Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ephemeron
Anti-BoB
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 16:42:00 -
[1]
Getting your next Dominix in Jita will set you back about 3 mil isk..
How? Current price of Dominix in Jita is 47 mil, the cost of full insurance is 18.75 mil Total cost: 65.75 Insurance payout: 62.5 mil
Net cost of the Dominix: 3.25 mil
I don't know what CCP are thinking, but I consider this situation completely unacceptable. Battleships "should" be expensive, the represent end game ships. They should cost at least 30 mil, considering how useful and powerful they are.
Many people agree that insurance system needs to be revised, it does not keep up with the changing market conditions and it offers too many advantages where there should be none.
Personally, I would completely remove all insurance from everything smaller than a battlecruiser. I'd go as far as to remove the default payout too.
What do you think? 3.25 mil per Dominix a good thing for EVE?
|
soldieroffortune 258
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 16:49:00 -
[2]
Edited by: soldieroffortune 258 on 14/06/2008 16:49:23 next topic, this has been discussed a million times
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 16:51:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Nyphur on 14/06/2008 16:52:24
CCP aren't the ones selling dominixes in Jita. The price is hitting its floor due to oversupply of minerals in Jita. This artificial floor is the point at which the loss from building, insuring and self-destructing a dominix is zero. If the price right now were to drop by another 4mil, for example, it would be profitable to buy and suicide them. The insurance system is a little broken due to the oversupply of minerals but dynamic systems that keep up with market trends are open to abuse. This problem has been discussed at length and all I can say is fixing it will not be easy.
Thanks for the heads up, though. Have to get me a few Dominixes for FW :).
Pillowsoft - Join the Pillowsoft Gallente Militia, get free ships and support. |
Shakuul
Infinitus Sapientia New Eden Research
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 16:53:00 -
[4]
Well, a 3.25mil Dominix comes with 0 guns. If you're using it for any kind of NPCing, insurance isn't really relevant since you should never lose your ship. If you're using it for pvp you will probably spend at least 10-20mil more on T2 Ogres and whatever other T2 fittings.
However, in general I agree with the OP that insurance is silly, and the first response that this has been discussed many times before.
|
Blind Man
Point Blank Carebears
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 16:55:00 -
[5]
remove insurance ╟
|
Matalino
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 16:57:00 -
[6]
The problem is not with insurance prices: those have been set in stone since the battleships were created.
The problem is mineral prices. If the cost of losing a battleship is too low it is because mineral prices are too low.
Blow more stuff up to help raise mineral prices.
|
Jason Edwards
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:03:00 -
[7]
Isnt really the domi as the problem.
Raven is the same way.
This doesnt even really pose a problem. EXCEPT in the relation to suicide gankers. They pay maybe 5mil per suicide ganking. Even if 50% of the typical hauler's cargo goes kaboom... That's profit. Only takes some tech 1 drones, torp raven with tech 1 siege launchers, some bcus all tech 1 That's alpha dmg of 4000+ dmg. The typical iteron's effective hp is about 4500.
I have no idea how quick concord shows up but if you're right ontop of the hauler and survive 8 seconds. The second strike is another 4500dmg. If you have some hammerhead tech 1s... that's another 100dps at least so another 800 dmg before that second strike.
Extremely cheap and almost guarenteed to profit irregardless to the target as you can pick up most of your wreck afterwards and start over at very little expense. ------------------------ "There was this bright flash of light - and now this egg shaped thing is on my screen - did I level up?" |
Inir Ishtori
The Guardian Agency Guardian Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:03:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Inir Ishtori on 14/06/2008 17:05:08 err... soo BOOHOOO? people can afford to lose a ship without sitting next 2-3 days on theirs asses to replace them? thus more pvp occuring? OMGWTF! how can it be?! the game is completely ruined
well, thats for the flaming part.
on the more serious side i think the cheapness of battleships comes from the popularity of nano ships. and as people have already said the modules have a cost too, same for drones and rigs.
ps.: ahh i see now, you are basically crying about high sec gankings. easy solution: no insurance for ships killed by concord.
|
Matalino
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:10:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Inir Ishtori on the more serious side i think the cheapness of battleships comes from the popularity of nano ships.
How does the popularity of nano ships affect the price of battleships?
Battleships sell for near to their minerals value.
Mineral prices go up, so does the price of battleships.
Mineral prices go down, so does the price of battleships.
The popularity of nano ships has no effect on mineral prices.
As I pointed out in my last post. Mineral prices are too low. If mineral prices were what they "should" be, then the cost of losing any T1 ship would be 30% of its price plus whatever modules you have fitted.
It is because people are willing/able to produce minerals for less than their base price that the net cost of losing a battleship is so low.
|
Ephemeron
Anti-BoB
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:10:00 -
[10]
I don't think of suicide gankers in particular. But the idea is the same - suicide ganking and 0.0 pvp can be done with the same ships, same setups. It should hurt people when they lose a battleship.
If people don't want to spend much money, they shouldn't fly battleships in the first place.
Insurance has to go.
|
|
Matalino
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:14:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Ephemeron Insurance has to go.
Because it is much more fun to be destitute and poor all the time?
That would be a great way to boost high sec mission running.
Not such a great boost to faction and null sec warfare.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:15:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ephemeron Insurance has to go.
Nah, let's just blow more battleships up.
Pillowsoft - Join the Pillowsoft Gallente Militia, get free ships and support. |
Ephemeron
Anti-BoB
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:21:00 -
[13]
What makes EVE PvP special is the harsh death penalty.
When people fear, they have respect. No fear - no respect.
Otherwise it's just Counter Strike in space.
|
Zephyr Rengate
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:24:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Ephemeron What makes EVE PvP special is the harsh death penalty.
When people fear, they have respect. No fear - no respect.
Otherwise it's just Counter Strike in space.
Fly t2 ships.
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire I habe no life.
|
RigelKentaurus
Flying Tartiflette Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:29:00 -
[15]
Edited by: RigelKentaurus on 14/06/2008 17:31:10
Originally by: Inir Ishtori Edited by: Inir Ishtori on 14/06/2008 17:05:08 err... soo BOOHOOO? people can afford to lose a ship without sitting next 2-3 days on theirs asses to replace them? thus more pvp occuring? OMGWTF! how can it be?! the game is completely ruined
If one considers that when CCP talked about "a harsh blablabla etc", it exactly meant that losing a ship would hurt that much, then the game is indeed ruined.
There are many ways to solve this problem.
For instance, insurances could be dynamic: based on the average prices of minerals over every empire region. Or the supply of minerals could be decreased: replacing every module dropped by NPCs (not rogue drones) with bpcs could do the trick (and would please industrialists). _________
Someday, EVE may look like this. |
Jastra
Stardream Research
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:34:00 -
[16]
There is absolutely nothing wrong with it when you consider that the majority of people will fly with at least some T2 gear, adding up very quickly to 25-50% of the cost
The issue here is not with the insurance, it's with people making Domis for that much, they are making very, very little profit (assuming as you should that minerals are not free)
|
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:42:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Ephemeron What makes EVE PvP special is the harsh death penalty.
When people fear, they have respect. No fear - no respect.
Otherwise it's just Counter Strike in space.
Rig and T2 fit your BS and then tell us there's no death penalty.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Sergeant Spot
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:53:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 14/06/2008 17:55:16
I dont mind good insurance, except for suicide gankers, who should get none in 0.5+.
0.5+ suicide ganking should be rare, expensive and focused, NOT casual, common and cheap.
Its the "casual" part that bugs me.
Casual ganking is for low sec and 0.0.
Even with Concord, there is no "meaningful" consequence for suicide gankers.
Play nice while you butcher each other.
|
Ephemeron
Anti-BoB
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 18:03:00 -
[19]
I want to know CCP's official opinion on this matter.
I know their game, I find it hard to believe that they would think 3 mil isk battleships are just fine. They should at least decide to change it "soon", meaning they think about it but it's not gonna happen for next couple years. At least that would be admitting the problem.
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 18:10:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Qui Shon on 14/06/2008 18:12:12
Originally by: Matalino The problem is not with insurance prices: those have been set in stone since the battleships were created.
Which means the problem IS with insurance prices. Having them set in stone while the market is not set in stone, is just plain daft.
The insurance mechanic is broken, always has been. It just took some changes in mineral prices before people noticed.
Concord provide nothing for the prepared, thanks to insurance.
|
|
Bo Bojangles
Spartan Industrial Manufacturing SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 18:14:00 -
[21]
I don't think there's anything wrong with full replacement cost insurance,.. well, excepting for the fact that IRL an underwriter would smile and nod amiably at you while fumbling for the little red button under his desk when you asked him to insure your war vessel.
I only wish there were policies that covered the entire cost of a HAC. Or a POS, I think I'd be much more inclined to write a policy up for a POS than a BS.
|
Matalino
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 18:23:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Ephemeron I want to know CCP's official opinion on this matter.
I asked for their official opinion on this shortly after I joined the game.
Back then mineral prices were low enough that you could make a profit by insuring then destroying your ship.
The official response: working as intended, if someone is willing to sell a ship for less than it is worth, that is the problem of the person selling the ship.
As I have already pointed out the problem is mineral prices.
Specificly: Pyerite: 50% below base price Mexallon: 25% below base price Isogen: 50% below base price Nocxium: 80% below base price Megacyte: 50% below base price
The remain two minerals: Tritanium: 50% above base price Zydrine: 10% above base price
The problem is not with insurance, the problem is with the supply of minerals.
This affects not only the cost of T1 ships, but also T1 modules.
Should CCP take a look at this: sure.
What they should do to fix it: I don't know, but hopefully the doctor can come up with something.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 18:28:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Matalino hopefully the doctor can come up with something.
After the shuttle escapade, I doubt the good doctor's abilities.
Pillowsoft - Join the Pillowsoft Gallente Militia, get free ships and support. |
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 18:45:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Matalino
The problem is not with insurance, the problem is with the supply of minerals.
That's ridiculous. Of course the problem is with insurance. Having fixed insurance prices would be a faulty mechanic no matter what the mineral prices were.
If we had minerals at 200% over base value, and thus ship prices way above insurance value, insurance would be just as faulty. Well, almost. The current situation is worse, since it allows cost free suicideganks, an thus makes financially circumventing concord possible.
|
Matalino
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 19:14:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Qui Shon That's ridiculous. Of course the problem is with insurance. Having fixed insurance prices would be a faulty mechanic no matter what the mineral prices were.
A fixed market would be bad, but having insurance payouts based on values that can be manipulated by players would be far worse.
|
Rawr Cristina
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 19:17:00 -
[26]
Welcome to T1 ships. They only cost as much as the modules you fit them with.
And that's the way it should be TYVM. ...
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 19:22:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Rawr Cristina Welcome to T1 ships. They only cost as much as the modules you fit them with.
And that's the way it should be TYVM.
Indeed. There's a distinct difference between a ship loss being real and a ship loss being significant. If you don't want to lose a fifth of your net worth when you die, having the choice of using Tech 1 ships is a good thing. Just because you don't lose a lot of isk doesn't make the loss any less real.
Pillowsoft - Join the Pillowsoft Gallente Militia, get free ships and support. |
Dramaticus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 19:22:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Sergeant Spot Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 14/06/2008 17:55:16
I dont mind good insurance, except for suicide gankers, who should get none in 0.5+.
0.5+ suicide ganking should be rare, expensive and focused, NOT casual, common and cheap.
Its the "casual" part that bugs me.
Casual ganking is for low sec and 0.0.
Even with Concord, there is no "meaningful" consequence for suicide gankers.
They will only be as rare as the multi-billion isk freighter loads or faction fitted Hulks. Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan |
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 19:37:00 -
[29]
remove drone regions - putting the gist back into logistics |
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 19:46:00 -
[30]
Making ISK is extremely boring in EVE, so unless the prices are reasonable, PVP is only for kids using daddy's CC for GTC=>ISK and T2 BPO owners etc.
That said, a Domi without fittings/rigs/drones is useless and a proper fit will set you back another 50m+ as you know very well.
Also, the "oh so harsh" death penalty in EVE makes PVP boring too when you have to chase cloaking noobs for hours because they're too scared to engage. FW showed that more people are willing to fight when they can use cheap ships (without getting mocked etc.).
How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |