Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alex Shurk
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:54:00 -
[31]
Insurance is only a viable aid to those on low income. Removing it only hurts those on that low income. Narrows pvp down to a rich kids' playground. No.
|
Malcanis
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:16:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Exile Devaltos Do it. This isn't a troll, but a logical observation.
Or, if you can't remove it, make it costlier, or the time interval for the insurance shorter.
You could even add contract terms that the insurance will not be paid out to a player who fires the first shot or who is Concordorkened.
If you do this, you severely change warfare in 0.0
your hi-sec issues are not the only issue.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Moran Trayga
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:26:00 -
[33]
Remove insurance if the ship is lost in 0.0.
Reasoning:
- Losing a fleet battle means very little with insurance as the maximum loss is >50m per player
- 0.0 is meant to be the rich alliances playground
- RP reasons, why would an insurance company insure you for entering consequence free lawless space?
My sig says hello! |
Ghaztehschmexeh
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:38:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Raging Knight remove insurance payout when the ship is lost to concord, ends suicide ganks, or atleast most of them.
|
RigelKentaurus
Flying Tartiflette Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:47:00 -
[35]
Originally by: NightmareX More expensive to lose in PVP = Lesser PVP.
Not at all.
More expensive to lose in PVP = smaller ships used.
IMHO, it would replace most of the battleships/battlecruisers used in PVP with frigates and cruisers. I really think the game would be much more enjoyable this way. _________
Someday, EVE may look like this. |
Overwhelmed
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:52:00 -
[36]
Here's an idea. Anyone who posts the phrase "remove insurance" anywhere has 1,000,000,000 ISK deducted from their account to justify its funding. ---------------------------------------------------------- Posting And You Disclaimer: This is a meta-game alt for meta-game discussions. |
Zifrian
Gallente Federal Bank Interstellar Corporate Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:53:00 -
[37]
What I don't understand is why I get paid for a ship I didn't insure. That's kinda lame.
Plus why I would get money if Concord blows up my ship? That makes no sense any way you slice it.
|
NightmareX
Quam Singulari Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:55:00 -
[38]
Insurance is FINE, why change something that have worked perfect since release.
The only thing i can agree with is to remove the insurance to the suiciders who get killed by CONCORD.
|
Alski
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:55:00 -
[39]
Originally by: northwesten
troll? learn what a troll is moron!
Good start.
Originally by: northwesten
and no EVE isnt just about PVP and Pirates so again learn what eve is!! EVE is wider than that!
Indeed, however no PVP = no trade, Eve at its core is a PvP game, you are not safe anywhere, though you could also have argued that PvP takes on many forms.
Originally by: northwesten
ALSO like to add they can still do what ever in High/Low sec but its there risk! maybe just not work off the sec rating maybe just not pay them for there lose period! when they do the crime!
- You realise lowsec piracy as it once was is near dead already right? - You realise that piracy in the classic sense is not the only way to lose sec status right? - You realise that there are many players who currently reside in highsec or 0.0 - Not lowsec - that are currently in negative sec status for actions that were not piracy in the classic since right? - Also many of these people, including my alt, are in negative sec status are reside in the drone regions where killing rats does not raise security status.
I'll refrain from quoting you again, and just restate my argument in previous posts that insurance is not the issue, and there other ways of "fixing" or adjusting the risk reward of suicide ganking without nerfing insurance, and that any such change would seriously harm the game.
That said, assuming you weren’t trolling, my apologies for calling you out as such, to my mind those suggestions we’re blatant flamebait, but I can admit when I’m wrong so lets leave it at that.
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Tim Dust
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:59:00 -
[40]
I say privatize insurance and hand it over to players. And while you're at it, privatize Concord and hand it over to players as well.
|
|
Marcus TheMartin
Tuxedo.
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 18:01:00 -
[41]
Remove Insurace for every one that has been playing for more than 3 months
|
Tim Dust
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 18:02:00 -
[42]
Agreed. Let noobs have it easy; the rest of us suffer as Darwin intended.
|
northwesten
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 18:21:00 -
[43]
Edited by: northwesten on 06/04/2008 18:23:47
Originally by: Alski
thing is i really cant see not getting insurance for breaking the law would harm the game! I mean there been many nerf or balancing that people been crying that said it will harm the game! in honest I again cant see how this would.
If the Rich alliance wants to campaign in high sec then yer do so but its a lose! unless it hits the other alliance wallet as well.
I not saying it make it safe but It make it a true safer space tho still have a risk. Anyone can do what ever to course isk hit on hostile freighter etc but just pure ganking and then get rewards with out risk is not balanced PERIOD!!
People who saying blue in the face saying it's ok nothing wrong with it are the high sec gankers. In all honesty to get isk fast is not hard these days like GTC and farming alliances etc. So the risk in high sec still then but not every one can just jump in and course trouble.
I mean I come back to eve after few months break hearing got to be careful when mining in barges now as people on a war path on ganking them. In a week i had to run because I had 3 trys to pop my barges because the fear of losing a ship not much.
So not getting insurance money for breaking the law doesn't harm EVE it just harms the players! If the player has a problem with a mining corp then just war dec them.
So saying it harm EVE is bull but Thats your view but i dont agree! to me its balancing EVE not nerfing!
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin Remove Insurace for every one that has been playing for more than 3 months
no i dont agree! removing all pilots insurance would harm the warefar across the board in 0.0 too.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Trinity Corporate Services
|
Marcus TheMartin
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 18:27:00 -
[44]
Originally by: northwesten
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin Remove Insurace for every one that has been playing for more than 3 months
no i dont agree! removing all pilots insurance would harm the warefar across the board in 0.0 too.
harsh death penalties are what eve is all about
insurance buffers shouldn't win war.
And existing insurance company would have their rates skyrocket the instant you undocked due to the death potential Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
northwesten
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 18:29:00 -
[45]
Edited by: northwesten on 06/04/2008 18:30:36
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Originally by: northwesten
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin Remove Insurace for every one that has been playing for more than 3 months
no i dont agree! removing all pilots insurance would harm the warefar across the board in 0.0 too.
harsh death penalties are what eve is all about
insurance buffers shouldn't win war.
And existing insurance company would have their rates skyrocket the instant you undocked due to the death potential
true but it make wars very short! so having insurance that legal will make the war longer and a bigger challange! like bob and RAgoon lasted so long!
EDIT It will go back to the the old days of alliances! no money no war! but todays war is different and has most ways to win wars!
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Trinity Corporate Services
|
Alski
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 18:33:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
insurance buffers shouldn't win war.
Insurance buffers DO NOT win wars. There are a hundred other factors that go into weather or not a campaign is won or lost, but clearly the most obvious thing that is wrong with that statement is that both sides have insurance, how exactly does one side win a war and one side lose due to something that both sides have access to?
- Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Tim Dust
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 18:40:00 -
[47]
Question: does insurance inflate the prices of ships by increasing demand? If so, then wouldn't eliminating (non-player offered) insurance lower prices for ships?
|
EnslaverOfMinmatar
Adv Asteroid Mining and RD Sobaseki Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 19:13:00 -
[48]
noooo!!! let the miners DIE!!! hahahaa
|
Falcon Troy
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 19:52:00 -
[49]
Remove insurance for ships destroyed...
...in 0.0 Space. ...by CONCORD. ...by Self Destruction. ...in Wars. (Consensual) ...ships that ENGAGE in piracy. (Lowsec)
Hello huge ISK sinkage and hardly any ISK constantly being added to the system. In other words the only people GETTING insurance are those that lose ships in self-defense/ships that are suicide-ganked. As it should have always been. _____________ Hai. |
Marcus TheMartin
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 19:57:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Marcus TheMartin on 06/04/2008 19:59:14
Originally by: Tim Dust Question: does insurance inflate the prices of ships by increasing demand? If so, then wouldn't eliminating (non-player offered) insurance lower prices for ships?
The t1 market is filled with the if I mine it its free crowd so ships are being sold for less than mineral cost which allows for ships to be insured for more than they were bought for pumping isk into the game.
Originally by: northwesten
true but it make wars very short! so having insurance that legal will make the war longer and a bigger challange! like bob and RAgoon lasted so long!
EDIT It will go back to the the old days of alliances! no money no war! but todays war is different and has most ways to win wars!
yes insurance is what is getting those nasty 0.0 alliances money those cunning bastards!
I was so blind I thought it would be things like 30mill a month fees (see Reunion), or Moon mining arrays in vast areas of space but clearly you have shown me the light that insurance is what lets 0.0 powerblocks do what they do. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
|
Sakura Nihil
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 20:34:00 -
[51]
I can sort of roll with the terms that if CONCORD kills you, no payout, but removing it or reducing it otherwise? No. You want even less PvP than we have now?
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk i'm not a very good gambler
|
northwesten
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 20:41:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Sakura Nihil You want even less PvP than we have now?[/quote
you making it like there sod all going on! there plenty of pvp in 0.0
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Trinity Corporate Services
|
DarthJosh
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 21:44:00 -
[53]
insurance? what? WE HAVE INSURANCE
next thing you'd tell me is that eve actually has sound - Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Desusigs! |
Dianeces
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 21:45:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Falcon Troy Remove insurance for ships destroyed...
...in 0.0 Space. ...by CONCORD. ...by Self Destruction. ...in Wars. (Consensual) ...ships that ENGAGE in piracy. (Lowsec)
Hello huge ISK sinkage and hardly any ISK constantly being added to the system. In other words the only people GETTING insurance are those that lose ships in self-defense/ships that are suicide-ganked. As it should have always been.
You forgot missions, anything that goes into lowsec period, and/or gets shot at by belt rats.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
|
Kahega Amielden
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 21:58:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 06/04/2008 21:59:18
It's been said before. Reduced insurance wouldn't stop PVP. Who would stop PVPing?
0.0 Alliances? Rofl, **** no
Roving gangs? No, they'd just fly in smaller/cheaper ships.
Lowsec pirates? Hell no. If anything, this would help the situation; pirates would be more at risk when pirating in a powerful ship due to the huge losses. You would have more pirates (e.g. picking targets for cash or ransoming) and fewer killmail *****s because their losses are actaully losses.
Hisec PVP corps? Nope. They do it for fun, and it would mean they could get a bit more ISK out of targets...They would lose more ISK, of course, but this wouldn't stop them, and would add a needed element of risk to hisec PVPing.
Removing insurance wouldn't stop PVP, it wouldn't even lower PVP. It would just cause people to be more careful flying expensive ships. Rather than going out in a battleship, some people might opt for cheaper cruisers. Saying that loss stops PVP makes no sense. If this was true, then WoW would be the most PVP-centric game there is due to no real death penalty.
If you want to protect newbies, then maybe still allow full insurance for T1 frigs, and maybe partial (or -maybe- full) for t1 cruisers.
|
ViolenTUK
Vindicated Exiles
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 23:30:00 -
[56]
Insurance needs to stay. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with insurance as it stands. The net effect of funding a ship for it to be lost and the insurance to pay out is still a loss. A loss of a ship is expensive for anyone and removing insurance would discourage pvp type activities.
www.eve-players.com |
Kahega Amielden
Legacy Syndicate space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 23:31:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 06/04/2008 23:31:43
Originally by: ViolenTUK Insurance needs to stay. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with insurance as it stands. The net effect of funding a ship for it to be lost and the insurance to pay out is still a loss. A loss of a ship is expensive for anyone and removing insurance would discourage pvp type activities.
Sigh.
1) It's still a loss, but a tiny loss. Losing a ******* battleship should cost more.
2) Read my above post. This "zomfg it would discourage PVP" **** has no basis.
If you REALLY need to keep insurance in for some stupid reason, then at least make it max 50% mineral cost for BC/BS
|
Tim Dust
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 00:33:00 -
[58]
What's the history of insurance in this game? Was it introduced at some point or has it always been here?
|
Kahega Amielden
Legacy Syndicate space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 00:34:00 -
[59]
It was introduced at some point I believe.
|
Jhonen Senraedi
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 00:44:00 -
[60]
Not sure I agree with removing insurance totally as when you add mod costs to those of the ship...everyone is looking at a significant hit to their wallets... Perhaps a way forward would be relating it to sec status...i.e..count positive sec like a no claims bonus and neg sec a higher premium...say 5% per point either way...thus a plus 5 would pay 25% less..and a -5/-10 25%-50% more in premiums? I do agree with removing insurance from high sec aggressors though(Not war situations)...as it make for suicide gankers choosing their targets more carefully! Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |