the suicide gankers would fly T2 instead of T1 and use less ships, giving each individual a bigger payout.
Everything in Eve is supposed to have risk concurrent with reward.
Not Supported
|
Dinique
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 12:36:00 -
[53]
Against
T1 ship insurance values should be reviewed on a monthly basis and adjusted. The current values are definitely out of line.
Capital ship insurance should be removed or greatly reduced.
T2 ships should be not be insurable at all.
_____
The species has amused itself to death
|
The Monkeysphere
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 12:45:00 -
[54]
T2 and capital ships shouldn't give any payouts.
CONCORDed ships giving a payout is fine.
This forum isn't fine.
|
AKULA UrQuan
Druuge Crimson Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 14:21:00 -
[55]
Removal of insurance for concord actions I like, to a point. It'll stop clowns who are suicide ganking for the lulz. Will do exactly zero to stop the pros from hitting high value targets. When you hit a multi-billion isk target useing a few 100M isk ships the insurance payout won't matter in the slightest. Common brutix only needs a 50M isk drop to turn 100% profit w/o an insurance payout.
Meanwhile. T2 ships are not ment to be disposable "throw away" assets. Loseing one should be a painfull experience. I see no good reason to alter the currrent T2 (i.e. don't bother) insurance structure.
If you study the market in detail you might discover many, many cases of players selling T1 ships under the mineral value. Theroy being is that the idea of "I mined the minerals myself so they're free" has become entrenched in the general industral mindset. That is why the T1 insurance structure seems wacked at this time.
|
Natalia Kovac
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 15:22:00 -
[56]
|
Biffidus Rex
Australia and New Zealand Eve Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 02:06:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Esmenet
The insurance is working as intended.
T2 is supposed to be expensive.
I heartily approve of this product and/or service
|
Ranamar
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 03:09:00 -
[58]
One possibility for solving the pricing issue is to use one of the running averages that they calculate for you when you flip to the graph tab in the market. Then you don't have a problem with billion-ISK Ravens, or whatnot, unless someone's actually buying them. (... and if you sell them and then buy them from yourself, even with an alt, you still are out the 1% per price which I can't imagine is less than the amount you'll actually get as an increase in average price, unlike just putting a ton of hulls on the market.)
Anyway, in general, this sounds like a good idea to discuss.
|
Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 03:18:00 -
[59]
Broadly support, but I think T2s still should involve more risk. Maybe the payouts for insurance of T2 ships at a given insurance level be a lower percentage of assessed ship value than for T1s?
---------------------------------
Thomas Hardy is going to eat your brains. |
Blood Bathroom
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 07:50:00 -
[60]
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |