EVE Search - Insurance reform: it's time

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

Insurance reform: it's time

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sefredius Mengsk	Posted - 2010.01.21 15:24:00 - [151] -1 If ppl are selling ships below value and I can make money by selfdestructing I do it. Insurance makes it easier to cover losses from pvp. Only change to insurance should be that there is no payout when conkkorded!!!
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.01.21 19:32:00 - [152] Originally by: Sefredius Mengsk -1 If ppl are selling ships below value and I can make money by selfdestructing I do it. Yes, that's exactly the problem. Please try and see past your own immediate narrow self-interest.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2010.01.21 20:11:00 - [153] Originally by: Malcanis Yes, that's exactly the problem. Please try and see past your own immediate narrow self-interest. I suspect that if we removed insurance payouts on concord kills and self destructs, that we'd see insurance becoming a straight out isk sink. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.01.21 21:21:00 - [154] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Malcanis Yes, that's exactly the problem. Please try and see past your own immediate narrow self-interest. I suspect that if we removed insurance payouts on concord kills and self destructs, that we'd see insurance becoming a straight out isk sink. -Liang Speaking for myself, active in 0.0 as I am, it's been a decent net positive lately. About +130-140 mill this year so far.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2010.01.21 23:51:00 - [155] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 21/01/2010 23:52:00 Originally by: Malcanis Speaking for myself, active in 0.0 as I am, it's been a decent net positive lately. About +130-140 mill this year so far. Speaking for myself, Insurance has cost me a few bil over the course of my time in Eve. -Liang Ed: Hell, suicide ganking with a T1 fit Thorax costs about 3M - even fully insured. Factoring in named/T2 modules, and I doubt you've "made" isk off of dying. -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.01.22 12:27:00 - [156] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 21/01/2010 23:52:00 Originally by: Malcanis Speaking for myself, active in 0.0 as I am, it's been a decent net positive lately. About +130-140 mill this year so far. Speaking for myself, Insurance has cost me a few bil over the course of my time in Eve. -Liang Ed: Hell, suicide ganking with a T1 fit Thorax costs about 3M - even fully insured. Factoring in named/T2 modules, and I doubt you've "made" isk off of dying. Oh of course I haven't made ISK off dying - a T2-fit BS with Trimarks has about 50-60 mill of unrecoverable loss on it. But I've made money from insurance; paying 19M to get 60M back.
Brengholl	Posted - 2010.01.22 14:18:00 - [157] TLDR; all 6 pages support the op, at least a quick-fix is needed My idea for a permanent solution: 1. remove insurance in concord deaths, suicide ganking is just silly now days 2. the insurance is calculated from the price of minerals needed to build a ship, but those prices are fixed to a value ccp set many years ago -so how about ccp update those mineral values to actual average mineral values... maybe quarterly. -maybe set the insurance value of the ship to the average price of the ship (that would make t2/t3 insurable - and i haven't given that much thought) as for suicide ganking... my corpmate was ganked by a geddon with t1 fit, i think that guy made money from dying and from the loot drop... he didnt eaven try to scan the industrial to see if it was worthwile... because if the indy is empty and drops a single t2 cargo expander... it's money in the pocket, that's just silly! Where's the risk reward ratio of suicide ganking if you make money from dying and everything else is just a bonus
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.01.22 17:45:00 - [158] Originally by: Brengholl s 2. the insurance is calculated from the price of minerals needed to build a ship, but those prices are fixed to a value ccp set many years ago -so how about ccp update those mineral values to actual average mineral values... maybe quarterly. This is essentially the tl;dr of the thread, except that we were thinking of something more like a 7-day rolling average sale price. No need to remove CONCORD payouts, just set the insurance at 85-90% of insurance value and the problem pretty much takes care of itself.
Maxsim Goratiev Gallente Imperium Technologies	Posted - 2010.01.23 09:50:00 - [159] also make extending isurance contract cost half as much as initiating one. that will stop people blowing up their ships as soon az insutance runs out.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.01.23 10:36:00 - [160] Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev also make extending isurance contract cost half as much as initiating one. that will stop people blowing up their ships as soon az insutance runs out. That's a good idea, I like that one.

Dred Smith	Posted - 2010.01.24 20:52:00 - [161] Originally by: Brengholl TLDR; all 6 pages support the op, at least a quick-fix is needed My idea for a permanent solution: 1. remove insurance in concord deaths, suicide ganking is just silly now days 2. the insurance is calculated from the price of minerals needed to build a ship, but those prices are fixed to a value ccp set many years ago -so how about ccp update those mineral values to actual average mineral values... maybe quarterly. -maybe set the insurance value of the ship to the average price of the ship (that would make t2/t3 insurable - and i haven't given that much thought) as for suicide ganking... my corpmate was ganked by a geddon with t1 fit, i think that guy made money from dying and from the loot drop... he didnt eaven try to scan the industrial to see if it was worthwile... because if the indy is empty and drops a single t2 cargo expander... it's money in the pocket, that's just silly! Where's the risk reward ratio of suicide ganking if you make money from dying and everything else is just a bonus A change is needed: I suggest 1) For Concord kills, reduce payout as player SP increases; new players make silly mistakes and get full insurance; professional gankers need to choose their targets. 2) Have prices adjusted, because I cannot make money with suiciding in verge vendor with Dominix or Myrmidon, and barely a profit with an unfitted catalyst. So not convinced a change is needed here.
Dred Smith	Posted - 2010.01.25 20:21:00 - [162] Whatever happened to CCP Fear, and his statement in Dev Blog of 2008.08.06 that 'removal of insurance in CONCORD events will be implemented in the near future'. If CCP were planning to make this change, why did they change their minds - is there a link to comments from anyone in CCP? I couldn't find any.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.01.25 20:41:00 - [163] Originally by: Dred Smith Whatever happened to CCP Fear, and his statement in Dev Blog of 2008.08.06 that 'removal of insurance in CONCORD events will be implemented in the near future'. If CCP were planning to make this change, why did they change their minds - is there a link to comments from anyone in CCP? I couldn't find any. It was explained at length and in detail to Fear why that would be a very bad idea, and the proposal was put in a bag and drowned, as it deserved to be. Insurance is irrelevant to small ships being used for ganking. Losing ~10% of the price of a battleship will make casual BS ganks uneconomic. But you if you remove insurance altogether, then you have undesirable effects like making NPC corp freighters, orcas, etc, effectively invulnerable. You have to remember that suicide ganking isn't wrong. It's not cheating or undesirable or unintended or exploiting or griefing, and while it arguably needs rebalancing, it doesn't need eliminating.
Pasus Nauran Amarr	Posted - 2010.01.25 20:48:00 - [164] I agree with the idea that insurance premiums should fluctuate with average mineral prices on a regular adjustment schedule (every 7 days or month) is really the way it should go. Fixed prices just doesn't make sense when everything else in the economy fluctuates with supply and demand. I do also think that payouts from being Concorded or self-destructing should be reduced (to half) or completely eliminated. It makes absolutely no sense that either situation would grant full insurance payout.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.01.25 21:01:00 - [165] Originally by: Pasus Nauran I agree with the idea that insurance premiums should fluctuate with average mineral prices on a regular adjustment schedule (every 7 days or month) is really the way it should go. Fixed prices just doesn't make sense when everything else in the economy fluctuates with supply and demand. I do also think that payouts from being Concorded or self-destructing should be reduced (to half) or completely eliminated. It makes absolutely no sense that either situation would grant full insurance payout. Once insurance payouts are lower than mineral value, self-destructing will pretty much stop, since it will always be better to reprocess the ship for minerals. As for "making sense", coherency takes a back seat to game balance. If you're going to eliminate insurance for CONCORDed ships in the name of "good sense", then fair enough. But we will have to abandon the idea of CONCORD of being omnipotent, invincible and omniscient and working for free, since that doesn't make any sense either. If CONCORD beome falliable, unreliable and escapable, then I have no problem with removing insurance for CONCORD kills. In any case, I dont want this thread to become about suicide ganking. There have been more than enough discussions about that. This one is about reforming the way insurance is calculated.
Amyth Perkone	Posted - 2010.02.23 22:33:00 - [166] Mess with insurance payouts and the miners will eat you alive. Having insurance not being paid out on concord kills doesn't mess the miners up and fixes the ganking issue. This stuff need way more thought. Not supporting as it stands.
Kayllyn Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.09 01:59:00 - [167] This is stupid. It really is, think through it first. Insurance puts a floor on the prices miners receive for their work, and even mission runners to some extent. It encourages pvp by making ships cheaper, and by covering more of a loss (hello, insurance) people are more willing to undock. Think of a real world scenario. I have car insurance that covers all damage after $500. I pay my money every six months (lasts three months in eve) and I'm set. I get a new car if my car gets owned. I'm not scared to drive because my car might get wrecked, because I know it won't be the end of the world. People do take losses on insurance, when they fly multiple ships with rigs (as there is no reason to not rig now) some insurance will inevitably lapse. People can't easily MAKE money through insurance. But you also shouldn't fault people for using a mechanic in the game for making money, if anything you should go after macrominers that oversupply the minerals that make producing ships that cheaply possible. My second major point is the absolute last thing this game needs is fewer people undocking because they are scared of losing their ships. If you think it is bad now just imagine how it would be if you cut insurance payouts by 1/3 or more. It is really, really dumb.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.