Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:06:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Sorted
Originally by: Celeste Coeval Insurance should be a player funded thing through new contract options. If you are a risky bet insurance wise, you might not get any:)
best idea I have heard in a long time,.
And how do you imagine that this will work? (Please include real EvE players in your explanation, not imaginary trustworthy MMO-playing angels)
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Hegbard
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:13:00 -
[62]
I agree with removing insurance. It causes inflation and adds regulation to the part of the economy that doesn't need regulation. Without insurance, the ship prices would most likely drop very fast to saner levels. Right now, I believe insurance pushes up prices on intermediate ships making it so much harder for newbies to upgrade their ships. Because even though a ship costs X million in reality (price it costs to buy + insurance - insurance payout) the newbie has to collect 4 * X to get it the first time. It's silly. Insurances don't help anyone except miners and traders who make tons of money from an inflated market.
Without insurance ships would be worth something. Now in FW people just make crappy fits and have insurance cover their costs. Boooring.
|
Tonkin
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:17:00 -
[63]
last time a insured my ships is when i flew t1 cruisers
hacs dont pay out good, plus my bs setup costs twice as much as the ship
average price with ship 320 mill, if i do ever rmember to insure it i loose alot more than 35 mill lol.
|
Sturmwolke
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:24:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
<snip>
Troll with half-cooked arguments?
OP, let me see if I got this right, your reasons for the removal of insurance : 1) to make replacing T1 ships 100% harder - in either cost or time spent to grind the ISK 2) you prefer to grind a wardecced corp to dust in a shorter time because they can't replace their losses quickly 3) pirates are having a hard time ransoming T1 ships because playes refuse to pay ransom 4) wants CCP to be fair, because they're planning to remove insurance from suicide gankers in highsec
and then suggested: 5) putting an arbitrary time limit to new players for insurance application
Do I even want to bother and write reply? Well, why not, let's see if this gets any funnier.
1) It makes little difference to elite players and long time rich players rolling in hundreds of millions or billions. However, it makes a huge impact to new players and PVPers who rely on T1 ships. Your first suggestion effectively breaks the game and skews it in favour of the former, yet, nothing fundamental has really changed. If the income level stays and you need to spend extra ISK or time to replace your losses, is there a point to play EVE anymore for casual players?
2) Yes, it'll make me happy if I can grind that 10 man corp to dust through economic losses under 1 week. Oh hang on, what this!? A 1000 man PVP corp wardeccing us ... mommy, help!!!11 Oh wait a sec, why don't we just dock for the wardec duration - 0 losses and wage a physcological war against them instead. Again, nothing's fundamentally changed and PVP/merc corps will probably run dry of targets. Having fun now? Do I need to illustrate this point further huh?
3) Pirates, ahh yes. Aren't they supposed to be "good" pirates? Picking good and juicy targets over a pathetic Ibis or the odd T1 frigates. Best of all, good pirates ransom successfully and then kill their targets for the lulz. I'm sure there are plenty of folks that see the fallacy of trusting a good pirate. As a reason to be mentioned, "ransom" is not on solid ground.
4) And what does this accomplish? If I can't get rich anymore by ganking just about anyone in highsec (without picking my targets carefully), then screw the EVE universe - they don't deserve any insurance payments? I don't care how many different playstyles people have.
5) This is clever, put an arbitrary time limit to new players' insurance application. Great, now they have to log into EVE every single day and grind ISK as much as they can for several hours. No RL vacation, no family time, no work, no friends ... hmm, anything else I missed? Oh wait, I'm not done yet :) Looky here ... I see a macro program. Hehehe .... I'm sooo going to macro now!!
|
Hazzard
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:38:00 -
[65]
Veto
|
Beltantis Torrence
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:41:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus It devalues ships. If a ship is destroyed, and it's insured, then the pilot says 'oh well, I only lost 35m on this BS'. The relative value of that ship to the pilot is the replacement cost of the mods plus new insurance, not the cost of the ship.
One major problem that this causes is it makes it extremely hard to cripple an opponent financially through war losses. With insurance you're effectively diluting combat accomplishments because killing a 130m ISK BS isn't taking 130m out of the enemies' wallet, but only 33m or so, plus fittings, which are usually T2, and as we all know, T2 mods are cheap as hell now.
Another problem with insurance is trying to make a living ransoming people as a pirate. The players go 'oh well, blow me up, I don't care. It's insured.' If this is such a harsh world CCP, why the hand holding?
Frankly, I'm all for removing insurance payouts from suicide killers in empire, but CCP should be fair to everyone and remove all insurance from all ships across the board.
With respect to new players: allow new players to insure their ships (any sort) for the first three months (90 days) of their account. After that, no insurance. And no, this wouldn't circumvent the no payout rule for Concord deaths.
*Or*, an even more interesting option: design 'noob cruisers' that you can get for free. They would be fairly weak in performance, but noobs could run missions with them and do hauling stuff at a low level, they'd be a little more capable than noob frigs, but you'd only be allowed to get them for free for your first sixty days in Eve. After that you're on your own to make up for your mistakes.
Naw, this would just cut down on PVP and who wants that? More pew pew please.
In fact I'd go the other way and I think CCP needs to look at T2 ships and make some adjustments. The base prices vs the actual prices are way...way off. I know some of it has to do with moon hoarding in 0.0 and all that jazz and isn't going to be as easy as just tweaking a value but honestly the payout should be based on the aggregate mineral cost calculated at the regional value of those minerals. Currently the payout for a combat recon or the like is roughly 70m shy of what you can buy them for on the open market which means losing a simple recon ship is more expensive than losing a rigged battleship - which is insane. Basically just like the speed nerf what you should see is something of a progression in terms of loss costs ranging sort of like :
T1 Frigate -> T1 Cruiser -> T2 AF/Cov Ops/EAF -> T2 Inty -> T1 BC -> T2 HAC -> T2 Recon -> T1 Battleship -> etc.
So basically a loss for a T2 ship would be just higher in most cases than the T1 variant of the next ship in the chain in terms of size. Numbers something like :
.5M -> 1-3M -> 5-7M -> 8-9M -> 12 - 15M -> 16 - 25M -> 35-40M.
I'm just throwing around numbers but you see where I'm going with this.
|
Gimpb
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:56:00 -
[67]
Actually, insurance creates a nice balance between T1 and T2 ships, removing it would majorly hurt T1 usefulness.
|
Sabine Demsky
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:58:00 -
[68]
I believe insurance should be removed, or at least seriously revamped, as it causes inflation, it creates ISK out of nowhere, it is unrealistic, etc etc.
|
Almiel
Gallente Blood Inquisition
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:05:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus It devalues ships. If a ship is destroyed, and it's insured, then the pilot says 'oh well, I only lost 35m on this BS'. The relative value of that ship to the pilot is the replacement cost of the mods plus new insurance, not the cost of the ship.
Yes
Originally by: Bellum Eternus One major problem that this causes is it makes it extremely hard to cripple an opponent financially through war losses. With insurance you're effectively diluting combat accomplishments because killing a 130m ISK BS isn't taking 130m out of the enemies' wallet, but only 33m or so, plus fittings, which are usually T2, and as we all know, T2 mods are cheap as hell now.
Yes
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Another problem with insurance is trying to make a living ransoming people as a pirate. The players go 'oh well, blow me up, I don't care. It's insured.' If this is such a harsh world CCP, why the hand holding?
Yes
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Frankly, I'm all for removing insurance payouts from suicide killers in empire, but CCP should be fair to everyone and remove all insurance from all ships across the board.
ok
Originally by: Bellum Eternus With respect to new players: allow new players to insure their ships (any sort) for the first three months (90 days) of their account. After that, no insurance. And no, this wouldn't circumvent the no payout rule for Concord deaths.
No
Originally by: Bellum Eternus *Or*, an even more interesting option: design 'noob cruisers' that you can get for free. They would be fairly weak in performance, but noobs could run missions with them and do hauling stuff at a low level, they'd be a little more capable than noob frigs, but you'd only be allowed to get them for free for your first sixty days in Eve. After that you're on your own to make up for your mistakes.
No
So say I, Almiel.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:17:00 -
[70]
This is why insurance needs to go:
[14:13:06] Qal*** > lol [14:13:13] Qal*** > thanks for insurance money [14:13:23] Anh*** > anytime [14:13:34] Qal*** > now i can get my battleship
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
|
Nexus1972
Pat Sharp's Potato Rodeo Daedalus Hegemony
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:54:00 -
[71]
How about all insurance is invalid if killed by war targets or whilst at war? ---------------------
Pat Sharpe's Potato Rodeo
|
J Kunjeh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:56:00 -
[72]
Not supported. Insurance is a good thing. If anything, make it better by putting it in the players hands.
|
Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente The Crane Family
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:57:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Nexus1972 How about all insurance is invalid if killed by war targets or whilst at war?
No, just remove it altogether. EVE's a harsh and cruel game, and if you can't make enough money for you next ship, you're doing it wrong.
amirite? -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Dionisius
Gallente Sincarnate Holding
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:58:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: El'Niaga No what they are doing is fair.
This is a risk vs reward game.
There is no risk in hi sec suiciding because the person gets more back in insurance than he paid for his ship and fittings.
Thus they eliminate the insurance for concord deaths and they reintroduce risk vs reward.
You can still gank that hauler in hi sec if you want, just better be sure he's carrying enough to make it worth your while. Makes you have to be selective in targets which is good.
Since concord does not respond in low sec and 0.0 it will not affects ganking there :).
Where is the risk of the guy sitting in NPC corp running lvl 4 missions all day? He makes more isk/hour than the majority of the people ratting in 0.0, and those in 0.0 have way more risk.
If suicide ganking is too risk free, the solution is to increase the risk, not decrease the reward. Tradable killrights would be a good start.
Alternatively, simply nerf NPC corp wardec protection and these changes can stay. Newbies would be kicked out of noob corp after say 6 months or so.
Says the guy from the alliance that has mains in the front line and the alts in empire carebearing 24x7.
Do tell me, if ratting in 0.0 is such low profit why do people keep flocking in that direction? Lemme see... ratting 27x7 in 0.0 ... hmmm profit in, Isk, modules, faction rats, officers?
_____________________________________
|
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:07:00 -
[75]
I don't think it should be removed completely, but it should definitely be reduced... i.e. 100% insurance should be 100% of the regional average market price... not way above it...
|
LittleTerror
Mortis Angelus The Church.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:31:00 -
[76]
Edited by: LittleTerror on 06/08/2008 17:31:13 Isk holds no real value, you decrease the isk the prices will just fall untill balance is reached, why can't you get that into your thick heads
Besides that no one would bloody PVP |
Beltantis Torrence
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:45:00 -
[77]
Originally by: LittleTerror Edited by: LittleTerror on 06/08/2008 17:31:13 Isk holds no real value, you decrease the isk the prices will just fall untill balance is reached, why can't you get that into your thick heads
Besides that no one would bloody PVP
Because ore still has somewhat predetermined values. People aren't going to sell things at a loss.
|
Beltantis Torrence
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:06:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Beltantis Torrence on 06/08/2008 18:06:42 Double post removed.
|
Beltantis Torrence
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:06:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Beltantis Torrence on 06/08/2008 18:07:18
Originally by: Gamesguy
A lot of NPC L4 runners are 0.0 alts precisely because its so easy to make isk doing this!
Why in the hell are 0.0 people running missions in highsec? This should NEVER happen in a properly balanced risk vs reward equation. Eve's risk vs reward is screwed up, thats why you have legions of people running missions in highsec to pay for their 0.0 pvp.
We seem to be doing well? That might have something to do with our organization, pvp skills, etc? What skills do a L4 mission runner need? 3 months worth of training in a raven and knowing how to lock and f1-f6? There are step by step instructions on how to run every empire mission in the game. We fight for our right to own 0.0 space. When does the L4 mission runner fight for his right to run the mission?
I don't see "The Bantam Menace" on the sov map, where do you live in 0.0 again?
You fail at economics. The reason why you're grinding in high sec is because in anything competitive people will always act masochistic just to gain an advantage. Its not like there's no money to be had ratting/plexing/etc in 0.0 - the issue is that fighting with other players who are willing to mine or trade or run LVL 4 missions means you have to do the same thing to have the same bankroll. And if level 4 missions got nerfed beyond recognition, people would just mine or make BPCs or do R&D missions or whatever. Just happens to be that blowing shit up is somewhat less boring.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |