| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
   |
Posted - 2008.07.17 21:59:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: Kelron Queldine
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.
This is exactly the problem. Under my plan, an insured battleship will still cost you 30% of market, or 18-45 million, plus module/rig costs. These are not cheap - it'd be cheaper for T2, but significantly more expensive than the bare handfuls of millions it costs now for T1. Costs for a suicide-fit ship would roughly quintuple, and costs for a T2-fit ship would go up by a lower proportion, but still a lot.
As for capitals, you buy a carrier on market for about 900 mil, it insures for its 600 mil mineral costs(the rest is POS fuel and blueprint amortization), and that insurance costs you 180 million. You get back 420 on your 900(or more like 1200 fitted) when it dies, putting you down circa 2/3 of your price. Is that painful enough for you? This plan acts as a major nerf to capital insurance.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Shade Sharphook
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 05:57:00 -
[92]
I'm all for removing insurance payouts when a criminal action has been incurred.
|
Artemis Rose
Eleckrostatik
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 06:24:00 -
[93]
Okay. No.
1st: Do you know how silly fully insurable T2 ships is?
If you don't get enough whinetards crapping bricks all over the place about older players having a PvP advantage, how are they going to respond to knowing losing a T2 fitted commandship costs them a fraction more than losing a BC. EVE is a game of trade-offs. You risk more ISK, you get more ship.
2nd: The cheaper PvP is, the more people PvP and this is a problem WHY?
3rd: High sec needs to be safer why? You have other games for the "Look at my shiny stuff that you can't have" needs.
Do you really think that losing 22 mil rather than 1.2 mil for a gank brutix is going to stop somebody from killing a 800mil hauler? Have you ever suicide ganked in a hotspot? Things can go wrong, vultures will try their hardest to run off with your loot and you can only do it so long until you have to rat secruity status back up. Its not an instant paycheck you make it out to be.
Do not fix what is not broken.
__________________________________________________
Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space
Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine. WTB Purple Nerf Bat. |
Mamba Lev
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 08:54:00 -
[94]
This should happen.
|
Halkin
Locus Solus
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 09:16:00 -
[95]
Originally by: The Monkeysphere
T2 and capital ships shouldn't give any payouts.
CONCORDed ships giving a payout is fine.
t2 not, caps yes. as for concord i gather you (or alt) gank for a living?
Originally by: Elise Randolph
Everybody wins when trolls get trolled.
|
Foulque
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 10:06:00 -
[96]
|
WishBlade
League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 14:16:00 -
[97]
/signed for T2/Faction ships
Signature |
Kai DeathCutter
|
Posted - 2008.07.19 19:45:00 -
[98]
/signed for all
lower t1, buff t2 and nothing for concord losses
|
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 13:09:00 -
[99]
Agreed!
Put all faction items into the market database so escrows are not neccessary, and a price valuation can be established (primarily for ships).
Insurance should be a percentage of total market valuation throughout eve, discarding prices that are wildly out of variance to the norm. CCP has all market data available to them, the computational code should not be too difficult. After all, Eve-central does it!
This, insurance becomes dynamic at the time you buy it!
Ship loss due to self destruct & CONCORD have no payout, not even the default 30%. A flag should be inserted showing the relation between two ships, however, in instances where non-corps accidentally shoot one another while ganged in a mission, but it must be resolved solely via petition (to recieve insurance only, not to reimburse the ship for Whoops factor).
|
Blazing Fire
Interstellar Operations Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.07.23 14:15:00 -
[100]
Not getting an insurance when shot by CONCORD gets my full support.
Blazing Fire
CEO
Interstellar Operations Incorporated
Corp web site
Services
[Service] Killboard hosting
[Service] Forum hosting
[Service] Web site hosting
[Service] Alliance Creation |
J Kunjeh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.24 18:08:00 -
[101]
Originally by: AtomizerX
Surprisingly, I disagree on the insurance payouts for losses due to criminal acts, due to the nature of the insurance itself. It only makes sense if you insure a ship against loss that you are reimbursed upon any loss. However, to counteract criminal acts, there could be some sort of penalty system whereby a criminal is fined either according to his actions or based on the ship used, so this could counterbalance the insurance payouts. In short, it doesn't make sense to revoke insurance payouts under certain conditions, but penalizing criminals another way gets around the problem.
Actually, it makes complete sense to have exceptions to insurance payouts built into the policy. It happens in RL with every insurance company. There are things that, for instance, your auto insurance will not cover...like intentionally driving it off a cliff, or acts of war, or mother natures wrath, etc.
|
J Kunjeh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.24 18:10:00 -
[102]
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.
Now there's a good idea. Anything in the game that can be turned over to the players is a good thing, as long as it's well thought out and implemented correctly.
|
icarus braciolini
The Fraternity
CODE RED ALLIANCE
|
Posted - 2008.07.24 19:09:00 -
[103]
i fully support this product/service
|
El Yatta
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.07.24 19:18:00 -
[104]
Not supported, horrible idea. Decrease insurance!
_______________________________________________
Mercenary Forces |
Draygo Korvan
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.24 19:20:00 -
[105]
Self destruct was implemented to stop griefing of the sort where a player holds down another player indefinatly with a warp disrupter and web with no intent on killing. So removing insurance on self destruct in that case no longer makes sense.
The problem is insurance is too cheap compared to what it insures, fix that and self destructing problems are automatically fixed.
--
|
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 01:45:00 -
[106]
I agree regarding insurance currently paying too much and T2 insurance. However, I think that T2 insurance should still be a bit below market value to make those ships really MATTER to lose (but not be absurdly expensive to lose as they are now).
However, I disagree with regards to suicide ganking. It should still pay insurance, but with the adjusted insurance prices, it will be more practical and not occur as often.
Also, faction ships should not insure for their full value. That would be a tad ridiculous.
|
Dewar Scrabulous
Minmatar
Dreugan Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 01:51:00 -
[107]
While I agree with the issues in this thread, they really should be 2 or 3 separate threads to allow more granular voting.
---
|
galphi
Unitary Senate
Unitary Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 09:46:00 -
[108]
Definetly in support of all points made by the OP.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |