EVE Search - [Issue] Fix insurance

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Fix insurance

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.25 16:05:00 - [1] Right now, insurance is a rather problematic system. At the moment, I see three problems with it. Firstly, it's incredibly discriminatory against T2 ships. A T1 ship insures for more than its market value, a T2 ship ensures for a small fraction of its market value. Somebody flying a T2 ship can't get worthwhile insurance at the moment. Secondly, due to mineral price deflation, we're starting to get to the point where you can buy a ship, insure it, lose it, and only be down a few percent of its value. For example, in my current region, a Scorpion sells for 53.9 million isk, and its base price is 71.25 million, meaning full insurance costs 21.375 million. Ship costs plus insurance costs are only 4 million more than insurance payouts, meaning that you can fit it out with lower-end gear and get the combat(or in this case ECM) power of a battleship for the cost of a T1 cruiser or T2 frigate. PvP is nearly free for people who use T1 ships. And thirdly, a person who gets shot by Concord for breaking the law gets their ship reimbursed by the SCC, which is an agency of Concord. This is just nonsensical - not only in RP terms, but also because in conjunction with problem #2, it means that suicide ganking is insanely cheap - it's worth losing an Armageddon to Concord to kill a hauler with a single +4 implant in it, because the 50% chance of a module 1/3 the price of your ship dropping pays for your battleship loss easily. My proposed solution is relatively simple. Insurance prices and payouts will be based on average Eve-wide market prices, not "base prices" that have been obsolete for many years now, and anyone killed by Concord will not be reimbursed anything more than maybe their insurance fee. There's two holes I see in this setup, however, and we'd need a way to patch them. The first is faction ships - since they aren't on market, you can't get a market average price for them. The two possible fixes for this are to marketize them or to use average contract prices - it doesn't much matter which. The second problem is ships that are rare enough that there's no useful price data for them - how do you price an Erebus or an Imperial Apocalypse? I honestly don't know what the solution to that problem is, and maybe that's a spot where keeping base prices intact(or maybe just have GMs make **** up, which is really the same thing) might be a good idea, but it'd need to be addressed. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.25 16:05:00 - [2] Right now, insurance is a rather problematic system. At the moment, I see three problems with it. Firstly, it's incredibly discriminatory against T2 ships. A T1 ship insures for more than its market value, a T2 ship ensures for a small fraction of its market value. Somebody flying a T2 ship can't get worthwhile insurance at the moment. Secondly, due to mineral price deflation, we're starting to get to the point where you can buy a ship, insure it, lose it, and only be down a few percent of its value. For example, in my current region, a Scorpion sells for 53.9 million isk, and its base price is 71.25 million, meaning full insurance costs 21.375 million. Ship costs plus insurance costs are only 4 million more than insurance payouts, meaning that you can fit it out with lower-end gear and get the combat(or in this case ECM) power of a battleship for the cost of a T1 cruiser or T2 frigate. PvP is nearly free for people who use T1 ships. And thirdly, a person who gets shot by Concord for breaking the law gets their ship reimbursed by the SCC, which is an agency of Concord. This is just nonsensical - not only in RP terms, but also because in conjunction with problem #2, it means that suicide ganking is insanely cheap - it's worth losing an Armageddon to Concord to kill a hauler with a single +4 implant in it, because the 50% chance of a module 1/3 the price of your ship dropping pays for your battleship loss easily. My proposed solution is relatively simple. Insurance prices and payouts will be based on average Eve-wide market prices, not "base prices" that have been obsolete for many years now, and anyone killed by Concord will not be reimbursed anything more than maybe their insurance fee. There's two holes I see in this setup, however, and we'd need a way to patch them. The first is faction ships - since they aren't on market, you can't get a market average price for them. The two possible fixes for this are to marketize them or to use average contract prices - it doesn't much matter which. The second problem is ships that are rare enough that there's no useful price data for them - how do you price an Erebus or an Imperial Apocalypse? I honestly don't know what the solution to that problem is, and maybe that's a spot where keeping base prices intact(or maybe just have GMs make **** up, which is really the same thing) might be a good idea, but it'd need to be addressed. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Piitaq 19th Star Logistics	Posted - 2008.05.25 16:42:00 - [3] I support this! Loosing a ship by self destruct or engaging in criminal activities, should void the insurance. Makes perfect sense. The issue with extremely rare ships, isnt that big a problem IMHO (+ I dont have any) when you have something extremely rare or extremely valuable, it should be impossible to insure, or very very costfull. Those special faction ships, isnt meant to be used in a day to day roaming gang, more like a parade ship or something you would field in epic battles that REALLY means something, and can change the history of EVE. just my 0.02 ISK
Havohej The Defias Brotherhood DEFI4NT	Posted - 2008.05.25 20:10:00 - [4] Originally by: Piitaq I support this! Loosing a ship by self destruct or engaging in criminal activities, should void the insurance. Makes perfect sense. The issue with extremely rare ships, isnt that big a problem IMHO (+ I dont have any) when you have something extremely rare or extremely valuable, it should be impossible to insure, or very very costfull. Those special faction ships, isnt meant to be used in a day to day roaming gang, more like a parade ship or something you would field in epic battles that REALLY means something, and can change the history of EVE. just my 0.02 ISK You're dumber than the OP. Originally by: techzer0 I'm invincible until proven wrong
Kame Malice	Posted - 2008.05.25 20:45:00 - [5] Originally by: Havohej Originally by: Piitaq I support this! Loosing a ship by self destruct or engaging in criminal activities, should void the insurance. Makes perfect sense. The issue with extremely rare ships, isnt that big a problem IMHO (+ I dont have any) when you have something extremely rare or extremely valuable, it should be impossible to insure, or very very costfull. Those special faction ships, isnt meant to be used in a day to day roaming gang, more like a parade ship or something you would field in epic battles that REALLY means something, and can change the history of EVE. just my 0.02 ISK You're dumber than the OP. If i recall, this is the kind of comment people get reported for... and would you look at that, i just reported you... Back on topic, I kind of like the concept, but it needs to be flushed out a bit.
Havohej The Defias Brotherhood DEFI4NT	Posted - 2008.05.25 21:23:00 - [6] Oooooh, that's never happened before. Dump idea is dumb, dumb reply is dumber, and I'm going to post it every time I see it - report away, dummy. Originally by: techzer0 I'm invincible until proven wrong
Demiurges	Posted - 2008.05.25 21:37:00 - [7] /signed
MentaFox StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.05.25 22:34:00 - [8] Edited by: MentaFox on 25/05/2008 22:34:05 /signed especially the broken T2 insurance ----------------------
De Vito Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.25 23:59:00 - [9] agree for T2 ships
Skogen Gump	Posted - 2008.05.26 00:16:00 - [10] I agree, with the side-motion that Insurance be nerfed for Suicide gankers in high-sec.

MindBender coracao ardente Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2008.05.26 00:22:00 - [11] Tech 2 Ships have always been an issue with insurance though with the bringing of Invention, the prices of T2 Ships have dropped significantly and are much more reasonable, though Insurance doesn't match these cost. What would be nice is a system that takes a Universe wide average for the month for ships across all Empire Region (Using a Median system to avoid sort of price tampering) and then applies that number towards Insurance returns/costs. Overall, my support for a revamp of Insurance. [This Space for Sale]
Zetjur Jilnou Rapid Deployment Industries	Posted - 2008.05.26 01:16:00 - [12] No support. T2 is supposed to be expensive, having full insurance is a bad thing for them. Losing them is supposed to be a kick in the teeth. Remove T2 (and perhaps capital) insurance and fix the rest to market prices and you might have my support on that...
AtomizerX	Posted - 2008.05.26 02:22:00 - [13] I do agree to adjusting the insurance payouts, particularly for T2 ships. Even though they're supposed to be expensive, we should still be able to insure them fully; if desired, CCP could simply make the premiums higher for T2 ships. 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.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.26 04:05:00 - [14] Originally by: Zetjur Jilnou No support. T2 is supposed to be expensive, having full insurance is a bad thing for them. Losing them is supposed to be a kick in the teeth. Remove T2 (and perhaps capital) insurance and fix the rest to market prices and you might have my support on that... 30% of hull price, plus all your mods and rigs, isn't cheap. I'm not sure it's quite as much of a kick in the teeth as you'd like, but it'd still hurt. It's not that I really oppose your solution, but the current anemic middle ground of T2 ships insuring like T1 is just asinine. ------------------ Fix the forums!
shuckstar Hauling hogs CryoGenesis Mining Syndicate	Posted - 2008.05.26 06:16:00 - [15]
Divad Ginleek Gateway Industries House of Mercury	Posted - 2008.05.26 06:24:00 - [16] puts the jihadswarm in perspective when you think that the most they lost on any of those suicide ships was a few mil. while the miners in the hulks they blasted probably didn't even bother buying insurance, since it costs 11 mil to buy 29 mil worth of coverage on a 100-ish mil ship... the numbers just don't work out right. We need us some Geico in EVE =). ::insert witty signature here::
Mael DeVries Hobbit Enterprises GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.26 07:05:00 - [17] Support, because I want to sell me some billion ISK Ravens to boost regional insurance payouts. [SIZE="1"]"Nothing the EVE client can do can affect the game state" CCP Wrangler[/SIZE]
M4g3ll4n Circle of Shadows	Posted - 2008.05.26 10:31:00 - [18] jep, revise insurance.
Ameliorate	Posted - 2008.05.26 10:34:00 - [19] Supporting this, rather long and drawn-out issue ---- Train skills, check mail and pay bills from your mobile: Support my CSM issue
Esmenet	Posted - 2008.05.26 10:54:00 - [20] The insurance is working as intended. T2 is supposed to be expensive.

Inanna Zuni The Causality Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.05.26 11:56:00 - [21] Insurance in EVE as in 'real life' needs some sort of fixed odds in regards to the level of benefit received otherwise it is easy to game (as noted above, sell a few billion-isk ravens) and the present levels of payout were set ages back when minerals costed more, so there could be an argument to revise payouts down generally to reflect the new cost of building a (T1) ship. Using an "average mineral price of last 90 days" would work and not be too gameable. T2 ships are, aiui, intentionally under-insured, although a fixed cost could probably be determined on a similar basis to the existing T1 calculation. Self-destruction and suicide ganking in hisec / Empire would seem to me to be situations in which there should be no insurance payout. "Insurance" is defined as a payment made to cover unexpected losses. Intentionally getting your ship blown up is planned so should not be covered. Whilst it is currently possible to buy a T1 ship and fit it too for the insurance payout there is still the expenditure you make for that insurance cover! No ship is therefore ever "free". IZ My principles
Kuranta Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.05.26 13:23:00 - [22] Originally by: Esmenet The insurance is working as intended. T2 is supposed to be expensive. I'll support you instead.
Jelek Coro Art of War Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2008.05.26 14:33:00 - [23] Nothing wrong with insurance... if demands pusges prices above the insurance level... tough. Treat it as a luxury.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.26 15:12:00 - [24] Originally by: Inanna Zuni Insurance in EVE as in 'real life' needs some sort of fixed odds in regards to the level of benefit received otherwise it is easy to game (as noted above, sell a few billion-isk ravens) and the present levels of payout were set ages back when minerals costed more, so there could be an argument to revise payouts down generally to reflect the new cost of building a (T1) ship. Using an "average mineral price of last 90 days" would work and not be too gameable. T2 ships are, aiui, intentionally under-insured, although a fixed cost could probably be determined on a similar basis to the existing T1 calculation. Self-destruction and suicide ganking in hisec / Empire would seem to me to be situations in which there should be no insurance payout. "Insurance" is defined as a payment made to cover unexpected losses. Intentionally getting your ship blown up is planned so should not be covered. Whilst it is currently possible to buy a T1 ship and fit it too for the insurance payout there is still the expenditure you make for that insurance cover! No ship is therefore ever "free". IZ I'll also agree on self-destruction, that's just regular insurance fraud and should also be uncompensated. I'd want to see a displayed countdown to self-destruction, of course, but that's yet another thing that should always have been in the game and whose continued absence stuns me. Concerns about gameability I'll accept, and a mineral-based insurance scheme wouldn't bother me. Give a bit of a markup(5-10%) for builder prices, inefficient BP's, and the like, but that would also be acceptible to me. You'd still have concerns about T2 being misrepresented, because the invention system produces drastically different prices than the BPO system, but that's implementation details, which I won't worry too much about. That said, you misunderstand my point with regards to free T1 ships. At the moment, ship insurance prices are based on mineral "base prices", which are 2/8/32/128/512/2048/8192 for the seven minerals. Trit and zyd are over those prices, but the other five are way under, meaning that the actual cost of a ship is dramatically less than its base price. Full insurance costs 30% of base price and pays out 100%, meaning that if market price is 70% of base price, you can compensate yourself for both the hull and the insurance premium with the insurance payout. If hull prices ever get to 65% of base prices, you can turn a profit by buying, insuring, and self-destructing your ship(or getting it shot up, if self-destruct insurance goes away). Similarly, it is proper play style at the moment for you to self-destruct an unrigged T1 ship on the last day of insurance, because the payout is higher than the hull cost, and you'll have to re-insure anyways. I'm not forgetting the price of insurance premiums - my whole issue here is that it's possible for players to just about forget them, since the ships are all so dramatically overinsured. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Domosan The Singularity Amalgamation Pure.	Posted - 2008.05.26 17:10:00 - [25] 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
Che Biko	Posted - 2008.05.26 17:10:00 - [26] I agree that insurance needs to be revised, particularly insurance paid for CONCORD destroyed ships. It also might be a good idea to have insurance costs depend on, for example, the amount of insurance payouts received by the player last year.
Slickdrac JET FORCE Ka-Tet	Posted - 2008.05.26 17:16:00 - [27] 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. I suck at forums
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.26 18:51:00 - [28] 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. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.05.26 21:54:00 - [29] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto My proposed solution is relatively simple. Insurance prices and payouts will be based on average Eve-wide market prices, not "base prices" that have been obsolete for many years now, and anyone killed by Concord will not be reimbursed anything more than maybe their insurance fee. This would be far too vulnerable to exploit. For example: - build 10k units of the least used frig (tourmentor, imicus, etc) - insure 5k of them at what, 10k/ship? - Put for sell the remaining 5k at 5 millions/unit - Have an alt buy them all. - start self-destructing the insured ships and receive 5 millions each time. There's tons of variants of the thing you can do. Because a market average is just too easy to manipulate. A price calculated from average mineral prices, however, THAT is far harder to cheat with, because manipulating it in a signifiant way would require the kind of capital that even bob and RA would be hard-pressed to put on it. About insurance of T2, no. CCP stated long ago that if the advantage given by T2 over T1 stuff was one side of the coin, the possibility of real loss was the other side. ------------------------------------------
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.27 01:39:00 - [30] Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto My proposed solution is relatively simple. Insurance prices and payouts will be based on average Eve-wide market prices, not "base prices" that have been obsolete for many years now, and anyone killed by Concord will not be reimbursed anything more than maybe their insurance fee. This would be far too vulnerable to exploit. For example: - build 10k units of the least used frig (tourmentor, imicus, etc) - insure 5k of them at what, 10k/ship? - Put for sell the remaining 5k at 5 millions/unit - Have an alt buy them all. - start self-destructing the insured ships and receive 5 millions each time. There's tons of variants of the thing you can do. Because a market average is just too easy to manipulate. A price calculated from average mineral prices, however, THAT is far harder to cheat with, because manipulating it in a signifiant way would require the kind of capital that even bob and RA would be hard-pressed to put on it. About insurance of T2, no. CCP stated long ago that if the advantage given by T2 over T1 stuff was one side of the coin, the possibility of real loss was the other side. Like I said, I'm fine with using mineral prices as your baseline instead of market prices. This is an exploit I didn't consider, and I'm fine with fixing it as you suggest. Re T2, I thought the drawback was that they cost 5-20x as much as their T1 equivalents. And this isn't the "ships are all-but-free" insurance that exists now, it's the "even an insured ship still hurts to lose" insurance that should exist but doesn't. I can see the other side of that argument, but I think the cost:benefit ratio is appropriate even with my proposed changes. ------------------ Fix the forums!

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]

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

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]

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.