| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Marink
   |
Posted - 2008.06.11 11:20:00 -
[61]
I'm new to the game (Loving it by the way!  ) and read most of this post - mainly because I'd noticed if you got a good deal on your ship, you could make a profit from it being destroyed (though not a huge one on the ships I'm currently flying  ).
I'd agree with self destruct definitely voiding your insurance in the same way that repackaging does. Though I don't know yet if self destruct has some viable use - like denying salvage or capture from pirates, in which case this becomes a little trickier.
My main thought though was that it should follow RL and premiums go up in accordance with claims - and can go down when no claims are made for a set period of time (much less than in RL for game purposes). If criminal activities were penalised on their insurance I think it would detract from the game because even as a non-pirate I can see that this is a strong part of the game and that players shouldn't be penalised for choosing piracy as their profession. This system would penalise suicide ganking to a degree which I think it should as this seems an exploit. |
RedeyeAce
Demogorgon's Army
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:46:00 -
[62]
get rid of insurance on concordokken and self destruct.
Increase payout on t2 [needs to be seriously thought through] i.e. 40% of what the average price of the ships cost for payout??
|
Doc Extropy
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 15:40:00 -
[63]
/signed
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected]) |
Kalintos Tyl
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 15:56:00 -
[64]
Vagabond:
hull: 70kk
rigs: 150kk
modules: 20kk
mhm t2 ship is expensive ?:D
|
El Yatta
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 16:15:00 -
[65]
Definitely NOT signed.
Insurance needs to be decreased, not increased.
_______________________________________________
Mercenary Forces |
Celeste DeVall
Darksaber Technologies
The Nexus Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 19:42:00 -
[66]
I've read through this forum, and see valid arguments on both sides of the coin.
As to the discussions that T2 ships should not be the standard, or the risk of loosing them should be high, I agree to an extent. But in a game where skill points continue to grow, and characters gain more skills, there is the assumption prompted by the design of the game itself that T2 ships and tech are the natural progression for players ôgraduatingö to the next level of play in EVE. (If you gain skills, and gain ISK, then you may buy X)
As expansive as EVE is, other options exist for players to experience the game without flying a T2 ship. Lets be realistic, everyone wants to fly the bigger and better ships, and T2 is the next logical step for players after playing the game for a few months. Poor insurance coverage for T2 ships may have an adverse effect on some players, encouraging them on one hand to experience the next level of EVE, but then destroy their will to play after loosing their ship for whatever reason.
Also, as the wealth in EVE is split between the haves and have-nots in regards to access to valuable resources in 0.0 (better belts, better ratting, etc) loosing a T2 ship for someone with access to wealthy resources is a fraction as painful as compared to someone without access to those resources. Remember that Risk is subjective, and has a different meaning to someone that can make 60 million ISK in an hour, and someone that can only make 1 million ISK in the same time. Insurance should be used to balance this playing field.
IÆve also noticed that an alternative to insurance that I have used, is when a ship is lost, I go buy and sell a GTC to compensate. While it works for me, I see an adverse balance in real world wealth affecting the balance of ôhavesö and have-nots.ö This is a discussion for another thread, but I feel insurance may be used to help balance out of game concerns of GTC.
As a casual player, I feel a bit confused. I love EVE for how forgiving it is with the real time skill training that allows me to attend conferences, do my work effectively, hang out with family, friends, etc. On the other hand, I am disheartened that EVE that allows months of game time ôworkö to be lost because of making one mistake. IÆm left with a love-hate relationship with the game and asking myself, ôis this the right game for a casual player like myself, or isnÆt it?ö
From my experience, as having lost several billion worth of ships through pvp, mishaps, or power outages, EVE doesnÆt have to go any further to prove its the most serious MMORPG out there in regards to assumed in-game risk on the part of the player. However, I have plenty of risk and challenge in my life, I donÆt need to experience it in a computer game. Does the outlook on my life make me ôunworthyö of flying a T2 ship or graduating to the next level of EVE game-play?ö Being a little more forgiving I think, would retain more players that get a taste of "next level" and then decide to cancel their accounts in favor of a more forgiving, less intense, game.
I also feel that there is a bit of selection bias in who would come here to post on fixing insurance, in two ways. First, obviously I feel that people who have lost a great deal of time and cash invested would want to see amounts increased. Second, I feel that players that want the hardcore un-forgiving environment to be maintained. The voice that I feel is not being represented are those ex-players that may have quit EVE for greener pastures after having fool-heartedly experienced the end game, and lost invested time for a bad split second decision.
I offer a couple of potential scenarios that would resolve the issues as I see them to be:
1.) Leave insurance as it is, but allow insurance to be gained to cover specific modules/implants, etc. Players who knowingly enter into high risk areas/activities have the option to purchase the additional insurance on said items to lessen (not negate) their potential losses.
2.) Increase pay out amounts of insurance to 60-80% of purchase amount. However, subsequent insurance claims/payouts decrease with each subsequent claim in X time frame. This version of insurance protects the casual player that makes a single bad decision, but minimizes exploitability, and doesnÆt coddle those that choose to live and die by the sword.
3.)Some said that the influx of insurance ISK would cause inflation. How about increasing intial insurance amounts exponentially, but upon loss of a ship, the player received a new ship in lieu of ISK.
In closing, I think that a review of insurance is necessary. Providing a little bit more in insurance, I think, would help a long way in retaining players, without sacrificing much of the hard core environment that many players enjoy.
|
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 20:41:00 -
[67]
The problem with insurance is that it exists.
Remove it completely, and then it will be 100% fair.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
SickSeven
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 22:24:00 -
[68]
Edited by: SickSeven on 03/07/2008 22:24:15
 Originally by: Avon
The problem with insurance is that it exists.
Remove it completely, and then it will be 100% fair.
and then you'll have new players quitting because as soon as they lose their first ship because they can't recover. We do need insurance, it just needs balancing.
And criminals get insurance payouts why, CCP??
|
Nephilim Xeno
Pimebeka Mining Corp
|
Posted - 2008.07.03 22:54:00 -
[69]
/signed
|
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 00:13:00 -
[70]
Originally by: SickSeven
Edited by: SickSeven on 03/07/2008 22:24:15
Originally by: Avon
The problem with insurance is that it exists.
Remove it completely, and then it will be 100% fair.
and then you'll have new players quitting because as soon as they lose their first ship because they can't recover. We do need insurance, it just needs balancing.
And criminals get insurance payouts why, CCP??
Rubbish.
At release there was no default insurance, and we didn't all quit when we lost a ship.
We got in the free replacement n00b ship with its basic mining laser, and got back out there and earned some isk.
No insurance is a far better proposal than selective insurance.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
|
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 01:06:00 -
[71]
No support, removal of insurance is what is needed |
kyoukoku
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 02:37:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Celeste DeVall
I've read through this forum, and see valid arguments on both sides of the coin.
As to the discussions that T2 ships should not be the standard, or the risk of loosing them should be high, I agree to an extent. But in a game where skill points continue to grow, and characters gain more skills, there is the assumption prompted by the design of the game itself that T2 ships and tech are the natural progression for players “graduating” to the next level of play in EVE. (If you gain skills, and gain ISK, then you may buy X)
^This. I look forward to the day when I can afford to fly a T2 vessel but I can see how it will be a right royal kick in the teeth if no sooner than I take my shiny new craft out for a shakedown, some <RP mode on> jumped up little punks </RP mode off> in a bunch of lowly T1's come and end it at very little risk to themselves and they are the ones to get insurance payouts! Obviously if I take a T2 out without the supporting skills & modules to properly defend & tank it in the first place that's another story altogether!
Originally by: Celeste DeVall
I offer a couple of potential scenarios that would resolve the issues as I see them to be:
1.) Leave insurance as it is, but allow insurance to be gained to cover specific modules/implants, etc. Players who knowingly enter into high risk areas/activities have the option to purchase the additional insurance on said items to lessen (not negate) their potential losses.
^This I also like. I really can't see why we can't also insure modules . Some of them can cost just as much as the ship itself and often more. I agree that it shouldn't be a full payout but still about 60-80% would help towards replacing costly modules.
Originally by: Celeste DeVall
2.) Increase pay out amounts of insurance to 60-80% of purchase amount. However, subsequent insurance claims/payouts decrease with each subsequent claim in X time frame. This version of insurance protects the casual player that makes a single bad decision, but minimizes exploitability, and doesn’t coddle those that choose to live and die by the sword.
^This. If you consistantly go out and lose your ships then you should expect your premiums to increase just as it would in RL. Whether you keep losing them due to you being a suicide ganker or just through your own darned stupidity in not learning from your prior losses is moot.
Originally by: Celeste DeVall
3.)Some said that the influx of insurance ISK would cause inflation. How about increasing intial insurance amounts exponentially, but upon loss of a ship, the player received a new ship in lieu of ISK.
^This.   Maybe there would be an option when you insure a ship that in the event of a loss you either have the payout as it is at the moment or you could choose to have a new ship issued instead. There could then be a delay so that if you choose a new ship you won't receive it immediately but there is a 24hr delay for it to be delivered to a designated station hanger.
Originally by: Celeste DeVall
In closing, I think that a review of insurance is necessary. Providing a little bit more in insurance, I think, would help a long way in retaining players, without sacrificing much of the hard core environment that many players enjoy.
^This, above all, at the very least is needed.
Ninja Salvaging ain't stealing
from desusig.crumplecorn.com
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 04:09:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Celeste DeVall
In closing, I think that a review of insurance is necessary. Providing a little bit more in insurance, I think, would help a long way in retaining players, without sacrificing much of the hard core environment that many players enjoy.
Insurance is a faucet, one which injects the game world with isk, something we actually need LESS of in the game for the market to work correctly. Adding insurance would only serve to INCREASE the cost of T2 items and components because the T2 market has bottlenecks unlike the T1 market. T1 is governed by player time, demand increases. Prices increase for mins. Those mins become valuable and people go get them in whatever required amounts to bring supply back in line with demand reaching an equalization point.
T2 does not have that luxury. 80% of all T2 is comprised of 2 moon minerals, the rarest of the bunch to be exact. Moon minerals supply are governed by time, and time alone. No amount of player interaction will serve to increase the supply, and really what we are seeing is actually the pressure of that demand on such limited supply.
Adding insurance, adds demand on an already limited supply. And has the added drawback of buffing the isk sink of that ship allowing more isk to be spent in the system. Basically what you would be left with is a spiraling of prices upward, pretty much negating your insurance and increasing the entry barrier for new players since other faucets will remain the same.
If you want T2 insurance, it NEEDS to be player operated. That way no NEW isk enters the game but only changes hands. And when items are destroyed, they are SUNK out of the game and isk is effectively removed. |
Satis Tyr
Minmatar
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 18:17:00 -
[74]
I agree completely with the above.
I am working on a proposal that would allow player run insurance as well as quite a few other things including some (hopefully) effective isk sinks.
Look for my post on Information War within the week.
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 09:28:00 -
[75]
I support the OP as edited to be dependent on average mineral prices :)
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. |
Sydonis
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 00:40:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Sydonis on 07/07/2008 00:40:18
Avon: things are a little rougher than they were even when I started... back in 2004 when I started, you didn't get gatecamps and suicides on miners (although ore thieves were around by then).
I support the idea and suggest two other possible ideas: decrease in the cost of insurance based on CONCORD secrat and a decrease in payout for all pilots based on the security rating of the system. That will stop 0.0 pilots from benefiting (whether that is a good or a bad thing is up to you - it could be argued that you are beyond CONCORD's monitoring and so cannot be confirmed). Coupled with the T1 payout adjustment (leave T2 as it is or possibly remove it completely) and the removal for piracy (a true pirate will simply adjust their profit/loss figures to find the new bottom line) you will see better piracy and less ganking (there IS a difference), it will protect empire miners and the like who stick to high-sec (they won't be safe, but they'll not be AS badly hit by a suicide) and those who delve into low-sec will have a little more danger but not lose the safety net altogether.
Right now, as said earlier, you have the weird system where ship cost + insurance cost is very close to the payout, meaning the ship is very cheap to buy and insure. This should NOT be the case for pirates (they need costs for their business just like the traders/merchants/builders they prey on), nor for those beyond CONCORD's protection (and engaged in active fighting on another nation's behalf usually).
I've been based in 0.0 (I'm ex-DMGI and ex-FIX) and fought there, I've flown alongside BoB and MC and have lost plenty of self-funded ships and didn't insure any of them as far as I know... PVP is too unpredictable - you might lose it or it might survive as long as it takes for the insurance to run out. I've also got a T2 production character, so I can see it from both sides.
So yes, I agree with the no-insurance for piracy and adjusted insurance for T1, but I disagree with insurance for T2. I'd also like to see adjusted insurance for security rating of the system the ship was lost in and also cost for the pilot taking out the insurance with discount for "careful pilots". Perhaps also for security rating increases based on time for positive pilots as part of this (to a set maximum?).
Avon: a little more to your liking, or no?
|
nathaniel flanders
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 10:13:00 -
[77]
I agree on the part for suicide ganking, but T2 is somehow controversial. Simply because me thinks, if one cannot afford loosing a "uninsured T2", he would probably switch to the T1. Which is in fact, a sort of balancing. On the other hand, when flying a T2 ship, you would have to take a T2 fit as well, which makes this whole thing very expensive.
My solution would go like this: No insurances at all, except T1 frigates for the new eve citizens. Fly what you can afford to loose. End of story.
|
Merfio
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 11:12:00 -
[78]
Support
|
Molock Saronen
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 12:06:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Celeste DeVall
3.)Some said that the influx of insurance ISK would cause inflation. How about increasing intial insurance amounts exponentially, but upon loss of a ship, the player received a new ship in lieu of ISK.
Nice PvP. You just killed the industrials building ships.
But I agree with the fact insurance needs to be looked at. |
Nilder Shadowfiyah
3rd Millennium Group
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 12:37:00 -
[80]
T2 ship agreement
|
|
|
Rodj Blake
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 13:21:00 -
[81]
I don't agree with this, as the proposal is not only based on flawed assumptions, but is also open to massive abuse.
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
|
Sir SmellyFart
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 18:20:00 -
[82]
Supported, the way insurance functions now I'd rather see it removed completely.
|
Riho
Gallente
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 12:56:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Riho on 08/07/2008 13:00:57
no support for t2 ship insurance.
t2 ships are elite ships... and thus expencive to lose them. fly t1 if you want to lose less.
EDIT: i acctually feel that insurance should be REMOVED from the game.
it instantly removes the huge suicide problem carebears have.
+ you can t fix t2 ship insurance anyways... as those ships are mostly sold for alot more than their build cost.
so lets see. i build a vaga for 25mil. sell it for a 100. so in other words you should be able to insure it for 100mil or so ?
what would happen if that was possible? id build a vaga for 25mil. sell it to my alt for 10 bil isk. as insurance is taken from build cost. i pay like 10 mil for 10 bil coverage. i go and get killed in that ship... netting me just under 10 bil proffit.
id say... remove insurance at all from t2 ships (the one you get atm is pointless anyways :P)
----------------------------------
Fighting for Minmatar o7
Yes... this is my main.
Extreme Troll Slayer...
|
Siebenthal
|
Posted - 2008.07.15 15:51:00 -
[84]
|
Belmarduk
Amarr
de Prieure
Four Elements
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 15:47:00 -
[85]
Yes I would also say - Remove Insurance completley from the game or make it more expensive.
CCP Please give us casual players a Skill-Queue !
|
Zikka
Hematite Rose
Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 15:57:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Belmarduk
Yes I would also say - Remove Insurance completley from the game or make it more expensive.
I agree :) Or to be fairer on newer players maybe leave 100% insurance on tech 1 frigates/destroyers and 50% on tech 1 cruisers.
But then I never insure anything anyway...
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 16:14:00 -
[87]
I've done some more thinking on the topic of T2 insurance, given the opposition that the topic has raised, and I realized that I want it to exist and be useful, but I don't want it to be on as sweet of terms as T1 insurance is. The 1:2 ratio of insurance premium to insurance is fine, but the 40% basic payout is not. As such, it seems like there should be 5 levels of T2 insurance - 10/20/30/40/50% of market price in premiums gives you a payout of 20/40/60/80/100% of market price. It's significantly more expensive than T1, and more appropriate to the higher-end players who will be using it, but it will at least eliminate the problem of uninsurability for T2 ships.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Kelron Queldine
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 16:20:00 -
[88]
My suggestion would be do away with insurance entirely, at least on the bigger ships. Losing a big ship should be a painful loss, currently you pretty much just lose the cost of the modules on a T1 BS. I don't know how much capitals insure for, and what % of the cost it is, but I find it ridiculous that capital ships can be insured at all. They're meant to be a big investment, not something you can get hundreds of millions back on if you lose.
I hate signatures with no distinct break from the body of the post. |
Lieutenant Isis
Gristle Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 16:30:00 -
[89]
Please remove insurance from the game in its entirety, its just stupid.
|
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.17 21:18:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
If you want T2 insurance, it NEEDS to be player operated.
Welcome to April.  http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=744164
Many of the ideas in this thread, even those in opposition, could be accomplished if CCP could allow for the creation of a player-run insurance business. At the moment, there are too few dependable sources of information to allow such a business to thrive.
MDD
Jump Clones: 8M and NO corp switching |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |