Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 09:50:00 -
[1]
Some proof
As a first step - and this would just be a temporary band-aid - reduce all insurance premiums and payouts by 25-33%
Longer term, we need a better system.
|
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 12:14:00 -
[2]
Or just remove insurance. After all, it would make ships cheaper which should make up for the increased cost of loosing ships to some extent.
But yes, a reform would be a good step in the right direction. However, mining would need some form of boost to keep mining profitable.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 17:25:00 -
[3]
Make insurance market-based(aka, Platinum pays out 100% of market value, not 100% of "base price"), and lower/eliminate the drop rates of unnamed, mineral-equivalent loot. It'd be more complex than that to transition the market over, but that's the basic solution.
|
Furb Killer
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 18:29:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Furb Killer on 21/11/2009 18:29:02 Insurance pay out based on market value is too easy to manipulate. But yeah insurance in general needs a look at, but for now reducing stuff by 5% will be sufficient, no need to do 33%.
|
Corian Teranos
Critical Mass Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 18:58:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Make insurance market-based(aka, Platinum pays out 100% of market value, not 100% of "base price"), and lower/eliminate the drop rates of unnamed, mineral-equivalent loot. It'd be more complex than that to transition the market over, but that's the basic solution.
definatly supported because loosing a faction friggate worth 70m is bad enough with out the insurance company rubbing it in with a payout of only a few hundred thousand
:Its all fun and games untill your logistics guy tries passive tanking his raven: |
Flaming Lemming
Puppeteer Press
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 19:36:00 -
[6]
JUst wait until after Dec 2, so I'll get full value for self-destructing my Phoenix. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death |
Odilon Raennere
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 01:08:00 -
[7]
Fully supported.
|
Carai an'Caldazar
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 01:59:00 -
[8]
Insurance reform has been a long time coming... and needed as the game progresses...
The ability to break an empire's back by destroying their ships needs to be possible... and insurance always seemed a guard-rail for newbies getting used to the game anyways.
Please do something... follow the T2 lead and only partially insure ships... remove insurance on anything larger than a cruiser, etc. No risk battleship and drake gangs are commonplace in 0.0, insuring capital ships seems asinine, and insurance fraud as linked to by that post is only bound to increase as prices of minerals slides further.
A sensible solution would be preferred... (and hopefully a well thought out means of presenting the problem and solution to the community to avoid mass hysteria) ~Carai an'Caldazar~ ~Carai an'Ellisande~ -- Dawn of a new Empire --
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 09:17:00 -
[9]
It is evident that the prices of T1 ships - and therefore minerals are wholly determined by insurance values. In the past CCP have removed mineral price ceilings (reprocessing NPC items) and floors (NPC buy orders), but Insurance is the elephant in the room. Earlier in the game's evolutionary progress, I believe it was valuable and necesary. Now it is become a giant hinderance to the emergence of a true player economy, not to mention a vast ISK fountain, not to mention anti-immersive behaviour like suicide ganking (a legal absurdity made possible and necessary by the economic absurdity of negative-value battleships and the gameplay absurdity of omnipotent CONCORD police).
The one real value of insurance is to protect new players. However simple schemes like simply reducing insurance payouts by x% per loss are susceptible to farming with alts. It is also worth noting that without further change, a reduction or removal of insurance would lead to a freefall plunge in T1 ship value, so the absolute loss suffered from ship loss would be considerably reduced in any case.
The other issue of course is that at the moment, Insurance is essentially a huge demand subsidy to miners. The industrial economy is at the moment capable of producing many more ships than the war economy requires. An alternative or even a companion to insurance reform might be to consider methods of increasing demand. Which is to say: ship loss. At the very least, some dicussion as to why supply so outstrips demand is merited.
|
Agent Known
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 17:08:00 -
[10]
You could take the route that has been discussed before: remove insurance from self-destruction or being killed by CONCORD/faction police. People will still use alts to kill their BS for the profit, but there's really nothing much you can do except reducing insurance payouts... On another note, I also have an annoying sig.
inaftertimeflux |
|
Nathan Rev
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 19:20:00 -
[11]
Some reform is needed
|
Taudia
Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 20:36:00 -
[12]
Signed.
|
Lusulpher
Blackwater Syndicate Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 03:05:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Lusulpher on 23/11/2009 03:14:16 Edited by: Lusulpher on 23/11/2009 03:06:30 Cannot agree. Those builders who vent the excess minerals and pass the profits along to entrepeneurs are removing the heat from the system, much like a really big hurricane.
They are moving the economy back to equalibrium. If the excess ships are not removed they remain stockpiled to gamebreak alter, or they reduce price of player-earned labour, Supply v. Demand.
It was forced out of equilibrium by macro accounts, and then they unloaded cheap mins after Unholy Rage. Years of cheating hit the markets, the natural order is that more cheating will redistribute the wealth to the clever and resourceful. Capitalism at work. Greed is good.
This Insurance fraud can only be maintained if the macros were to return. I'm sure CCP will not let them. So enjoy it while it lasts.
Edit: Cosmo says so on 2nd page!
T2 insurance needs reform, AFTER Dominion supply changes. 7 |
Leneerra
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 09:46:00 -
[14]
They could just remove the top level purchased insurance and see the result.
and while they are at it remove all payed insuance payout on suicide kills (only pay base fee)
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 10:18:00 -
[15]
No insurance company in the present day world pays a dime when you are careless/reckless with the insured property, duplicate that in Eve and issue is resolved.
No payout on PvP kills (ie. player on mail) or self-destructs. If ship is insured and it is lost to another player you do however get a partial (50-75%) refund on the premium.
There is no reason to penalise new players, who are more likely to lose boats starting out, by making the initial grind all the more difficult.
Cannot be supported in current iteration.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 10:59:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Leneerra They could just remove the top level purchased insurance and see the result.
and while they are at it remove all payed insuance payout on suicide kills (only pay base fee)
Removing insurance just on suicide kills would necessitate a CONCORD nerf. That's a whole different issue.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 11:10:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida No insurance company in the present day world pays a dime when you are careless/reckless with the insured property, duplicate that in Eve and issue is resolved.
No payout on PvP kills (ie. player on mail) or self-destructs. If ship is insured and it is lost to another player you do however get a partial (50-75%) refund on the premium.
There is no reason to penalise new players, who are more likely to lose boats starting out, by making the initial grind all the more difficult.
Cannot be supported in current iteration.
Um, how is proposing a change to the way insurance works not supporting a proposal that insurance needs to be changed?
A straight reduction in insurance value would actually benefit new players.
|
Vincent Gaines
Dirt Nap Squad
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 12:43:00 -
[18]
This is different than Concord- if Concord kills a ship then there should be no payout.
Self destructing, keep as it is. Let them do it.
more ships blown up = more need for minerals = more demand = higher mineral prices = relief for starving miners.
more ships blown up = more demand = higher prices
both being about a market equalibrium.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:25:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Malcanis on 23/11/2009 15:28:33
Originally by: Vincent Gaines This is different than Concord- if Concord kills a ship then there should be no payout.
Self destructing, keep as it is. Let them do it.
more ships blown up = more need for minerals = more demand = higher mineral prices = relief for starving miners.
more ships blown up = more demand = higher prices
both being about a market equalibrium.
In other words, Insurance is effectively an NPC buy order, as I said in my post above. Hardly what we would normally think of as a "market equilibrium"; the market has little to do with it. CCP have - rightly - been progressively removing NPC market buy/sell orders as they encroach on and distort the price levels the market sets: it's time for them to remove or amend this one too.
This is not about suicide ganking. This is about a player driven market.
|
Vincent Gaines
Dirt Nap Squad
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:43:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Vincent Gaines on 23/11/2009 16:44:33
Originally by: Malcanis Edited by: Malcanis on 23/11/2009 15:28:33
Originally by: Vincent Gaines This is different than Concord- if Concord kills a ship then there should be no payout.
Self destructing, keep as it is. Let them do it.
more ships blown up = more need for minerals = more demand = higher mineral prices = relief for starving miners.
more ships blown up = more demand = higher prices
both being about a market equalibrium.
In other words, Insurance is effectively an NPC buy order, as I said in my post above. Hardly what we would normally think of as a "market equilibrium"; the market has little to do with it. CCP have - rightly - been progressively removing NPC market buy/sell orders as they encroach on and distort the price levels the market sets: it's time for them to remove or amend this one too.
This is not about suicide ganking. This is about a player driven market.
Yes, insurance is a "floor"
you do understand if you remove payouts that the price of ships would plummet before actually begin rising again? I don't need to explain why do I?
Insurance is not a commodity, it's an incentive to place a ship in harm's way.
don't get me wrong, mind you I rarely... if EVER, fly a T1 ship these days. Nature of the business.
|
|
Ankhesentapemkah
Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:29:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 23/11/2009 17:30:26 I agree with Malcanis, the current insurance system is an artificial price floor which has no place in a player-run economy.
For the solution I'd like to see insurance payout based on actual market value, the base prices made sense 6 years ago but they are out of date. ---
Click banner for info! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 19:48:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Vincent Gaines Edited by: Vincent Gaines on 23/11/2009 16:44:33
Originally by: Malcanis Edited by: Malcanis on 23/11/2009 15:28:33
Originally by: Vincent Gaines This is different than Concord- if Concord kills a ship then there should be no payout.
Self destructing, keep as it is. Let them do it.
more ships blown up = more need for minerals = more demand = higher mineral prices = relief for starving miners.
more ships blown up = more demand = higher prices
both being about a market equalibrium.
In other words, Insurance is effectively an NPC buy order, as I said in my post above. Hardly what we would normally think of as a "market equilibrium"; the market has little to do with it. CCP have - rightly - been progressively removing NPC market buy/sell orders as they encroach on and distort the price levels the market sets: it's time for them to remove or amend this one too.
This is not about suicide ganking. This is about a player driven market.
Yes, insurance is a "floor"
you do understand if you remove payouts that the price of ships would plummet before actually begin rising again? I don't need to explain why do I?
Insurance is not a commodity, it's an incentive to place a ship in harm's way.
don't get me wrong, mind you I rarely... if EVER, fly a T1 ship these days. Nature of the business.
Who said anything about "removing"...?
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:17:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 23/11/2009 17:30:26 I agree with Malcanis, the current insurance system is an artificial price floor which has no place in a player-run economy.
For the solution I'd like to see insurance payout based on actual market value, the base prices made sense 6 years ago but they are out of date.
Root mean square price aggregated by volume of sum mineral requirement would seem to be the simplest method.
|
Kiljaedenas
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:03:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 23/11/2009 17:30:26 I agree with Malcanis, the current insurance system is an artificial price floor which has no place in a player-run economy.
For the solution I'd like to see insurance payout based on actual market value, the base prices made sense 6 years ago but they are out of date.
Be careful how this gets implemented. From the way you described this I believe you're thinking about some sort of built in auto-calculation of the insurance rates based on the market average. People could take advantage of this by posting sell orders for T1 ships at ridiculous prices (hundreds of billions of ISK each) in order to jack up the "average" market value, and this way they could potentially get auto-calculated insurance payouts worth far, far more than they should be.
I support the idea of tweaking the insurance system, but do NOT use an auto-calculation method based on the average market price. Otherwise, we'll have an even bigger insurance fraud mess than we already have.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:07:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Kiljaedenas
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 23/11/2009 17:30:26 I agree with Malcanis, the current insurance system is an artificial price floor which has no place in a player-run economy.
For the solution I'd like to see insurance payout based on actual market value, the base prices made sense 6 years ago but they are out of date.
Be careful how this gets implemented. From the way you described this I believe you're thinking about some sort of built in auto-calculation of the insurance rates based on the market average. People could take advantage of this by posting sell orders for T1 ships at ridiculous prices (hundreds of billions of ISK each) in order to jack up the "average" market value, and this way they could potentially get auto-calculated insurance payouts worth far, far more than they should be.
I support the idea of tweaking the insurance system, but do NOT use an auto-calculation method based on the average market price. Otherwise, we'll have an even bigger insurance fraud mess than we already have.
That's why I suggested a root mean square style calculation, that will even out the effect of outlying values.
also: motherofgod.jpg at Ankhthingy supporting one of my proposals
|
Kiljaedenas
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 00:21:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Malcanis Edited by: Malcanis on 23/11/2009 21:08:13
That's why I suggested a root mean square style calculation based on mineral prices; that will even out the effect of outlying values.
also: motherofgod.jpg at Ankhthingy supporting one of my proposals
Still doesn't solve the problem. They'll just make the bogus sell orders on the ore instead once they realize that's how the system works.
You can't use any kind of auto-calculation system based on market values of anything, regardless of what formula you use, as people will find a way to pad the market values to their benefit. Exploiters are smart these days.
There were some suggestions above that I should also discuss. The option of reducing or eliminating the insurance payout you get for self-destructing is a good one, but it has two main flaws:
1) It doesn't account for alts legally destroying the ships in PvP. My primary solution to this whole problem (which I will mention later) should deal with this 2) There are times that people really do have to self-destruct their ship for some reason, albeit these are rare cases (getting stuck in wormhole space with no probes is one that comes to mind). People shouldn't be completely *****-slapped for having to make this sacrifice; they should at least get SOMETHING back to pad their losses a bit. Solutions to this would be either my primary solution mentioned below, or ships destroyed by a self destruct automatically get the default payout for an uninsured ship, regardless of whether or not the ship had insurance.
Another suggestion above was to completely remove the insurance system outright. That simply isn't an option; players are now quite used to that system and if it is lost players would never want to risk their ships again, or they might even terminate their Eve accounts over it. It isn't worth the risk.
PRIMARY SOLUTION
The only way I can think of that will really solve this problem without any possible holes for people to exploit would be to manually go through the insurance system and re-map all of the values, and this would have to be re-done on an annual basis. The insurance payout for 100% coverage should be noticably, but not extremely, less than the sum of the insurance fee, the average market value for the ship that is MANUALLY checked in order to weed out irrelevant data, and the average value of the possible salvage from the ship's wreck. It's long, it's messy, but it's foolproof, and if necessary I can help with some of the data analysis myself if CCP wishes it.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 09:52:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Kiljaedenas
Originally by: Malcanis Edited by: Malcanis on 23/11/2009 21:08:13
That's why I suggested a root mean square style calculation based on mineral prices; that will even out the effect of outlying values.
also: motherofgod.jpg at Ankhthingy supporting one of my proposals
Still doesn't solve the problem. They'll just make the bogus sell orders on the ore instead once they realize that's how the system works.
You can't use any kind of auto-calculation system based on market values of anything, regardless of what formula you use, as people will find a way to pad the market values to their benefit. Exploiters are smart these days
Hmmm... I think you're dismissing the concept too easily. What about basing it on actual mineral sales? That would ignore phoney high sell/low buy orders altogether.
True, you could have alts selling back and forth to each other, but you'd be spending a titanic amount on broker fees to move the RMS mineral sale price even a little. Remember that RMS calculations level out the effect of outlying values, both high and low. I really think the eve mineral economy is simply too vast to be affected significantly in this way. And un-naturally high buy orders are very susceptible to interference once people see what's happening (and they certainly will). It only takes one smart trader to ninja in a sell order at the right time and your putative insurance market manipulator is left holding vast amounts of someone else's trit at 16 ISK per unit or whatever.
|
soren tores
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 17:16:00 -
[28]
No claims bonus, is all is needed to sort out this insurance mess.
the more ships you lose the more it costs you to insure. could also tie in the new sov mechanics to insurance for 0.0 pvp
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:24:00 -
[29]
Originally by: soren tores No claims bonus, is all is needed to sort out this insurance mess.
the more ships you lose the more it costs you to insure. could also tie in the new sov mechanics to insurance for 0.0 pvp
Kind of harsh to penalise legitimate PvP in this way. 0.0 is economically disadvantaged enough as it is.
|
Kiljaedenas
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 18:31:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Kiljaedenas
Originally by: Malcanis Edited by: Malcanis on 23/11/2009 21:08:13
That's why I suggested a root mean square style calculation based on mineral prices; that will even out the effect of outlying values.
also: motherofgod.jpg at Ankhthingy supporting one of my proposals
Still doesn't solve the problem. They'll just make the bogus sell orders on the ore instead once they realize that's how the system works.
You can't use any kind of auto-calculation system based on market values of anything, regardless of what formula you use, as people will find a way to pad the market values to their benefit. Exploiters are smart these days
Hmmm... I think you're dismissing the concept too easily. What about basing it on actual mineral sales? That would ignore phoney high sell/low buy orders altogether.
True, you could have alts selling back and forth to each other, but you'd be spending a titanic amount on broker fees to move the RMS mineral sale price even a little. Remember that RMS calculations level out the effect of outlying values, both high and low. I really think the eve mineral economy is simply too vast to be affected significantly in this way. And un-naturally high buy orders are very susceptible to interference once people see what's happening (and they certainly will). It only takes one smart trader to ninja in a sell order at the right time and your putative insurance market manipulator is left holding vast amounts of someone else's trit at 16 ISK per unit or whatever.
Hmm...that might work. To be safe it should be based on the average sale values over a period of time, perhaps 3 months, and then reduce the sum total of the mineral cost by perhaps 10% before calculating the insurance values. I can see how that would make anyone trying to pad the market lose a lot of money to transaction taxes before they can make a useable difference to the insurance payouts.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |