Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:32:00 -
[1]
I don't want this thread to turn into another high-sec ganking thread but it does have to relate to the situation so feel free to bring it up to make relevant suggestions.
Idea: People pay for insurance in Eve based on their prior insurance history. Numerous high-sec kills will in turn raise your premium for the next ship your choose to insure. Shoot too many people? You might not be able to acquire insurance at all. This would only apply for kills made in (.5) and above. (.4) and below would not apply to insurance because the insurance company agents are panzies and won't go out there to inspect the wreckage anyways. In other words, they just take your word for it and pay the full amount. However, trends can be spotted and too many losses in lowsec may cause your insurance to rise.
Have good insurance history? You might pay less on your next ship payment. Careless? Going AFK in a lvl III? You might want to pay more attention next time, because your insurance is on the rise.
The numbers? I don't know, let CCP figure that out or just pay me to do it.
|
Tobias Sjodin
Caldari Ore Mongers
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:34:00 -
[2]
Disagree.
For one reason, it limits the freedom that is EVE.
|
Terraform
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:37:00 -
[3]
since when has insurance agents been bothered to check peoples criminal records? all they check is your economy and if you got loads of money from blowing up other ships and is an active PvPer they'd probably be more than happy to have you as a customer, since you need insurance often for yourself, and you increase the demand for insurance by blowing up other people...
It's not a question of ethics, it's all pure business.
Nice idea tho, just not very functional.
|
LightMee
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:37:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin Disagree.
For one reason, it limits the freedom that is EVE.
Removing insurance LIMITS the freedom? How?
|
Sarmaul
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:39:00 -
[5]
Originally by: LightMee
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin Disagree.
For one reason, it limits the freedom that is EVE.
Removing insurance LIMITS the freedom? How?
If people think they won't get an insurance payout of it will cost them a hell of a lot more they won't risk losing their ship, thus limiting their gameplay.
TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust - |
Avon
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:39:00 -
[6]
Remove insurance completely. Can't get fairer than that.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
|
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:42:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Terraform since when has insurance agents been bothered to check peoples criminal records? all they check is your economy and if you got loads of money from blowing up other ships and is an active PvPer they'd probably be more than happy to have you as a customer, since you need insurance often for yourself, and you increase the demand for insurance by blowing up other people...
It's not a question of ethics, it's all pure business.
Nice idea tho, just not very functional.
Ummmm (if) the Eve insurance company was an actual company, they would be losing millions upon millions on suicide gankers. So no, that doesn't pan out.
How much is insurance on a Caracal, and how much is the payout. Tell me HOW they are making money on these "PvPers"
The only part of EVE this limits is really highsec non-consensual PVP. It in no way takes away the freedom of EVE.
|
Splagada
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:45:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Splagada on 02/08/2006 20:46:17 Insurance in eve is badly implemented
we insure ships and done
so what? as we can insure, why cant i do the following?
i would like to insure my fitting i would like to insure my hauling contract with another corp i would like to insure, why not, my gang operation on some other corp? i would like to insure my pos (the day i have one lol) against a pirate attack i would like to insure my cargo i do not understand how an insurance will pay anything to those killed by concord or sentries.
i would like, if i was owner of a big corp with much assets, to be able to act like an insurer
in real life, whenever there is a risk, there is an insurance. sometimes it's stupid (some acress insuring their legs), most of the time it's useful (i want to insure my pos against an attack)
i want the same in eve, insurance is not enough, or too much. i agree with the OP, the price should raise with the stupidness of the player -
Looking for technetium delivery contracts |
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:48:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin Disagree.
For one reason, it limits the freedom that is EVE.
Please elaborate. Insurance has never given me "Freedom." If I lose my ship in a mission I say "phew" at least I can get some of my money back. If a ganker loses a ship in high-sec he laughs at the insurance company and takes out another caracal to go blow up. Seems like the dumbest damn insurance company in the world to me.
|
Tobias Sjodin
Caldari Ore Mongers
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:48:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Avon Remove insurance completely. Can't get fairer than that.
LOL, that might work for someone who is financially stable, and has easy access to big ISK.
But that n00b who just got his Megathron and didn't quite expect Level 4 missions to be so hard, and don't have insurance, will see things quite differently.
|
|
UGWidowmaker
Setenta Corp Xelas Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:50:00 -
[11]
I always htought the insurance was a joke, however. its all good for new players and such. heres my idea on how to solwe the insurance and such..
While you are in war your insurance company will not pay out if u loose your ship to a cooperation you are in war with. this way wars would also have an end. atm wars are stupid. making stuff around insurance would help on this.. SO
While in war = NO insurance. I will make u into biosource... |
PeeWee Pee
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:55:00 -
[12]
insurance needs be player run not npc run. else you never getting a system that make sence. npc be like printing money for no risk.
|
hydraSlav
Synergy Evolved
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:57:00 -
[13]
In RL insurance, people pay different premiums based on their previous claims. If someone makes lots of claims (i.e. often in a crash/etc), his premiums rise.
Should be same in EvE. Bust instead of basing it on previous claims, base it on person's security standing
=================================== Above comments are my personal views, and do not represent my corporation or alliance, unless otherwise indicated |
Avon
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:58:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin
Originally by: Avon Remove insurance completely. Can't get fairer than that.
LOL, that might work for someone who is financially stable, and has easy access to big ISK.
But that n00b who just got his Megathron and didn't quite expect Level 4 missions to be so hard, and don't have insurance, will see things quite differently.
If you can't afford to lose it, don't fly it.
The reason so many people complain about their losses is that they overstretch themselves, and put all their eggs in one basket.
I can't remember the last time I insured a ship.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
|
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 20:58:00 -
[15]
lol, whatever player decided to take that task on would never make a profit. I've only had a few contracts expire of course I've never really PvP'd with this char either. If you made insurance run by players it would cost you 20ml to insure a 22ml Ferox.
Even if you built up a reputation of not loosing ships, there would be a strong hesitance after you lost even one for the player running the insurance to re-offer insurance. Too much worrying, no one would take it on as a profession.
|
PeeWee Pee
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:04:00 -
[16]
Originally by: hydraSlav In RL insurance, people pay different premiums based on their previous claims. If someone makes lots of claims (i.e. often in a crash/etc), his premiums rise.
Should be same in EvE. Bust instead of basing it on previous claims, base it on person's security standing
you gotz to be kidding me dude. what does security standing have to do with how you fly. the best pilotz most have neg standings the pos ones are carebear stoopid pilotz that can be picked on easily.
me thinks ccp make insurance run by players like player corp run. you decide to insure or not and what price. insurance corp must have nuff capitolz to back it up and sell shares. otherwise it be like printing money from npc insurance.
make sure everyone buy insurance by concord give fines for those who get caught flying with no insurance just like RL. those who fly in empire must have insurance those in low sec and 0.0 can fly without. insurance only bought from player run insurance co
|
PeeWee Pee
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:05:00 -
[17]
Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO lol, whatever player decided to take that task on would never make a profit. I've only had a few contracts expire of course I've never really PvP'd with this char either. If you made insurance run by players it would cost you 20ml to insure a 22ml Ferox.
Even if you built up a reputation of not loosing ships, there would be a strong hesitance after you lost even one for the player running the insurance to re-offer insurance. Too much worrying, no one would take it on as a profession.
easy dude like you sayz players can look into insurance buyer's vehicle records and see how many ships he lost and decide to insure or not like in RL. with no insurance player cannot fly in empire or risk get fined by concord. player who lose ships a lotz will be asked a higher price insurance. problem solved.
|
Reiisha
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:09:00 -
[18]
- Keep insurance as it is in 0.5+ - Halve it in 0.1-0.4 - Remove it in 0.0 - Void it with any self destruct
When signing an insurance contract, the insurance company makes sure you're not going to risk it at risky places. You're not going to get life insurance if you commit suicide, which is the best example for this. (Of course, clonse are exempt from this for obvious reasons).
So, why would an insurance company pay everything out in full when they know you're going to risk it in almost lawless space, no protection, fully knowing the risks there?
Simple enough to understand.
|
PeeWee Pee
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:13:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Reiisha - Keep insurance as it is in 0.5+ - Halve it in 0.1-0.4 - Remove it in 0.0 - Void it with any self destruct
When signing an insurance contract, the insurance company makes sure you're not going to risk it at risky places. You're not going to get life insurance if you commit suicide, which is the best example for this. (Of course, clonse are exempt from this for obvious reasons).
So, why would an insurance company pay everything out in full when they know you're going to risk it in almost lawless space, no protection, fully knowing the risks there?
Simple enough to understand.
- 0.5+ must fly with insurance else concord give fines - 0.1-0.4 can fly with insurance with negotiate payz - 0.0 no insurance payout
insurance must be issued by player corp with enuff capitolz from shareholders. there be insurance officer to determine whether insurance be sold or not based on player ship loss history. high risk offenders must be asked more or denied insurance. no npc insurance issue.
you know you love it |
wander about
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:16:00 -
[20]
Insurance means nothing after a year.
Take a fully tech 2/faction fitted hac into a bad place and leap for joy at the 15mill insurance payout.
So leave insurance alone; it helps new players, it keeps wars going, it allows early pvp, it means little at the top end.
So I ain't signing this thread
|
|
Tobias Sjodin
Caldari Ore Mongers
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:17:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin
Originally by: Avon Remove insurance completely. Can't get fairer than that.
LOL, that might work for someone who is financially stable, and has easy access to big ISK.
But that n00b who just got his Megathron and didn't quite expect Level 4 missions to be so hard, and don't have insurance, will see things quite differently.
If you can't afford to lose it, don't fly it.
The reason so many people complain about their losses is that they overstretch themselves, and put all their eggs in one basket.
I can't remember the last time I insured a ship.
Well, you see - to an extent I agree with you, that there has to be negative consequence for lack of foresight, and I believe the fact that you cannot insure anything except from your ship is negative consequence enough.
However, as far as removing insurance entirely, which you are proposing, I have to strongly disagree - as that would simply be too much for a lot of people, who learn by making mistakes.
After all, as I was touching on before, this is an open-ended game with lot of opportunity, and compared to most MMORPG's there are a lot more negative consequences to eg. dying. The freedom I am talking about is the fact that you can perform "out of the box" actions that create a more alive universe (imo). Whereas the situation where everyone had to be damn cautious about keeping their ships intact, we would see a lot more players huddling in stations whenever they found a sign of trouble.
At least now people dare take a bit extra chance in the game, which create more opportunities for pirates (such as me), and also for the miners (as perhaps some pirates would be too damn terrified of losing their ships).
I like the fact that people go in battleships and gank people in hi-sec. Why? Becuase it makes the game a bit less predictible.
Also, I believe that removing insurance would create an even bigger rift between the older (skillwise) characters, and the younger. Who the hell would fly around in a Tier 2 battleship, unless he had 20 Million skillpoints focused at keeping that battleship intact.
The older players would rejoice, but the appeal for the younger audience would become even smaller.
I think the insurance, as it is right now works well enough, paying 1/3 of your ship cost to get enough to buy a new ship, but losing all mods you had on it is punishment enough for most players.
|
ching'sta
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:17:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Avon Remove insurance completely. Can't get fairer than that.
sounds good to me i forget to insure all the time anyway. Then there is like half of all ships not even worth insure for the low payout.
Make insurens payout follow market value or just remove
|
Reiisha
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:19:00 -
[23]
Originally by: wander about Take a fully tech 2/faction fitted hac into a bad place and leap for joy at the 15mill insurance payout.
So leave insurance alone; it helps new players, it keeps wars going, it allows early pvp, it means little at the top end.
Good point indeed, almost forgot...
|
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:21:00 -
[24]
Originally by: wander about Insurance means nothing after a year.
Take a fully tech 2/faction fitted hac into a bad place and leap for joy at the 15mill insurance payout.
So leave insurance alone; it helps new players, it keeps wars going, it allows early pvp, it means little at the top end.
So I ain't signing this thread
I have a hard time believing that you and others replying to this thread have actually read the proposal at hand. I do not want to remove insurance. I want to limit the use of insurance as a means to pirate in high-sec.
My proposal DOES help new players, it DOES keep wars going (Remember your insurance won't increase unless concord pops you for aggressing another player), and it DOES allow PvP.
So, did ya'll read my damn post or what?
|
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:28:00 -
[25]
Originally by: PeeWee Pee
Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO lol, whatever player decided to take that task on would never make a profit. I've only had a few contracts expire of course I've never really PvP'd with this char either. If you made insurance run by players it would cost you 20ml to insure a 22ml Ferox.
Even if you built up a reputation of not loosing ships, there would be a strong hesitance after you lost even one for the player running the insurance to re-offer insurance. Too much worrying, no one would take it on as a profession.
easy dude like you sayz players can look into insurance buyer's vehicle records and see how many ships he lost and decide to insure or not like in RL. with no insurance player cannot fly in empire or risk get fined by concord. player who lose ships a lotz will be asked a higher price insurance. problem solved.
Do you know the margin that the NPC insurance companies now operate at? It'd be like an RL company insuring some greasy dudes Ferrari for $200 before he drove it into a destruction derby and them KNOWING that he was going to a DD.
|
Tobias Sjodin
Caldari Ore Mongers
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:32:00 -
[26]
Real-life comparisons to a virtual game world are a bit sketchy.
OMG! That person murdered someone! How can we tolerate it! We should ban everyone who kills someone! OMG!
|
loony zoon
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:33:00 -
[27]
Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
Idea: People pay for insurance in Eve based on their prior insurance history. Numerous high-sec kills will in turn raise your premium for the next ship your choose to insure. Shoot too many people? You might not be able to acquire insurance at all. This would only apply for kills made in (.5) and above. (.4) and below would not apply to insurance because the insurance company agents are panzies and won't go out there to inspect the wreckage anyways. In other words, they just take your word for it and pay the full amount. However, trends can be spotted and too many losses in lowsec may cause your insurance to rise.
Have good insurance history? You might pay less on your next ship payment. Careless? Going AFK in a lvl III? You might want to pay more attention next time, because your insurance is on the rise.
The numbers? I don't know, let CCP figure that out or just pay me to do it.
I had been too stunned by the database implications of your idea
Nice ideas, but a bit unrealistic. very few people would have a 'no-claims' bonus in eve. I also have to get selfish and think of the approx 3bill i have been paid out in BS insurance in eve
|
Antodias
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:35:00 -
[28]
No, no, please no.
I already have to put up with Real life insurance, don't make EVE's insurance system complicated aswell.
Additionally, it stops people taking more risks. Which is bad.
|
HostageTaker
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:42:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Avon Remove insurance completely. Can't get fairer than that.
This man knows what he's talking about! I fully agree with this statement.
I can't recall the last time I insured a ship...
>>> EvE Online Wallpapers <<< |
Tobias Sjodin
Caldari Ore Mongers
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:45:00 -
[30]
Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin Real-life comparisons to a virtual game world are a bit sketchy.
OMG! That person murdered someone! How can we tolerate it! We should ban everyone who kills someone! OMG!
However, some are very valid. You can't just say "well you can't relate a game to RL" sure you can. When we're talking about a business, such as an insurance company and how they make their money why can't we reference RL. Its essentially the same system.
bottom line, player run insurance would not work. Who's going to manage 200,000 files for a loss of isk?
Well then, yours isn't valid. It's outright poor.
NPC:s run the insurance-company, the ISK is virtual, and since this is a game, the goal is not to make it as similar to reality as possible, but to make it fun in the long run (or you might as well not play it, and just stick with real life).
To summarize:
More options for a player on balanced terms = good.
Less options due to "too realistic" features eliminating freedom = bad.
Just tank your haulers better, and the battleship-ganks in hi-sec will prove to be quite ineffective.
|
|
Antodias
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 21:48:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Antodias on 02/08/2006 21:52:18
Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO Have good insurance history? You might pay less on your next ship payment. Careless? Going AFK in a lvl III? You might want to pay more attention next time, because your insurance is on the rise.
This paragraph has nothing to do with high sec ganking. When going on a level 3 mission there is a risk of losing your ship.
|
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 22:06:00 -
[32]
Originally by: loony zoon
Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
Idea: People pay for insurance in Eve based on their prior insurance history. Numerous high-sec kills will in turn raise your premium for the next ship your choose to insure. Shoot too many people? You might not be able to acquire insurance at all. This would only apply for kills made in (.5) and above. (.4) and below would not apply to insurance because the insurance company agents are panzies and won't go out there to inspect the wreckage anyways. In other words, they just take your word for it and pay the full amount. However, trends can be spotted and too many losses in lowsec may cause your insurance to rise.
Have good insurance history? You might pay less on your next ship payment. Careless? Going AFK in a lvl III? You might want to pay more attention next time, because your insurance is on the rise.
The numbers? I don't know, let CCP figure that out or just pay me to do it.
I had been too stunned by the database implications of your idea
Nice ideas, but a bit unrealistic. very few people would have a 'no-claims' bonus in eve. I also have to get selfish and think of the approx 3bill i have been paid out in BS insurance in eve
Database Smatabase. In the near future it will be able to handle it. Additionally all you would have to do is keep a byte for each character. It would be even more simple than security status.
|
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 22:14:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Antodias Edited by: Antodias on 02/08/2006 21:52:18
Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO Have good insurance history? You might pay less on your next ship payment. Careless? Going AFK in a lvl III? You might want to pay more attention next time, because your insurance is on the rise.
This paragraph has nothing to do with high sec ganking. When going on a level 3 mission there is a risk of losing your ship.
I've never lost a ship in a lvl III. Sure there's risk, but after one loss you learn and next time you'll align yourself to warp if you expect to get hammered.
|
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 22:21:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin
Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin Real-life comparisons to a virtual game world are a bit sketchy.
OMG! That person murdered someone! How can we tolerate it! We should ban everyone who kills someone! OMG!
However, some are very valid. You can't just say "well you can't relate a game to RL" sure you can. When we're talking about a business, such as an insurance company and how they make their money why can't we reference RL. Its essentially the same system.
bottom line, player run insurance would not work. Who's going to manage 200,000 files for a loss of isk?
Well then, yours isn't valid. It's outright poor.
NPC:s run the insurance-company, the ISK is virtual, and since this is a game, the goal is not to make it as similar to reality as possible, but to make it fun in the long run (or you might as well not play it, and just stick with real life).
To summarize:
More options for a player on balanced terms = good.
Less options due to "too realistic" features eliminating freedom = bad.
Just tank your haulers better, and the battleship-ganks in hi-sec will prove to be quite ineffective.
Not trying to make it as similar to RL insurance as possible just trying to make it more believable. I think it would be fun to build up a good insurance history. Who knows, you might even benefit from the 'standing' in other ways. IMO insurance is just as broken as bounties. Get a big enough bounty, have your friend pod you and cut the profit. Have insurance, no worries in high-sec just make sure whoever you pop has more than what you are flying and mods -insurance.
|
Phlegos
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 22:43:00 -
[35]
For a newbie, I'd be completely toast without insurance. A couple hundred thousand isk may seem like nothing to you vets, but for noobs its a lot.
I've died a few times in my rifter. Without insurance, I would be trying to do missions in a reaper. I don't think I'd get very far. ----- The Devil's wisdom comes from age, not from being the Devil. |
PeeWee Pee
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 23:01:00 -
[36]
Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
I've never lost a ship in a lvl III. Sure there's risk, but after one loss you learn and next time you'll align yourself to warp if you expect to get hammered.
right on dude. thatz why we need concord to give fines for peepz flying with no insurance in empire. privitize insurance make it player run like oveur soz more power to da playas. empire flying should require insured ships insured by a player corp with atleast 50 billion isks in capital. player corp chooses who to insure and what prremium. empire control dude by playas. mucho money to be made here. biggest playa collects da fatest loot.
hardcore pvp'in |
Moghydin
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 23:16:00 -
[37]
Insurance is fine as it is. It doesn't need nerfing and also it doesn't need boosting. Nerfing insurance will only increase the gap between rich and poor. Those 2 guys, who advocate removing insrance will hardly notice it and will continue to fly cool ships with cool toys fitted. Those who "can't afford" will have to go for cheaper ships and setups, making the job of ganking and dominating, even easier for those 2 and ppl like them.
Modules loss is enough, so no need to nerf insurance. Try fitting battleship with T2 gear and check how much you still lose.
|
ScoopShovel
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 01:35:00 -
[38]
Insurance does not pay for the real market value of ships anyway. It is worthless.
|
Dessa DesPlains
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 03:01:00 -
[39]
Leave the payouts and prices alone EXCEPT if you are killed by Concord. Then you get no payout. If a player kills you, you get paid. If an NPC kills you, you get paid. If you die in a war, you get paid. If you die at a gate camp, you get paid. If Concord kills you, you get nothing.
This will raise the value of the cargo that would be required for the Empire ganker to make a profit. He would have to pay for his own ship. Makes the noobs a little safer while not making major changes in the insurance system. No insurer anywhere pays out for damage that occurs during the commission of a crime.
....Except maybe your friendly neighborhood Angel insurance agent, located in lowsec near you!!! or maybe not. |
Wufong Wei
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 03:32:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Wufong Wei on 03/08/2006 03:33:34 Acts of war usually aren't covered under insurance either. Read your car's policy closely, if you have one. I know mine says that I get no payout if my car is destroyed in a war. Would make Empire wars a little more costly...and probably be a bit more of a pain to manage database wise. But CONCORD podding you and you get paid? Seems really fishy. Almost as bad as self-destructing a ship (I know for a fact no policy in the 'real world' covers intentional destruction of the insured property, that's called 'insurance fraud'). Though it is funny that it almost pays better to blow some tech 1 ships up fully insured than to try to sell them on the market...and if the insurance+cost of the ship is UNDER the payout for the ship...let's say it's an interesting way to make some money and clear some cheap ships off the market.
(edit: made some grammatical mistakes, guess I'm tired)
|
|
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 04:32:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Dessa DesPlains Leave the payouts and prices alone EXCEPT if you are killed by Concord. Then you get no payout. If a player kills you, you get paid. If an NPC kills you, you get paid. If you die in a war, you get paid. If you die at a gate camp, you get paid. If Concord kills you, you get nothing.
This will raise the value of the cargo that would be required for the Empire ganker to make a profit. He would have to pay for his own ship. Makes the noobs a little safer while not making major changes in the insurance system. No insurer anywhere pays out for damage that occurs during the commission of a crime.
....Except maybe your friendly neighborhood Angel insurance agent, located in lowsec near you!!! or maybe not.
And thats pretty much the gist of what I'm saying in my first post. Just in a more complicated an fun way.
|
Mi Lai
Sanguine Legion Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 06:25:00 -
[42]
Keep insurance as it is. It allready only covers the T1 Ships, which is such a low ammount of ISK to some veterans that they dont even bother insuring them according to people in this thread.
It's just an extra obstacle for new players to go enjoy PVP. Frankly, with the whole T2- and Skillpoint System, new players dont need any extra discouragement from enjoying the PVP side of EVE. It's nasty enough going out against opponents that have much higher skill modifiers, able to use much better equipment without having to think about how you are going to rebuild your Punisher.
With regards to that 'fly what you can afford to loose'. I totally aggree with that mantra. I just wouldnt like to see the new, or more casual playerbase seeing a lot of ships becomming 'not affordable to loose'. The Tech 2 pricing and skill system allready makes a large ammount of ships unsuited for PVP for most players. Removing insurance will make even more ships out of reach to PVP in.
Less PVP and less varied PVP will make this game way to boring in my opinion for a lot of people to put the effort in.
|
Caelian
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 07:44:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Caelian on 03/08/2006 07:48:12 From time to time the moronic 'remove insurance' request pops up again.
Get a life kkthx. Like the above poster said, insurance is only actually meaningful for T1 ships and even then you still loose your modules. If you want to feel special, just don't insure and fit named/T2 mods.
Removing insurance will only make people blob more.
|
Megan Ryder
VentureCorp CORE.
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 10:18:00 -
[44]
What'd be really cool is if they leave the base insurance as is, but add a form of contract, as a part of C.R.O.T.C.H., that enables players to setup insurance contracts.
They've already said that contract history will be a big part of C.R.O.T.C.H. so insurers will be able to adjust the premium based on a clients record.
Even with leaving the base npc insurance in, there is plenty of scope for insurance on t2 ships, modules and cargo.
I don't have the money or the experience to set up this kind of venture, but given the tools, I'm sure someone would. It may not be possible to make it profitable, don't know enough about insurance, but it could be easily used within an alliance as an accepted loss service to members.
Megan
|
Sean Dillon
Caldari Shadows of the Dead Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 10:22:00 -
[45]
Its alot easier, don't give insurance payout when they get ganked by concord. That hits the pirates in the pocket.
|
Zhelavar
Gallente CONsordium Infinate
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 12:09:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Zhelavar on 03/08/2006 12:14:03
Originally by: LightMee
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin Disagree.
For one reason, it limits the freedom that is EVE.
Removing insurance LIMITS the freedom? How?
We've seen through the various PvP MMOGs that the easier it is to recouperate after death, the more times people will risk death.
Some MMOGs have taken the approach of making death (and victory, to a degree) almost meaningless, but that only temporarily attracts the non-PvPer and drives away PvPers themselves.
By leaving a reasonable loss on death in, but reducing the cost (in ISK, time, or items) to recover from loss, you create an environment where people are much more likely to take a higher risk for a higher reward. Few people will chance high risk for high gain. Even when a reward is appropriate for the risk, it is the risk itself that will drive people away.
Insurance allows people the option of a recovery path if things go south.
RL examples aside... this is an internet game. Latency, the doorbell ringing, Mom screaming about something that needs IMMEDIATE attention, brownouts and power surges... there's a ton of factors that we all figure into the "That Which Can Go Wrong" side of things. Insurance helps to compensate for that.
Reduction/removal of insurance or significant increases in premiums limits freedom inasmuchas it reduces or removes the chance that low-risk players will engage in higher risk activities.
Falconer Industries |
Virida
Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 12:28:00 -
[47]
Tech1 ships is meant to be inshurable, tech2 is not meant to be 100% covered, this is meant to be, and comparing experienced users with tech1 pilots, sounds loopsided, without talking about what SHIPS they use. Who inshure a cerberus, after all?
This strenghten new players, who is a good advantage for eve, since, it dont make older players so immensely powerfull they got a "i win" button, and makes shure its possible for new players to get into the game.
|
Burlock Ironfist
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 14:16:00 -
[48]
I often wonder if the insurance companies in eve actaully make a profit or loss.....
BOOBIES! |
Reincarnator
Amarr Brute Force Missions inc
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 14:28:00 -
[49]
Why does everyone assume that he wants to completely remove insurence? All he is saying is that you should have to pay more on your insurence if you suicide gank in empire a ton. And imo, that isn't a bad idea. /signed
Quote: You will never quote this sig!
QFT |
Typheonic
Gallente Astrum Contract Services Group
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 15:50:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Sean Dillon Its alot easier, don't give insurance payout when they get ganked by concord. That hits the pirates in the pocket.
To be honest I think this is the core of most recent arguments surrounding insurance. It also seems to be a secondary target of the original poster's idea. It does not make a whole lot of sense for there to be an insurance payout when the ship loss was the direct result of a law enforcement action. To do so almost completely nullifies the risk involved in breaking the law. Thus a simple change is the order of the day. If the kill was made by law enforcement (i.e. Concord, Sentry Guns, etc.) the insurance contract if any should be null and void.
|
|
Avon
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 15:55:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Typheonic
Originally by: Sean Dillon Its alot easier, don't give insurance payout when they get ganked by concord. That hits the pirates in the pocket.
To be honest I think this is the core of most recent arguments surrounding insurance. It also seems to be a secondary target of the original poster's idea. It does not make a whole lot of sense for there to be an insurance payout when the ship loss was the direct result of a law enforcement action. To do so almost completely nullifies the risk involved in breaking the law. Thus a simple change is the order of the day. If the kill was made by law enforcement (i.e. Concord, Sentry Guns, etc.) the insurance contract if any should be null and void.
The problem with that approach is that it harshly punishes accidental friendly fire incidents (which mission runners are always commenting on), whilst only raising the bar as to what suicide attackers will consider a viable target.
It looks like a good idea at first glance, but I don't actually think it would have the desired effect, and for some the cure may be worse than the disease.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
|
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 15:58:00 -
[52]
Edited by: LUGAL MOP''N''GLO on 03/08/2006 16:03:13
Originally by: Burlock Ironfist I often wonder if the insurance companies in eve actaully make a profit or loss.....
Well.... lets see. When you know you're going to lose your ship or are pretty sure you are what do you do? Insure it. When you get wardecced what do you do? Insure all your ships of course. When you are going to mine for a week, whats insurance?
In otherwords, since insurance is predominately situational (like if I'm gonna go run a tough DED3 or ninja rat in .1 I insure my ship, but otherwise its just a waste of isk imo).
It would be interesting to see the figures, but I'm sure beyond a doubt that the insurance company in eve is very heavy subsidized by the 'government'.
Can't remember exactly what insurance is on a ferox, but its something like 4ml to insure for a 20ml payout? So there would have to be 5 people that insure their ferox and actually let the time period expire for every one person that had his ship destroyed and was awarded payout.
I was ultra paranoid in my first months playing and insured a bunch of ships, and the insurance company probably got me for 20ml all-in-all. However, I lost a ferox with insurance and that made my money back right there. Take that insurance!
|
Typheonic
Gallente Astrum Contract Services Group
|
Posted - 2006.08.03 18:02:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Avon The problem with that approach is that it harshly punishes accidental friendly fire incidents (which mission runners are always commenting on), whilst only raising the bar as to what suicide attackers will consider a viable target.
It looks like a good idea at first glance, but I don't actually think it would have the desired effect, and for some the cure may be worse than the disease.
You're right Avon. A change as I suggest would first most likely adjust what a would-be suicide attacker might see as a viable target, but that is not really a concern. This suggestion is however a small part (focusing on insurance) of what would need to be a more comprehensive plan to address the issue. I agree its is not a cure all solution, but this combined with other adjustments might be a good solution. Since this thread is focused on insurance I only included that aspect. It cannot be denied that with current insurance paying the majority of cost for a Tech 1 ship, and with the suicide ganker having a hauler alt on hand to pickup both the remains of the victim and attacker, this activity is notably lacking in the risk department. This change would remove some of the NPC based mitigation of risk from the situation.
As to this being a harsh punishment to friendly fire incidents, I would say that without hard numbers as to how many of those incidents occur we cannot say what kind of impact there will be. Personally I cannot think of many situations where friendly fire would trigger a Concord response, though I admit I rarely do missions nor am I in gangs not composed mainly of corpmates.
|
Makaera Koshito
Caldari Einherjar Rising
|
Posted - 2006.08.04 05:46:00 -
[54]
I think folks are getting caught up on the word "insurance." What we have in EVE is not insurance, but merely a ship-replacement program, and it should be called that. If it were called what it is, there would hardly be any discussion about it because it would have been nerfed a long time ago. EVE's insurance program clearly has gotten off the path of what it was created to do.
Insurance is based on risk, and your history of risk. Insurance companies are in business for one thing and that is to make money. They evaluate how risky you are to insure and base your premiums on how long it will take to profit on you, versus how long they think it may take you to make a claim. That's a bit of an oversimplification, but it's essentially how the process works.
In EVE, if we were to apply modern insurance rules to the way our ships are "insured," it would be extremely expensive, if not impossible, to insure your ships if you spent a lot of your time in low sec space, worked for a mercenary corporation, had a history of suicide ganking or were a newbie. Eventually, you would essentially be paying 99% of your own return on the insurance, if you could even get insurance. Mission runners, miners and industrial characters would have practically free insurance because they have barely any risk.
Overall, it's really just semantics. Like I said, if the current process was called what it is, then it would have been nerfed a long time ago.
Oh, and changing the rules so that if you get Concorded you don't get insurance is a DUMB idea. The idea is merely a concession by the suiciders to allow them to continue their lawless behavior with only a slight bit more penalty. It probably won't change the frequency of suicide ganking, except to have them pick their targets more wisely, and would only hurt those that make simple mistakes. If you want to curtail suicide ganking, that won't do it. A huge security status hit or disallowing docking for a long period of time (which is not affected by logging off) may do it.
|
Fuk Mi
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 16:04:00 -
[55]
Originally by: loony zoon
Nice ideas, but a bit unrealistic. very few people would have a 'no-claims' bonus in eve. I also have to get selfish and think of the approx 3bill i have been paid out in BS insurance in eve
YES this is an alt, no point drawing fire.
I have played for over 3 years and can list every ship I have lost
1 heron 1 vexor 2 stabbers 1 mammoth 1 hawk 1 harpy 1 eagle 3 shuttles (2 caldari, 1 gallente)
and if you want you can include 2 merlins and 2 worms in corp frig fights of those only the vexor, stabbers, and mammoth were insured. (beyond default, which didn't exist at the time of those losses)
I can't be the only one who works at staying alive. If you keep a ship alive for 3 cycles of insurance, the insurance was wasted money. Thus none of my ships are insured, and why I'm posting this as an alt.....
|
Raider Zero
Minmatar Federation
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 16:56:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Splagada Edited by: Splagada on 02/08/2006 20:46:17 Insurance in eve is badly implemented
we insure ships and done
so what? as we can insure, why cant i do the following?
i would like to insure my fitting i would like to insure my hauling contract with another corp i would like to insure, why not, my gang operation on some other corp? i would like to insure my pos (the day i have one lol) against a pirate attack i would like to insure my cargo i do not understand how an insurance will pay anything to those killed by concord or sentries.
i would like, if i was owner of a big corp with much assets, to be able to act like an insurer
in real life, whenever there is a risk, there is an insurance. sometimes it's stupid (some acress insuring their legs), most of the time it's useful (i want to insure my pos against an attack)
i want the same in eve, insurance is not enough, or too much. i agree with the OP, the price should raise with the stupidness of the player
Maybe with the Kali contract system, you'll be able to pretend you're an American Family agent and front the isk for lots of insurance. j/k
|
Hllaxiu
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 17:01:00 -
[57]
Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin Real-life comparisons to a virtual game world are a bit sketchy.
OMG! That person murdered someone! How can we tolerate it! We should ban everyone who kills someone! OMG!
However, some are very valid. You can't just say "well you can't relate a game to RL" sure you can. When we're talking about a business, such as an insurance company and how they make their money why can't we reference RL. Its essentially the same system.
bottom line, player run insurance would not work. Who's going to manage 200,000 files for a loss of isk?
Its not so much insurance as government run welfare for pod pilots... --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
Nanobotter Mk2
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 17:03:00 -
[58]
Not sure if they check criminal records but insurance companies run a check atleast on your driving record, and I will guess that purposful destruction of the ship they insured will cause problems with you get re insured.....
that said I think insurance is good and important for people learning the game, trying out new things, etc.... they just need to adress the fact that insurance should prolly be voided when killed by concord :)
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |