EVE Search - insurance no claims!

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

insurance no claims!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:03:00 - [1] Current points No insurance for concord losses. (who would payout if the cops trashed your car etc) Points raised Who would insure you in LowSec,0.0WarZones, Belt Raters/mission runners (who would pay out for driving your car into a warzone etc) How about a no claims insurance... If you loose a ship you are not allowed to insure another for 30days and all current insurance are postponed until then. Discuss Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371
Zephyr Rengate dearg doom	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:04:00 - [2] oh my.
Plumpy McPudding	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:04:00 - [3] I prefer the soft, cottony touch of Charmin toilet paper because it does not chaff my butthole. __________________________ Fear me for I have an insatiable appetite! Proprietor and inventor of Chocolate Chip Chocolate Donut flavored Ice Cream.
Lorna Loot Caldari Nox Eternus	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:06:00 - [4] I have to agree, using the right type of paper makes all the difference. Touch up with a baby wipe for some added fragrance. ----------
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:07:00 - [5] - DesuSigs
Zephyr Rengate dearg doom	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:07:00 - [6] Originally by: Crumplecorn beat me to it
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:09:00 - [7] Originally by: Zephyr Rengate Originally by: Crumplecorn beat me to it arguments used to change said game mechanic suggest otherwise tho.... Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371
Tarminic 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:09:00 - [8] Yes, that change would certainly be good for EVE! ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3)
Slanty McGarglefist	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:10:00 - [9] I often wondered what show those characters come from. __________________________________________________ Originally by: CCP Wrangler No Doh!
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:10:00 - [10] Originally by: Sorted Originally by: Zephyr Rengate Originally by: Crumplecorn beat me to it arguments used to change said game mechanic suggest otherwise tho.... Those were the broken arguments. There are real arguments too. - DesuSigs
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:13:00 - [11] I still genuinly think its a good idea Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:25:00 - [12] Originally by: Crumplecorn You need to set up an RSS feed so that we know when you have a new sig.
Tarminic 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:39:00 - [13] Originally by: Sorted I still genuinly think its a good idea Can you explain why you think it's a good idea? ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3)
Ioci Gallente Ioci Exploration	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:45:00 - [14] High Sec is Concord or war dec. Concod Kills won't be paying. Low sec and Null Sec are high risk and uninsurable zones. So what you are saying is, remove insurance?
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:55:00 - [15] Originally by: Ioci High Sec is Concord or war dec. Concod Kills won't be paying. Low sec and Null Sec are high risk and uninsurable zones. So what you are saying is, remove insurance? No no, (although I wouldnt complain) Saying that insurance is a business scam. If your needing it your less likey to be sold it. I think if you havent lost a ship in the last 30 days you should be able to buy it, but then if your not gonna loose the ship why do you need it? We could also add in the gamble of the insurance being shits. They should have a random "we (the insurance company) aint gonna pay due to xxx" or "your claim is in dispute" and it takes like 6 months to get the payout. I am saying that it (the no claims style of insurance - for all zones) would be more sensible from a RP perspective. Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:58:00 - [16] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Sorted I still genuinly think its a good idea Can you explain why you think it's a good idea? It would help me feel more immersed in the VirtualWorld that is eve if the insurance companies behaved in a more sensible manner. If it remains to provide "Cheap PVP" they are effectivaly Giving you your stuffs/hull back after you die, with a "repair bill". no massive loss; a replacement cost for mods,rigs and insurance, amountive to a item repair bill in another over sited MMO for example. Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371
Drunk Driver Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:03:00 - [17] Originally by: Sorted Current points No insurance for concord losses. (who would payout if the cops trashed your car etc) Points raised Who would insure you in LowSec,0.0WarZones, Belt Raters/mission runners (who would pay out for driving your car into a warzone etc) How about a no claims insurance... If you loose a ship you are not allowed to insure another for 30days and all current insurance are postponed until then. Discuss Great idea! Fist we fix things so pirates have to go to low sec to pirate. Then we fix things so carebears will be too scared to go to low sec. Brilliant!
Tarminic 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:06:00 - [18] Edited by: Tarminic on 08/08/2008 15:08:43 Edited by: Tarminic on 08/08/2008 15:06:50 Originally by: Sorted If it remains to provide "Cheap PVP" they are effectivaly Giving you your stuffs/hull back after you die, with a "repair bill". no massive loss; a replacement cost for mods,rigs and insurance, amountive to a item repair bill in another over sited MMO for example. Not quite - it would be one thing if they just spawned a new ship and deducted the specified amount from your wallet. But in addition to the net loss of the insurance (Insurance is RARELY better than the cost of the ship + the initial insurance cost), you shill have to actually go through the effort of purchasing and fitting another ship. Modules aren't a significant cost to replace if you're using T1, but T2 is the standard nowadays and the cost of modules alone can double or triple the net loss from the ship/insurance cost alone. Rigs (depending on which ones obviously) can cost as much as 10-20 T2 modules themselves. So I really don't think there's much merit in comparing insurance with resurrection in WoW. EDIT: Also, you didn't actually answer the question. How would this be good for EVE? Just because it would be more immersive to you, what tangible effects would this have that you feel would improve EVE? ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3)
Nidda Coldbrew	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:07:00 - [19] I'd support the complete removal of insurance. Low sec needs buffed. The rewards for going there are crap compared to both high sec and 0.0 not to mention that it's more dangerous than many parts of 0.0
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:08:00 - [20] most of the low sec victims arent hi sec bears dripping there big toe in in a thrill seeking adventure, Its other pirates or travelers to 0.0 allainces. and everyone would be in the same-insurance boat. -if you need it you get 1 messup a month, and if you dont need it due to low loss rates you probably wont buy it - and still get caught with ur pants down every now and then, Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371
TheG2 Gallente Dirty Rotten Scoundrels	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:12:00 - [21] Originally by: Sorted most of the low sec victims arent hi sec bears dripping there big toe in in a thrill seeking adventure, Its other pirates or travelers to 0.0 allainces. and everyone would be in the same-insurance boat. -if you need it you get 1 messup a month, and if you dont need it due to low loss rates you probably wont buy it - and still get caught with ur pants down every now and then, I beg to differ, Mega pilots AP'ing through low-sec are also fun.
Rhanna Khurin Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:12:00 - [22] I think we should get no claims bonuses, if you dont lose any ships each month you get cheaper insurance!
Tarminic 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:17:00 - [23] Originally by: Sorted most of the low sec victims arent hi sec bears dripping there big toe in in a thrill seeking adventure, Its other pirates or travelers to 0.0 allainces. and everyone would be in the same-insurance boat. -if you need it you get 1 messup a month, and if you dont need it due to low loss rates you probably wont buy it - and still get caught with ur pants down every now and then, You realize what this would actually lead to, right? 1. Pirating reduced due to increased cost 2. Blobbing increased in low sec and 0.0 due to herd mentality (more people = safer) 3. Fewer players willing to leave high-sec/join corporations due to increased cost of ship loss I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you're being serious for now, but I don't understand how this would be good for the game. ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3)
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:20:00 - [24] Originally by: Tarminic Edited by: Tarminic on 08/08/2008 15:08:43 Edited by: Tarminic on 08/08/2008 15:06:50 Originally by: Sorted If it remains to provide "Cheap PVP" they are effectivaly Giving you your stuffs/hull back after you die, with a "repair bill". no massive loss; a replacement cost for mods,rigs and insurance, amountive to a item repair bill in another over sited MMO for example. Not quite - it would be one thing if they just spawned a new ship and deducted the specified amount from your wallet. But in addition to the net loss of the insurance (Insurance is RARELY better than the cost of the ship + the initial insurance cost), you shill have to actually go through the effort of purchasing and fitting another ship. Modules aren't a significant cost to replace if you're using T1, but T2 is the standard nowadays and the cost of modules alone can double or triple the net loss from the ship/insurance cost alone. Rigs (depending on which ones obviously) can cost as much as 10-20 T2 modules themselves. So I really don't think there's much merit in comparing insurance with resurrection in WoW. EDIT: Also, you didn't actually answer the question. How would this be good for EVE? Just because it would be more immersive to you, what tangible effects would this have that you feel would improve EVE? tbh I dont know the avaerage gold/day income for a lvl60 wow player in compaision to their repair bill. but thats equating it on approcimate level - aside from flying so many jumps to a hub (rather than walking to your corpse) How would it improve eve? I think it would steer the game back down the cold dark path it has came from. Mainstream isnt always good (altough it does bring in the money and CCP is a business etc) Altough it wont have any tangible benifits ingame, aside from shaking up the markets I do think it will help bring back some of the games orgional style. Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371
Julian Newmatar Caldari Matari Research Foundation	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:22:00 - [25] Why do some people insist on ending thier posts with "Discuss" ffs, this is not some debate competition.
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:24:00 - [26] Originally by: Tarminic 1. Pirating reduced due to increased cost 2. Blobbing increased in low sec and 0.0 due to herd mentality (more people = safer) 3. Fewer players willing to leave high-sec/join corporations due to increased cost of ship loss I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you're being serious for now, but I don't understand how this would be good for the game. 1.Pirating already has few targets. 2.Blobbing is already on the rise and small scale pvp being obliterated with each patch - be it nanos or war dec nerfs 3.Well thats a whole different kettle of fish - hisec shouldnt be a completely safe haven. if they are curious abotu low sec and 0.0 and take there best ship to explore they are still gonna suffer, inexpensive t1 crusier ftw. I'm being as serious as I can be.. Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:24:00 - [27] Originally by: Julian Newmatar Why do some people insist on ending thier posts with "Discuss" ffs, this is not some debate competition. We do some people post with having nothing to say ? Like to hear the sound of the keys being pressed/your own voice? Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371
Nidda Coldbrew	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:27:00 - [28] Originally by: Tarminic 1. Pirating reduced due to increased cost 2. Blobbing increased in low sec and 0.0 due to herd mentality (more people = safer) 3. Fewer players willing to leave high-sec/join corporations due to increased cost of ship loss 1. Pirating was doing just fine before insurance came along. It'll be fine if it's removed. 2. People have blobbed since day one, and will continue doing so because as you stated more = safer. 3. People don't leave high sec because low sec is total crap for rewards and more dangerous than 0.0 The ones that do leave usually go to 0.0 many of whom get tired after a while of being powerless pawns of the idiots leading alliances these days, and return to high sec.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:29:00 - [29] Originally by: Matalino Originally by: Crumplecorn You need to set up an RSS feed so that we know when you have a new sig. Actually I briefly toyed with the idea of mentioning that I hit the big four-oh in OOPE, but then I remembered that only a tiny minority would actually care. I'll stick to posting them in relevant threads and then finding reasons to indirectly quote them over and over. - DesuSigs
Veldya Caldari Guristari Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:39:00 - [30] Originally by: Sorted Who would insure you in LowSec,0.0WarZones, Belt Raters/mission runners (who would pay out for driving your car into a warzone etc) A friend of mine is in the navy, he has life insurance. His premiums are much higher because of the risk factor. If he dies or gets injured during a war he gets paid out. If he dies breaking the law he wont. It is as simple as that. Laws are very clear about not profiting from breaking laws, in any way.
Ethaet Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:48:00 - [31] Why not just completely remove insurance? -------------------------------------------------------------- Seriously, we need some kind of separation between the post and signature. There you go. Now that wasn't so hard
Macon Squaredealer Squaredeal Enterprises	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:53:00 - [32] Originally by: Ethaet Why not just completely remove insurance? They should, but they won't. People have gotten used to being able to throw ships away recklessly for almost no loss, and would scream in rage at having consequences for stupid behavior again... like we used to have. ___________________________________________ Watch for the Squaredeal Enterprises IPO in the coming months.
Slanty McGarglefist	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:54:00 - [33] Wasn't Insurance meant to stabilize ship prices similar to Shuttles and tritanum costs? __________________________________________________ Originally by: CCP Wrangler No Doh!
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:08:00 - [34] Originally by: Veldya Originally by: Sorted Who would insure you in LowSec,0.0WarZones, Belt Raters/mission runners (who would pay out for driving your car into a warzone etc) A friend of mine is in the navy, he has life insurance. His premiums are much higher because of the risk factor. If he dies or gets injured during a war he gets paid out. If he dies breaking the law he wont. It is as simple as that. Laws are very clear about not profiting from breaking laws, in any way. He is insurable because government lgislation says he has to be (in service) We were badly flooded here a few years ago - insurance companies refused us flood insurance following afformentioned floods. The government stepped in an now an insurance company has been named for the area, (probably subsidised by our taxes, but thats another topic) I wont get my car insurance if I drive to the beach, park up and then wonder why they wont pay/complain (after the tide comes in) With my idea the premium (or lack thereof) would be effected by ship loss rather than zone risk - much fairer. On the sbject about not profiting from breaking laws. A Burgular fell through a weak roof, and claimed from the occupier. Stupid I agree. But it happend. Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371
Macon Squaredealer Squaredeal Enterprises	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:12:00 - [35] Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist Wasn't Insurance meant to stabilize ship prices similar to Shuttles and tritanum costs? #1 reason people quit Eve has always been "I lost my ship". The real reason insurance was implemented was to reduce the pain of a loss to a level that less people quit over it. Losing a tech 1 ship means nothing now. What they didn't anticipate was how people's behavior would change with there being almost no ramifications for their actions (suiciding haulers and hulks increases dramatically, idiotic behaivior in fleet battles, self-destructing for the money, etc). All reducing payouts or increasing insurance costs will do is generate a reduction in that behavior. Insurance was a bad idea that should be removed, but won't be, because so far every time CCP nerfs Eve subscriptions go up, not down. At some point they will go to far and we'll have Trammel. ___________________________________________ Watch for the Squaredeal Enterprises IPO in the coming months.
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:15:00 - [36] Edited by: Sorted on 08/08/2008 16:15:52 Originally by: Macon Squaredealer Insurance was a bad idea that should be removed, but won't be, because so far every time CCP nerfs Eve subscriptions go up, not down. At some point they will go to far and we'll have Trammel. Yeah, I made a similar point in another thread. Mainstreaming EvE will increase subs. But it wont be the niche EvE many came here for in the offset. Build it on the backs of a niche + loyal fan base then **** them off to roll it out to the masses and increase profits. Its not like the devs dont LOVE the game but its the people pulling the purse strings that also controll the design puppets, its just business. Such is life. Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371
Willow Whisp Sadist Faction	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:18:00 - [37] Just give whatever insurance company in eve the same tools that GMs use for reimbursement. "our logs show nothing that would warrant an insurance payout" -- this is my sig.
Griff Philips Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:22:00 - [38] Originally by: Plumpy McPudding I prefer the soft, cottony touch of Charmin toilet paper because it does not chaff my butthole. No way! It plugs up my toilet if I use more than 3 squares!
soldieroffortune 258 Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:29:00 - [39] well for all you pirates out there *****ing about how there are little to no targets, Tarminic did provide a good point, you think you have no victims now, i would be willing to bet that you would have probably 50% LESS victims if it wasnt for insurance, because people wont want to lose their ship, granted t1 ships are cheap, but they might be cheap to you and to me, but not to a one month old, 7 mil for a thorax is alot, with insurance if they lose that ship, they can get a new one, and will be a bit more willing to go to low sec and get popped, and return if they have to run only a few more missions instead of running them for another month which it took them to get that cruiser in the first place
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:33:00 - [40] Originally by: Veldya Originally by: Sorted Who would insure you in LowSec,0.0WarZones, Belt Raters/mission runners (who would pay out for driving your car into a warzone etc) A friend of mine is in the navy, he has life insurance. His premiums are much higher because of the risk factor. If he dies or gets injured during a war he gets paid out. If he dies breaking the law he wont. It is as simple as that. Laws are very clear about not profiting from breaking laws, in any way. That is different. GI-Insurance got no relation to insurance of ships in EVE. Try to insure a tank instead, and you will see. If a tank is destroyed, it doesn't have a family that will potentially be without income and therefor starve. we are recruiting!
Sorted Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:37:00 - [41] Originally by: soldieroffortune 258 well for all you pirates out there *****ing about how there are little to no targets, Tarminic did provide a good point, you think you have no victims now, i would be willing to bet that you would have probably 50% LESS victims if it wasnt for insurance, because people wont want to lose their ship, granted t1 ships are cheap, but they might be cheap to you and to me, but not to a one month old, 7 mil for a thorax is alot, with insurance if they lose that ship, they can get a new one, and will be a bit more willing to go to low sec and get popped, and return if they have to run only a few more missions instead of running them for another month which it took them to get that cruiser in the first place I wont miss shooting at 30 day old t1 cruiser pilots. no sport and no reward... Vote against the nano nerf! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832371

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.