| 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
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 20:36:00 -
[31]
The insurance is basically for the younger players that fit a basic load out so they can get back into the game with out ragequiting. (which happens any way due to their own stupidity usually)
Once you are able to fly ships that require a lot more expensive mods nad hull classes to be effective, you should at the point in the game to make the isk back to replace your hull and the mods/equipment that will at times cost more than the ship itself.
Removing insurance will most likely hurt the noobs that are trying to get into PvP with in the FW arena atm.
As far as Suicide gankers, that is a different separate subject that has been beat around quite a bit.
So really when an older player that fits his/her ship with the mods/rigs to take full advantage of the hull, the insurance payout is pretty small and the loss is fairly substantial.
But then you can argue the point of fly what you can afford. Which actually a good rule to follow.
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 21:27:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Matalino
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.
But since insurance is the same for all, how would one party hope to benefit from such manipulation?
Isn't such manipulation guarded against pretty easily anyhow? Perhaps not enough to make it impossible, but with delayed and averaged indicators to base changes on, and the sheer volume of ships being built/destroyed, I'd think manipulating insurance indicators would prove too large a task even for the big alliances to undertake.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 21:40:00 -
[33]
Well if you weren't a veteran player with probably hundreds of millions of isk would you still want insurance gone?
Funny because a Dominix with 0 items fit and 0 drones doesn't perform well I hear. Fit a BS with full T2 and you are looking at near 20M, fit it with 3x rigs and you are looking at over 50M, thats enough of a loss to make it meaningful to me. If people want to fit their ship with t1 stuff and have a very poor performing ship then why shouldn't they have that choice?
--
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Tappits
Priory Of The Lemon
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 22:25:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Ephemeron
Battleships "should" be expensive, they represent end game ships. They should cost at least 30 mil, considering how useful and powerful they are.
Battleships are end game? what you been smoking?
get new alt skill up for 2 months fly BS (are you endgame at 2 months?)(yes noob but still flying a BS)
Cruisers were uber endgame
Then Battleships were uber endgame
then thay made CAP ships and thay were end game
then suppercaps (moms titans) were end game (every one has a mom now makes me sick)
nest end game ship is well...we will have to see
BS are not end game
and yes you can die in a domi for 3 mill + fittings but i bet 80% of them that die in eve end up costing more
|
Forge Lag
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 22:34:00 -
[35]
So as a new player you are condemned to fit ****ty mods because you cannot insure them, being left with useless ship anyway. Thats what you said. So why no insurance for mods?
Insurance totally screws mineral prices and makes concord response to suicide ganks irrelevant. How more can you screw the game than twisting the economy and security cornerstones? There should be better income at entry levels and less pressure on moving into bigger ships for missions.
|
Faife
Noctiscion
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 22:51:00 -
[36]
ITT: people who instead of saying "oh, this is weird, i wonder how i can make profit using it" are saying "oh, this is weird. OMG END OF THE WORLD CCP DO SOMETHING CHANGE THE WHOLE GAME FOR EVERYONE"
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 22:52:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Forge Lag
So as a new player you are condemned to fit ****ty mods because you cannot insure them, being left with useless ship anyway.
Hah. I guarantee you that a disposable fit is FAR from useless. People have this idea in their heads that tech 1 gear is useless and somehow their setup will be ten times better with tech 2 gear but that's just not the case. The difference of effectiveness between tech 1 and tech 2 gear is not that huge and gangs of disposable ships are still lethal. In a protracted war, using cheap fittings means you can afford to replace your losses more than the enemy, which gives you a distinct strategic advantage.
Pillowsoft - Join the Pillowsoft Gallente Militia, get free ships and support. |
Oakrayven
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 22:56:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Tappits
Originally by: Ephemeron
Battleships are end game? what you been smoking?
eh if you run missions to "pay" for your PvP then currently BS ships are the endgame. you realy dont need/cant use a bigger ship in level 4s.
***** ****
Trust Aura. Aura is Your Friend.
If your too paranoid to play EVE. . .
Then your not paranoid ENOUGH to play EVE |
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 23:03:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Farrqua
The insurance is basically for the younger players that fit a basic load out so they can get back into the game with out ragequiting. (which happens any way due to their own stupidity usually)
Once you are able to fly ships that require a lot more expensive mods nad hull classes to be effective, you should at the point in the game to make the isk back to replace your hull and the mods/equipment that will at times cost more than the ship itself.
Removing insurance will most likely hurt the noobs that are trying to get into PvP with in the FW arena atm.
This topic is about battelships, younger player shoundn't jump into battelships.
It's ok if the ensurance system had favoured smaller ships, but this problem is most urgent for battelships, so the "protect the newb" argument doesn't apply here.
I can kill a gang of cruisers in a t1-fitted cruise raven that costs me a few mil alltogether, even if those cruisers are t2 fitted. For using such a tool like a battelship, i should pay more. But i understand why people want insurance, many come from WoW, where it doesnt't cost anything to be killed except rep and drinks maybe, and they want eve to be the same: a system without steep death penalty.
The problem is, it drives the excitement out of game, no adrenaline anymore, no fun when you know you didn't inflict any harm by killing a dominix.
Today i lost a mighty rokh battelship, but guess what, it was cheaper to lose it than my crow+rigs. Pvp without high stakes for the biggest ships is kinda boring.
|
Arkios Odymei
Incarnation of Evil
Nocturnal Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 23:28:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba
I can kill a gang of cruisers in a t1-fitted cruise raven that costs me a few mil alltogether, even if those cruisers are t2 fitted. For using such a tool like a battelship, i should pay more. But i understand why people want insurance, many come from WoW, where it doesnt't cost anything to be killed except rep and drinks maybe, and they want eve to be the same: a system without steep death penalty.
The problem is, it drives the excitement out of game, no adrenaline anymore, no fun when you know you didn't inflict any harm by killing a dominix.
Today i lost a mighty rokh battelship, but guess what, it was cheaper to lose it than my crow+rigs. Pvp without high stakes for the biggest ships is kinda boring.
First, what you described above is highly situational. If there are 3 or 4 gank-plate rax's on you, my money is going to be on you losing your ship. If its like 2 noob fit, noob piloted osprey's, then of course you will win.
If you take that T1 fitted ship and pit it against a T2 fitted ship of the same class, I'm going to bet that the T2 fit ship is going to come out on top. In order to be competative, you are going to have to spring for expensive mods Just because the ship is insurable doesnt mean that there is no monetary loss associated with the ship loss.
By your example: Your crow is a T2 ship and thus had no real insurance. Now if that ship were fully insurable, would you just be able to shrug off the loss? It really is only as expensive as the mods that you put on it!
Same with a Rokh. When I lose a Rokh, after insurance, Im looking at a net loss of about 150 mill isk in Mods and Rigs. This could be even more if the ship were faction pimped (like your crow).
Again, in conclusion: Ships may be highly disposable when fit with T1 gear, but in order to be conpetative on a 1-to-1 ratio with the enemy, you need to spring for better mods. This is where the true loss comes from. Think of the purchase price as a "barier of entry", while the cost of the ship is actualy the cost of how you fit it.
------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Farrqua
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 23:57:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba
Originally by: Farrqua
The insurance is basically for the younger players that fit a basic load out so they can get back into the game with out ragequiting. (which happens any way due to their own stupidity usually)
Once you are able to fly ships that require a lot more expensive mods nad hull classes to be effective, you should at the point in the game to make the isk back to replace your hull and the mods/equipment that will at times cost more than the ship itself.
Removing insurance will most likely hurt the noobs that are trying to get into PvP with in the FW arena atm.
This topic is about battelships, younger player shoundn't jump into battelships.
It's ok if the ensurance system had favoured smaller ships, but this problem is most urgent for battelships, so the "protect the newb" argument doesn't apply here.
I can kill a gang of cruisers in a t1-fitted cruise raven that costs me a few mil alltogether, even if those cruisers are t2 fitted. For using such a tool like a battelship, i should pay more. But i understand why people want insurance, many come from WoW, where it doesnt't cost anything to be killed except rep and drinks maybe, and they want eve to be the same: a system without steep death penalty.
The problem is, it drives the excitement out of game, no adrenaline anymore, no fun when you know you didn't inflict any harm by killing a dominix.
Today i lost a mighty rokh battelship, but guess what, it was cheaper to lose it than my crow+rigs. Pvp without high stakes for the biggest ships is kinda boring.
Easy dude. I was just making an observation rather than a friggin' argument.
And the part you did not quote OFC is the part I said "you should only fly what you can afford."
Now as the issue about young players "should" not be getting into a BS is absolutely true. I agree with 100%. But trying telling a n00b that. I will bet you that almost every new player that gets into this game goes straight for the biggest damn thing there is.
Now for the n00bs getting into FW, I can see a lot of butt hurt posts and ragequits if insurance is yanked. But thats their problem not yours or mine.
As far your Crow. Well yea t2 polly carb x2 will set you back 400mil. Not counting the snakes, and faction gear you would put on it. But how you fit your ships is your problem.
If insurance is taken a way all together I could really careless.
And btw, I have never played wow or any other MMO.
|
Sergeant Spot
Black Eclipse Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 00:05:00 -
[42]
There is a huge difference between removing Insurance, and removing insurance payout for anyone who dies while flagged by Concord.
Play nice while you butcher each other.
|
Etruscus
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 00:06:00 -
[43]
If I was to design an insurance payout system in eve, I would have one of two systems:
1.) Where you make a lump sum payment to initiate the contract, and through a set of calculations a cost of insurance ("COI") is applied to the account, deducting that portion from the original payment. This daily COI would factor in such things as what systems the individual was in and for how long, corp, alliance, and other data that are easily pullable from the existing database. The insurance contract would remain valid until the cash value of the contract reached zero. The contract can be kept in force by making another lump payment. These payments can be as large or as small as the purchaser desires.
2.) Where the insured pays a daily, weekly, or monthly, flat premium but the proceeds vary depending on the risk profile of the insured through an average of the last series of days (five or ten, for example).
The problem with the current system is that the cost of insurance relative to the maturity payment of the insured does not incorporate enough risk. Ideally, the above mentioned contracts should be provided by the free market.
|
Dramaticus
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 06:39:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Sergeant Spot
There is a huge difference between removing Insurance, and removing insurance payout for anyone who dies while flagged by Concord.
On a successful gank, not really.
Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan |
Brainless Bimbo
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 09:06:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Brainless Bimbo on 15/06/2008 09:12:29
Insurance is broken, The problem is that it is not dynamically linked to the Market and thereby acts as a regulator on it by introducing absolutes (min cost of ship/materials from reprocessing it) into the game.
Insurance was created as far as i can recall reading the forums to offer a buffer to new players from catastrophic loss in the early months of the game, this makes good sense business wise, but it needs tweaking to reflect player driven effects.
Mineral prices it could be argued are kept artifically high by Insurance being avaiable at a set price, yes you get the morons that moan there is a base price given in the item database, but that was set many years ago with 10,000 on the server if that, anyone who thinks it should be set in stone is plainly a FOOL.
Insurance does give a boost to PvP by reducing its effects and while the ebil part of me says do away with Insurance another saner more rational part says link it to the market place as an average between both universal ship price and its universal component basket price so you can't profit from quick term fraud (buying to reprocess to profit), i.e:
Premium Insurance ( $100 ship cost + $70 mineral basket cost to make ship ) / 2 = $85 payout, make the /2 a /3 or /4 for different cover types, not a too complex to code, the Universial Price Data being generated once per day
(Insurance payout could also be linked to have the sec status multiplier 1.0 to 0.1 used in the equation to link where your destroyed with the payout, low sec is riskier so less payout).
...... continues overleaf. |
Lord Evangelian
The White Mantle
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 10:06:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Blind Man
remove insurance
This, I never insuare my ship...since I loose them rarely, and if I do the insuarance never amounts to what I spend on the ship...plus Getting the money for a new ship is the fn part of the game...Insurance is like lives in games, they should have been stoped asoon as th eplatformer died...
--------------------
The White Mantle |
Ral Ulgur
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 10:14:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Blind Man
remove insurance
This.
Or maybe Dr Eve, the economist could find some price index based on mineral and component prices, allowing a balanced insurance, also for t2 ships.
|
Auron Shadowbane
Pelennor Swarm
Souls of Vengeance
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 11:01:00 -
[48]
the problem isnt insurance but that t1 gear is too effective / t2+ is not effective enough.
usually t2 gear is 20% better than unnamed t1 mod but costs 5-100 times as much.
if people fit t1 mods on t1 ships when they have the money and skills to be able to use t2 easily then there is something wrong.
that wrongliness lies in the small difference (~20%) between t2 and t1 mods. it makes a difference in 1v1 or maybe up to 5v5 but how often do you see that happen? and even then strategy (player skill) is more important than how much isk you trew at the fittings. a t1 blasternplatethorax will still rip a t2 fitted stabber if it can catch it and any t1 fitted stabber can run from a t2 fitted thorax if it isnt stupid.
on the other hands there is t2 ships which usually offer special abilities over t1 that make it really worth getting them. exaples are the (heavy)dictors with their bubbles or force recon ships that can warp cloaked.
so for insurance to beb ack in line t2 has to be a "must have" in competetive flight. so boost it by another 30% or give it unique features (prolly only allow t2 to be overheated?)
|
Jenny Spitfire
LoneStar Industries
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 11:05:00 -
[49]
Plaese dont touch insuranse. It is fine now. Insuranse is fur fun in Eve.
---------
Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Go vote!
Put voice for silent majority.
LOVE PVP, HATE grief |
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 11:07:00 -
[50]
You forget that when you first step into a ship you pay insurance as an isk sink, this fluctuates depending on your ship class.
Originally by: Lance Fighter
This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |