Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:29:00 -
[1]
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.
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:32:00 -
[2]
No you see, insurance is only a problem when whiney AFKers are disadvantaged.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
GI0VANNI
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:36:00 -
[3]
I do not agree. When you are established in the game, yes... insurance can be a safe haven that is easy to get, but I remember, I spent months working for my first BS, and to loose that outright would have put me in a foul mood. Also, a lot of advanced players will only fly T2 ships where the insurance is near enough worthless anyway.
Insurance is a good thing.
Just because you feel it ruins your pirate ways does not mean that it should get stopped for everyone.
Live with it.
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar Metafarmers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:41:00 -
[4]
It's not required... you can just fly around in uninsured ships and leave us alone
You're not afraid of the dark, are you? |
sableye
principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:47:00 -
[5]
I agree with getting rid of insurance as well to stop so much isk entering the game.
Join The Fight With Promo Today View The North Star! |
El'Niaga
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:49:00 -
[6]
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 :).
|
Sky Marshal
Aeden
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:50:00 -
[7]
Quote: 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.
Hum, I guess it is more 'Oh well, why pay the ransom, you will blow me up anyways'.
Eve is an harsh world, but Eve is still a game. Make things too difficult after the loss of an expensive ship will only demoralize the player, so it is a bad idea.
Same after 90 days of gaming, there is no guarantee that the wallet can support a loss.
____
Removing/Replacing Local is the stupidest idea who can be asked, ever. |
Gamesguy
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:52:00 -
[8]
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.
|
Xavieer Naidoo
Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:53:00 -
[9]
No. Just no. Why no ? It's very simple. If somebody looses all his ISK due to ship loss, say after 3 months of playing it is very likely that he will quit. CCP and we as a community would not want that.
And on the sidenote, T2 insurance is really ******ed. It's like you bought a luxury car for 200.000 $ u wreck it and then the insurance company says: - "here's 10.000 for your ship, it's platinium insurance" - "but why, I paid 200.000$ for this car!" says the stunned owner - "well, all the materials your car was made of are only worth 10.000$, we don't take economy and real prices into account".
So to summarize - t2 insurance is bad enough. Suicide gankers should not get their insurance paid out though.
|
Spaztick
Canadian Imperial Armaments EVESpace
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:53:00 -
[10]
I don't insure my T2 ships anyway, I gain at most a few million back on the cost. But seriously, more people should have some type of spacer in their sigs to show it's not part of the post. |
|
Zephyr Rengate
dearg doom
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:53:00 -
[11]
Me not like Bellum anymore.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:57:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Zephyr Rengate Me not like Bellum anymore.
Implying that someone actually liked me in the first place? \o/
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
El'Niaga
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 07:58:00 -
[13]
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.
Most mission runners dip into low sec at some point, thus most can be killed at some point. Tradeable killrights wouldn't help. You couldn't trust the person getting it to actually kill the guy. What pirates would do is set up an alt (I'm sure you've never heard of those) and then just use it to get the killrights to their main assuring he never dies as a result of the tradeable killrights. Almost the same way they operate now.
|
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr Imperial Servants
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:00:00 -
[14]
Don't remove insurance, just reduce it to 6 weeks or 3 weeks. It will make it more of an isk sink. If people "cash in" their insured ship every 3 weeks, it will put the demand/supply scale heavily on the demand part, so prices will raise making it unproffitable to "cash in".
I'm set in this game and don't insure anymore. Even forget when I go on suicide missions .
|
Gamesguy
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:04:00 -
[15]
Originally by: El'Niaga
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.
Most mission runners dip into low sec at some point, thus most can be killed at some point. Tradeable killrights wouldn't help. You couldn't trust the person getting it to actually kill the guy. What pirates would do is set up an alt (I'm sure you've never heard of those) and then just use it to get the killrights to their main assuring he never dies as a result of the tradeable killrights. Almost the same way they operate now.
Thats not an argument, thats an excuse. The level 4 mission runner in NPC corp is completely invulnerable, his missions do not require him to go into lowsec, ratting in 0.0 carries inherent risks associated with the activity.
Your argument would be like me saying suicide ganking is full of risk because most of those people live in 0.0 and pvp there. No, the activity itself has little risks associated with it, just like running L4 missions in highsec. Increase risk for both.
This is something we called reputation and trust. Why would you sell the killright to some 10 day old npc corp alt? Are you stupid? If this is implemented, I'm sure some people would build a reputation of being reliable and they would get more of those trades, just like how chribba is nearly universally trusted.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:06:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Don't remove insurance, just reduce it to 6 weeks or 3 weeks. It will make it more of an isk sink. If people "cash in" their insured ship every 3 weeks, it will put the demand/supply scale heavily on the demand part, so prices will raise making it unproffitable to "cash in".
I'm set in this game and don't insure anymore. Even forget when I go on suicide missions .
Are you aware that your idea is a godsend for suicide gankers as they will always benefit from the insurance, while it make it almost worthless for other people?
Suicide gankers are so used to being subsidized by CCP that they don't choose the target anymore?
|
El'Niaga
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:07:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: El'Niaga
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.
Most mission runners dip into low sec at some point, thus most can be killed at some point. Tradeable killrights wouldn't help. You couldn't trust the person getting it to actually kill the guy. What pirates would do is set up an alt (I'm sure you've never heard of those) and then just use it to get the killrights to their main assuring he never dies as a result of the tradeable killrights. Almost the same way they operate now.
Thats not an argument, thats an excuse. The level 4 mission runner in NPC corp is completely invulnerable, his missions do not require him to go into lowsec, ratting in 0.0 carries inherent risks associated with the activity.
Your argument would be like me saying suicide ganking is full of risk because most of those people live in 0.0 and pvp there. No, the activity itself has little risks associated with it, just like running L4 missions in highsec. Increase risk for both.
This is something we called reputation and trust. Why would you sell the killright to some 10 day old npc corp alt? Are you stupid? If this is implemented, I'm sure some people would build a reputation of being reliable and they would get more of those trades, just like how chribba is nearly universally trusted.
Level 3 and 4 missions send you to low sec all the time. Yes you could decline taking those but that limits your income since you can only reject 1 per agent per 4 hours without taking a standing hit.
There are alts that are years old in this game. Most of whom belong to the pirates.....
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:09:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Don't remove insurance, just reduce it to 6 weeks or 3 weeks. It will make it more of an isk sink. If people "cash in" their insured ship every 3 weeks, it will put the demand/supply scale heavily on the demand part, so prices will raise making it unproffitable to "cash in".
I'm set in this game and don't insure anymore. Even forget when I go on suicide missions .
Are you aware that your idea is a godsend for suicide gankers as they will always benefit from the insurance, while it make it almost worthless for other people?
Suicide gankers are so used to being subsidized by CCP that they don't choose the target anymore?
Venkul is 100% right. Hence, remove all insurance!
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Zephyr Rengate
dearg doom
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:10:00 -
[19]
In all my time in motsu not once did I ever come close to going into lowsec...
|
Gamesguy
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:11:00 -
[20]
Originally by: El'Niaga
Level 3 and 4 missions send you to low sec all the time. Yes you could decline taking those but that limits your income since you can only reject 1 per agent per 4 hours without taking a standing hit.
No thats bullshit. The right agents do NOT send you into lowsec. Only hauling missions and agents in systems that border lowsec do. Stop lying.
Quote: There are alts that are years old in this game. Most of whom belong to the pirates.....
So you automatically trust anyone whose been in the game for years?
|
|
Dzajic
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:13:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Gamesguy
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.
Err... wtf? You are either assuming that mission runner does it all day long and that one can not rat in 0.0 safely all day long.
Per hour income on mission running will only exceed good 0.0 ratting if person is dualboxing with CNRs or Golems.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:29:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Dzajic
Err... wtf? You are either assuming that mission runner does it all day long and that one can not rat in 0.0 safely all day long.
And you are assuming a suicide ganker does it all day long. We're talking about risk free professions here. High sec level 4 mission running is completely risk free.
Originally by: Dzajic
Per hour income on mission running will only exceed good 0.0 ratting if person is dualboxing with CNRs or Golems.
No. Per hour income on mission running - if you include ALL the rewards - is higher than 0.0 ratting in all but the best of systems. Sure, you might (might) get better liquid isk in 0.0, but all together you're better off running level 4 missions.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Gamesguy
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:30:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Dzajic
Originally by: Gamesguy
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.
Err... wtf? You are either assuming that mission runner does it all day long and that one can not rat in 0.0 safely all day long.
Per hour income on mission running will only exceed good 0.0 ratting if person is dualboxing with CNRs or Golems.
You can't rat in 0.0 safely all day long, there are these things called roaming gangs. If your alliance has people defending you from them, then you must add their manhour into the equation as well.
"Good 0.0 ratting?" Emphasis on good. Most of 0.0 is crap, mission running earns more isk/hour than someone ratting in say.... geminate.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:44:00 -
[24]
Guys, let's keep it on topic shall we? Discuss the merits of removing insurance, not how much ISK/hour carebears make. K?
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Andreya
Direct Intent
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:46:00 -
[25]
i agree. just removing insurance would make this game more fun for myself. knowing when i slaughter poeple, they are actually loosing isk... now that T2 gear is so darn cheap
_________________________________________________________ Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Navigator ([email protected]) |
Sheriff Jones
Amarr Please Enter Password
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:47:00 -
[26]
Remove insurance from ships, put insurance for fittings.
Tadaa?
My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit. |
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr Imperial Servants
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:49:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Don't remove insurance, just reduce it to 6 weeks or 3 weeks. It will make it more of an isk sink. If people "cash in" their insured ship every 3 weeks, it will put the demand/supply scale heavily on the demand part, so prices will raise making it unproffitable to "cash in".
I'm set in this game and don't insure anymore. Even forget when I go on suicide missions .
Are you aware that your idea is a godsend for suicide gankers as they will always benefit from the insurance, while it make it almost worthless for other people?
Suicide gankers are so used to being subsidized by CCP that they don't choose the target anymore?
Venkul is 100% right. Hence, remove all insurance!
Well, according to the Dev blog, insurance will no longer be paid when Concord are on the killmail. If that goes live, my suggestion works again
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 08:58:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Andreya i agree. just removing insurance would make this game more fun for myself. knowing when i slaughter poeple, they are actually loosing isk... now that T2 gear is so darn cheap
this is a game ... it should not be a grind fest for gear and ships ... however is you remove insurance, it will become one ... many people will leave ... a game is meant to be fun, not a second job ... --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
mishkof
Caldari Finis Lumen Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:00:00 -
[29]
Yes.
I think that we should also make it so that you have to spend 160 hours in a arena type setting spamming f1-F8 to get the ship in the first.
Also, instead of the pesky skill system in place you should need a certain number of NPC kills before you are eligable to kill a player. This way everyone is properly trained and you know that person worked hard to be have the privilage to engage you. For example you would have to kill 25 NPC battleships for every 1 player battleship you kill.
I think these are all wonderful ideas, and promote skill and hard work into realm of PVP.
I own a T2 BPO and Capital alt, therefor all of my views will be pro-Capital Alt/T2 BPO orientated. Please pick one of the following settings for your response. []hate me []troll me []smack me |
Mika Meroko
Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:02:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Mika Meroko on 06/08/2008 09:03:31 Remember, CCP doesnt think the way you pew pew ers do...
CCP accounting wont like alot of suggestions that turns eve lopsided/too harsh...
yes, the dev blog change might **** off a few pirates to quit (btw, send me your stuff)
but chances are, the account loss will be less than if well, quite frankly, if its let continue....
atm, suicide ganking is just too profitable =P
even a failed one doesnt mean much loss for the ganker (and barely any sec status loss)
hell, I have a JC in npc pie 0.0 space on my pie, and yeah, even ganking a 50 mill loot indy in highsec isnt that big of a set back of sec status for me..
Originally by: CCP Atropos I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
|
|
mishkof
Caldari Finis Lumen Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:07:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Mika Meroko Edited by: Mika Meroko on 06/08/2008 09:03:31 Remember, CCP doesnt think the way you pew pew ers do...
CCP accounting wont like alot of suggestions that turns eve lopsided/too harsh...
yes, the dev blog change might **** off a few pirates to quit (btw, send me your stuff)
but chances are, the account loss will be less than if well, quite frankly, if its let continue....
atm, suicide ganking is just too profitable =P
even a failed one doesnt mean much loss for the ganker (and barely any sec status loss)
hell, I have a JC in npc pie 0.0 space on my pie, and yeah, even ganking a 50 mill loot indy in highsec isnt that big of a set back of sec status for me..
Dont be silly. More grinding is the answer.
It worked for WoW amiright?
I own a T2 BPO and Capital alt, therefor all of my views will be pro-Capital Alt/T2 BPO orientated. Please pick one of the following settings for your response. []hate me []troll me []smack me |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:13:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Don't remove insurance, just reduce it to 6 weeks or 3 weeks. It will make it more of an isk sink. If people "cash in" their insured ship every 3 weeks, it will put the demand/supply scale heavily on the demand part, so prices will raise making it unproffitable to "cash in".
I'm set in this game and don't insure anymore. Even forget when I go on suicide missions .
Are you aware that your idea is a godsend for suicide gankers as they will always benefit from the insurance, while it make it almost worthless for other people?
Suicide gankers are so used to being subsidized by CCP that they don't choose the target anymore?
Venkul is 100% right. Hence, remove all insurance!
I was thinking about it a little, a reasonable solution could be something like this:
Increasing insurance costs
The first time you insure a ship in a ship class (frigates, destroyers, ecc.) you pay the current price. After you have gotten 1 insurance payout in that ship class your insurance cost go up 5%, 10% with the second payout and so on.
That will leave a buffer for players that have just learned a new ship class and are prone to make errors (so essentially for new players), while people experienced in that kind of ships but that have lost plenty of them will get no return from insurance.
Combined with removing insurance when killed by Concord (but still counting the loss as a insurance payout for the ship class used) it will discourage casual suicide ganking (while keeping it viable on well chosen targets) and keep subsidized the new players, but it will not support war expenses covering the losses.
|
Sorted
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:14:00 -
[33]
I agree with OP.
put it to the CSM, although you might end up with furry slippers in Ambulation instead.... Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371
|
midge Mo'yb
Antares Shipyards Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:24:00 -
[34]
Edited by: midge Mo''yb on 06/08/2008 09:27:22
Originally by: El'Niaga
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.
Most mission runners dip into low sec at some point, thus most can be killed at some point. Tradeable killrights wouldn't help. You couldn't trust the person getting it to actually kill the guy. What pirates would do is set up an alt (I'm sure you've never heard of those) and then just use it to get the killrights to their main assuring he never dies as a result of the tradeable killrights. Almost the same way they operate now.
Tradable killrights could be like a Contract but when someone kills you you get a "token" that enables you to setup a contract to kill said player, a player picks the contract up and has x amount of time to complete the contract or it goes back on the board for another guy to pickup, upon termination of player x you get the isk reward set by the player.
Or even better give the bounty system a use, this "token" could be taken to a bounty office and inserted into the system there with a price and then a bounty board is available for bounty hunter who can hunt that player
SWG players will remember the bounty system for jedi, something like that but with the players using the token to put the baddies on the board -----------------------------------------------
|
copasetic sideways
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:25:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Sorted put it to the CSM, although you might end up with furry slippers in Ambulation instead....
don't take bloody side swipes at the csm...
i fully intend to make all my future isk by station busking with my e-trombone...
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:28:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 06/08/2008 09:30:29 Deleted for the request to avoid discussion on mission/ratting comparison.
|
Sheriff Jones
Amarr Please Enter Password
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:31:00 -
[37]
Aye, when i rat at my lovely 0.0 place at...you really thinkk i'm gonna tell ya? ...anyway, when i rat OVER THERE, i get plenty of more ISKies and plenty a lot faster then when doing missions.
It's a common myth that missions pay that much more.
Heck, running trades is more lucrative and i don't se people complaining about that.
My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit. |
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:35:00 -
[38]
I think completely removing insurance would be an over the top move to do all at once, much in the style of CCP's recent changes.
However, I like the idea, T1 ships can be afforded too easily, and there is a huge disparity between comparable T1 and T2 ships.
Many people seem to be saying (and have said in the past) that this change would cause many to leave the game or be unable to PvP because they could not afford ships with the greater losses incurred without insurance. Well, I can't afford to PvP in captial ships, but that doesn't mean I can't PvP, I simply have to fly smaller ships. By the same token, if people become unable to afford to field BSes due to no insurance, they could simply go back to cruisers. This wouldn't cause them problems, as everyone else would be in the same boat (if you'll pardon the pun). I for one would like a return to a larger proportion of small ships, and would like losses to mean something even for T1 ships.
However, as I said, I think something less drastic than complete removal might be good. -
DesuSigs |
Derdre Esme
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:37:00 -
[39]
remove insurance, lowering the number of new player which stay ingame as stated above ppl who start game try to have biggest ship as sonn as possible, and throw all theyre money in it then when they loose it, many loosing everything and leave game. Remember initialy default insurance payback when you didn't get any insurance was too low and it was a too big hemmoragie of player for ccp then they turn it to 40% (dont know what it was before, perhaps 0% even)
and secondly would make t1 ship less interesting and t2 ship demand increasing = t2 ship price big increase
|
Axhind
Caldari Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:40:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Axhind on 06/08/2008 09:44:54
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.
Oh cry me a river. Most of those NPC L4 runners are 0.0 alts anyway. And considering how nasty 0.0 judging by your post, you guys seem to be doing just fine.
|
|
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:43:00 -
[41]
Insurance works just fine the way it is. Did the guys who suicide ganked you not lose a lot of money? GOOD! That means you didn't either...
If people are losing a lot of isk because of suicide gankers then they're living proof that the insurance system DOES work, because if not then you wouldn't be losing any real amount of isk.
Also, so what if Insurance payouts are an isk faucet? Last time I checked more isk faucets were just what this game needs. The value of isk is skyrocketing, which is PRECISELY why there're ships available at almost no loss after insurance. Can you imagine what would happen to ship prices if they removed insurance? There would be NO lower limit for ore prices, so you would effectively be completely destroying the game for ANYONE who mines for their isk. There we go, let's make mission running even MORE profitable then it already is To the OP: "It makes it hard to cripple an opponent financially"? Are you serious? First off, it's STILL easy to do if they fly tech II ships, and if they don't, why SHOULD it be easy? Replace 'financially cripple' with 'render the game unplayable for' and see how much sense your argument makes. You want the ability to completely ruin the game for your opponent rather then just enjoying some good pvp, and TBH that's not a very good reason for CCP to remove insurance...
As far as ransoming as a pirate goes, you're not usually supposed to even bother ransoming ships. You can offer to ransom it, but it's the pod you REALLY want. 100mil+in implants is common assuming the character's 6 months +. And that CAN'T be insured.
Oh and btw I love how you think you can place an arbitrary limitation on how long you get insurance for. No 2 people get into eve at the same rate, a newb who gets into the right corp can become competent in 4 weeks. I was on my own and was still fitting arties to my domi at 4 months
What you're suggesting would either kill PVP (no one would want to risk their ships), kill the market and mining (no lower limit for ore means bots can drive prices through the floor) or both. PVPers can no longer sustain their losses, miners can no longer make any money mining. You sure you're not caldari? Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Axhind
Caldari Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:44:00 -
[42]
Originally by: midge Mo'yb Edited by: midge Mo''yb on 06/08/2008 09:27:22
Originally by: El'Niaga
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.
Most mission runners dip into low sec at some point, thus most can be killed at some point. Tradeable killrights wouldn't help. You couldn't trust the person getting it to actually kill the guy. What pirates would do is set up an alt (I'm sure you've never heard of those) and then just use it to get the killrights to their main assuring he never dies as a result of the tradeable killrights. Almost the same way they operate now.
Tradable killrights could be like a Contract but when someone kills you you get a "token" that enables you to setup a contract to kill said player, a player picks the contract up and has x amount of time to complete the contract or it goes back on the board for another guy to pickup, upon termination of player x you get the isk reward set by the player.
Or even better give the bounty system a use, this "token" could be taken to a bounty office and inserted into the system there with a price and then a bounty board is available for bounty hunter who can hunt that player
SWG players will remember the bounty system for jedi, something like that but with the players using the token to put the baddies on the board
It is a bit strange how the blog managed to totaly forget about that part. If I remember correctly it was quite high on CSM list. Could be that it needs a lot more work (actually I'm sure of it) but it would be great thing. That plus nerfing NPC corps (ie forcing players (even 0.0 alts) in to player corporations if they want to run L3+ and do combat). That will not hurt the noobs but it will make a large part of the high sec players targetable by wars (just need to change the switch corp timers during the war dec to prevent corp hopping).
|
Larg Kellein
Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:45:00 -
[43]
Unfortunate side effect of completely removing insurance: People become more risk adverse, meaning fewer people willing to get their pew on if it completely wrecks the wallet.
|
Gamesguy
Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:05:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Gamesguy on 06/08/2008 10:06:03
Originally by: Axhind Edited by: Axhind on 06/08/2008 09:44:54
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.
Oh cry me a river. Most of those NPC L4 runners are 0.0 alts anyway. And considering how nasty 0.0 judging by your post, you guys seem to be doing just fine.
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?
|
LittleTerror
Mortis Angelus The Church.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:08:00 -
[45]
No insurance means less isk which means ship and mod prices falling massively which will put us back to square one after about 6 months, making the change completely pointless in other words its never going to happen.
Stop making these stupid threads. |
Andrue
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:27:00 -
[46]
Remove it for characters over a certain age
Personally I couldn't care less about it. My alt spent a couple of weeks in FW I never once bothered to insure his ships. Then again I'm a rich veteran so my world view is a bit skewed -- (Sarcastic mission running veteran, 4+ years)
[Brackley, UK]
My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned. |
Nebulous
Minmatar Thukker Insurgents
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:28:00 -
[47]
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.
|
Sorted
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:31:00 -
[48]
Originally by: copasetic sideways
Originally by: Sorted put it to the CSM, although you might end up with furry slippers in Ambulation instead....
don't take bloody side swipes at the csm...
i fully intend to make all my future isk by station busking with my e-trombone...
I'll do as I please.
Dont like it war dec me... o wai... thats broken.. least you can busk me to death in this pvp gam... o wai.. Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371
|
Belmarduk
Amarr de Prieure Four Elements
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:32:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Don't remove insurance, just reduce it to 6 weeks or 3 weeks. It will make it more of an isk sink. If people "cash in" their insured ship every 3 weeks, it will put the demand/supply scale heavily on the demand part, so prices will raise making it unproffitable to "cash in".
I normally say get rid of insurance completley - but the quote is not a bad idea. MOAR Isk sinks !! The economy seems to be getting more unstable than it was 2-3 years ago... CCP Please give us casual players a Skill-Queue !
|
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:01:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Dzajic
Originally by: Gamesguy
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.
Err... wtf? You are either assuming that mission runner does it all day long and that one can not rat in 0.0 safely all day long.
Per hour income on mission running will only exceed good 0.0 ratting if person is dualboxing with CNRs or Golems.
But "good" 0.0 ratting is not widely available. Level 4 agents are an infinite resource.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
|
Savage Roar
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:18:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Gamesguy The level 4 mission runner in NPC corp is completely invulnerable
This shows you are completely ignorant. Probing covops + 2 torp ravens adjusted to damage type weakness (scan him for hardeners as he undocks) and you can easily pop him while heŠs getting pounded by all the mission NPCs which will mean his tank wonŠt be able to take an extra 1.5k dps... do it in 0.5-6 and concord will never show up in time... then enjoy your gist x-type drops...
|
Sorted
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:22:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Sorted on 06/08/2008 11:26:11
Originally by: Savage Roar
Originally by: Gamesguy The level 4 mission runner in NPC corp is completely invulnerable
This shows you are completely ignorant. Probing covops + 2 torp ravens adjusted to damage type weakness (scan him for hardeners as he undocks) and you can easily pop him while heŠs getting pounded by all the mission NPCs which will mean his tank wonŠt be able to take an extra 1.5k dps... do it in 0.5-6 and concord will never show up in time... then enjoy your gist x-type drops...
You are ignorant.
Read the new dev blog. (and its usualy 3 or 4 ravens when hitting omi tank XL Gist)
This means double the gankers, (less loot per man and more chance of error) AND 60x the cost to the gank squad. As well as a huge sec it (as the runner will have huge concord standing)
which makes one bad loot drop or messed up gank a total disaster. Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:22:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Savage Roar
Originally by: Gamesguy The level 4 mission runner in NPC corp is completely invulnerable
This shows you are completely ignorant. Probing covops + 2 torp ravens adjusted to damage type weakness (scan him for hardeners as he undocks) and you can easily pop him while heŠs getting pounded by all the mission NPCs which will mean his tank wonŠt be able to take an extra 1.5k dps... do it in 0.5-6 and concord will never show up in time... then enjoy your gist x-type drops...
Try it after this change goes through and tell me how it turned out for you.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Veldya
Caldari Guristari Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:31:00 -
[54]
The problem with insurance is that it puts a price cap on minerals, when building a ship, insuring it and self-destructing the ship returns more than the demand for those minerals then insurance creates an artificial base price which is problematic for a player run economy. If people farm the shit out of some minerals they should drop in value, insurance blocks that natural balancing mechanic.
|
ramzahn
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:44:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Sorted I agree with OP.
put it to the CSM, although you might end up with furry slippers in Ambulation instead....
Thank you for keeping my diaphragm in training.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:45:00 -
[56]
The main problem for 0.0 vs Highsec missions is that 0.0 (outside pirate missions) consists of finite resources. That arkonor belt will only spawn up to X amount of ore per week, regardless of whether 5 or 50 people live there. Highsec missions are an infinite resource. If you made them finite, then it would hardly be so much of a problem (not sure how to do that with missions).
As for insurance, might be an idea to remove it completely, but as with all things (including the nano-nerf ) I would advocate a gradual reduction. Start with removing platinum insurance, see if that is acceptable in practice and then take the next step. We've had insurance for years and years, it worked reasonably ok (it didn't ruin the game), so we can afford to take a gradual approach and see if less insurance makes the experience better.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:45:00 -
[57]
Insurance should be a player funded thing through new contract options. If you are a risky bet insurance wise, you might not get any:)
Originally by: Lance Fighter This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route. |
Aphoticus
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:57:00 -
[58]
I agree with the OP.
90 day insurance capability, but no freebie crusier.
Live or Die!
I don't even use insurance, if I can not make the losses up with the new ship, wht pay it out.
|
Sorted
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:58:00 -
[59]
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,. Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371
|
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:05:00 -
[60]
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.
I'm not in favour of removing insurance completely. However I am in favour of consistency, so I advocate removing insurance for ship loss to NPCs.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
|
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] |