Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zeba
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 00:45:00 -
[61]
Insurance is fine. If someone is feeling ****y over getting suicide ganked then they need to use the game mechanics to avoid it in the future.
Originally by: Malcanis Too many people confuse "Waah, I didn't get my own way" with 'poor customer service'.
|
Alski
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 00:46:00 -
[62]
Love the way that people "against insurance" are making broad seeping statements about its effects or lack of, without a single argument to back them up - Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Kahega Amielden
Legacy Syndicate space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 02:36:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Jhonen Senraedi 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!
THe only time the extra cost is significant is when you CHOOSE to fit t2 stuff. Even then, it's minimal.
|
ViolenTUK
Vindicated Exiles
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 12:30:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
2) Read my above post. This "zomfg it would discourage PVP" **** has no basis.
I did read your post and there was no justification for your assumption. Lack of insurable ships would discourage pvp as players would be perturbed by the possible loss of a ship. This was the basis for my argument. If you paid attention to what the other forum members have written so far in this thread you will see that players will be actively discouraged. They have told you that.
www.eve-players.com |
Elona King
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 13:10:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Raging Knight however remove insurance payout when the ship is lost to concord, ends suicide ganks, or atleast most of them.
Would this be true?
|
Exile Devaltos
One Eyed Teddies The InterBus Initiative
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 13:32:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Elona King
Originally by: Raging Knight however remove insurance payout when the ship is lost to concord, ends suicide ganks, or atleast most of them.
Would this be true?
No, but it would make it expensive. And the miner who lost his mining ship can be happy knowing that the ganker spent 5 times as much on the gank than what the miner lost.
Anyway, as highlighted, the main concern of this thread is the impact of insurance on the market! We're talking boatloads of ISK flowing in and thus causing inflation. Is enough ISK flowing out to counterbalance it? etc etc.
Originally by: Wrangler Thats odd, I always drink after dealing with you people..
|
Drakus
Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 15:00:00 -
[67]
My idea, (and i am sure others have put it out there before me as well) is to just say that if concord/sentry guns are on your km, you get the BASIC payout. Its like an uninsured ship.
This would make it so that people that make a mistake arn't totally destroyed, and that people that if you ARE suicided then there was a damn good reason for it. If they need to use 10bs to take ya down, then they will get only... say 200m back in total... cost of ships about 1b (lets say) so they would only go after ships that have more then 800m in the hold...
I always thought it was weird that you get insurance if your ship is destroyed by concord or sentry guns. It makes sense for people that are just starting and make a mistake, but after a month or 2, its just stupid. So make concord or sentry guns null your insurance and give you just the basic payout.
|
RaTTuS
BIG Soul of Fountain
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 15:48:00 -
[68]
remove it if concord kills the ship make it less effective from 0.4 - 0.0 i.e. 80% in 0.4 60% in 0.3 30% in 0.2 10% in 0.1 0% in 0.0
-- BIG Lottery, BIG Deal, InEve
|
ry ry
StateCorp Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 15:53:00 -
[69]
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.
say, for example, i lost a rigged vagabond to a massive desync.
i can't petition that back, because apparently the only logs CCP have are made of wood and stored in a shed. that insurance payout softens the blow somewhat.
|
Mirph
EMPiRE. Trinity.
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 15:56:00 -
[70]
Contracts remove insurance. Freighters remove insurance.
So if you want to move ships... Can't do it yourself and don't have a carrier.
You already have to lose rigs + insurance.
|
|
Tim Dust
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 15:56:00 -
[71]
I'm not against piracy, suicide ganking, "griefing," or other such tactics-- but why would insurance pay out if you're shot by the police? That doesn't make sense.
Then again, I don't think it makes sense that Concord automatically sees you if you commit a crime.
|
Ordon Gundar
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 16:06:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Moran Trayga 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?
This makes sense to me. Why WOULD an insurance company pay out for a ship lost in 0.0 space. This would act as a nice isk sink for all those richies blowing the hell out of eachother in 0.0!!
|
Lubomir Penev
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 16:09:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Zephyr Rengate No.
People would be less willing to pvp, it would be far too costly to take risks in pvp without insurance.
So wrong. People PvP all the time in uninsurable rigged T2 ships.
-- Heat, easy to burn your mods by mistake, hard to get it to work when you need it the most. Well designed interface CCP! |
AKULA UrQuan
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 16:14:00 -
[74]
Ditch the automatic base insurance. Leave the rest untouched. That "free" insurance policy has always baffled me.
MS and Titan loses will be slightly more painfull then. Not much more considering the officer gear they tend to have. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Alora Venoda
GalTech Giant Space Amoeba
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 17:31:00 -
[75]
There is an easy solution to the problem of voiding insurance for suicide ganks without hurting new players that accidentally shoot a wreck or something.
only void the insurance if the ship was credited for killing another ship while being criminally flagged in hi-sec. this way it only punishes an actual suicide gank. as a side effect, if the victim manages to limp away with hull still intact, the attacker still gets insurance. but that seems to be a fair trade considering an accidental attack would also appear to be a "failed suicide gank".
i really don't see any downsides to this added rule, except against the suicide gankers
(note: i have not read the whole thread so i am not sure if this was already suggested)
~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ Take away the risk and it would make flying around in space utterly pointless.
Take away the flying around part and you make EVE into a space themed spreadsheet application. |
Forge Lag
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 17:34:00 -
[76]
Keep default insurance, it is about the same as the cheapest version, it just protects the poor forgetfull souls.
Make the top insurance pay less, way below any imaginable market cost but make it cost less at the same time.
The real newbies have issues paying their insurance costs on top of ship cost and do not realize the decision is platinum or bust. And the people calculating ship loss not as risk but as a cost would have higher cost making them a bit more selective.
Atm it there is no real choice, you insure plat and if you somehow do not lose ship in 3 months the most economic sound course of action is to suicide you trusty craft. It just does not feel right.
The issue (if there is any issue at all) of suicide ganks is there is no protection against them and no way to "win" anything if you miraculosly succeed fending them off. No insurance would make suicide ganks more costly but will not help victims and the nonsence of it at all. As someone said, even uniunsured, Brutix makes fine ganking ship.
|
Fenren
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 17:50:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Exile Devaltos Your points are valid, but EVE, for all it's comparisons to real world economies, has a buggered insurance system. It simply makes no sense that you can recieve money for blowing your own ship up.
*shrugs* Just hoping that CCP will do something about it.
odd... i have such an insurance for my cellphone... althou it is not a battlephone so its life expectancy might be a little longer...
|
Kage Toshimado
Doom Guard Soul of Fountain
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 18:08:00 -
[78]
I'm personally a little torn on the subject and can see that both sides of the insurance issue have valid ideas.
It's starting to look like most people are agreeing that insurance should not get paid out if someone gets Concorded. (ie. suicide ganks on Joe Hauler/Miner)
To be perfectly honest, I find it rather exciting trying to avoid the pirate gankers. At the same time, it is rather amusing and yet also crappy when it happens to me or someone I know because this is just a BS way to go out. But hey, that's the game... love it or leave it I guess.
I think some of the insurance on some ships definately needs to be adjusted when it comes to payout.
|
NightmareX
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 20:35:00 -
[79]
Believe me when i say it, by just removing the insurance today, will be the stupiest thing you can do EVER.
You don't see it, but remove the insurance, and it will be a big hit to PVP, many will just leave the PVP side because it's gonna be to expensive to PVP in the end.
The insurance is 100% fine now except for the insurance payout when you suicide and get agressed by CONCORD.
Can't we just remove the whole PVP while we are at it?, then maybe all of the carebears will be happy. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Marlona Sky
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 21:08:00 -
[80]
Not sure if I said it in this post or one of the other dozens of post about insurance, they will be revamping the insurance, so most likely the issue with the free suicide ganking problems will be taken care of.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you and... scouts, logistic ships, people to web you, alts with bonuses, not fitting nice gear, avoiding trafic hubs, etc... easy right?? |
|
Darcel Black
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 21:08:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Darcel Black on 07/04/2008 21:08:13 On second thoughts, don't. -Darcel |
Methesda
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 21:14:00 -
[82]
Originally by: northwesten
troll? learn what a troll is moron!
LOL. Thats going in my sig. Way to teach a concept.
|
Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 21:35:00 -
[83]
I think there's a lot of assumption going around as to exactly how frequently insurance is actually used by a lot of people.
Insurance - like learning skills and implants - is optional. Certainly it's a good idea while you're still learning the game, but once you're confident enough to know how to not lose your ship, you don't need to insure your ship anymore, otherwise it becomes a personal isk sink.
Thus, I believe nerfing insurance across the board will only punish the wrong people: those who are learning to play Eve as the PvP game it was designed to be.
I can live with the idea of voiding insurance for suicide gankers, as long as it doesn't affect the new guy who makes a genuine mistake. The idea of no insurance for suicide gankers who actually succeed in killing their target could possibly work, but I guess it depends on how viable CCP wants suicide ganking to be, and to what extent they would rather have people learn how not to present themselves as viable targets to begin with.
/Ben
Ben Derindar: Eve CSM candidate
|
Hermosa Diosas
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 22:14:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Hermosa Diosas on 07/04/2008 22:15:08
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.
Errr why ?? Reasons damn it... But for me no way - the effort and cost for new ships is bad now ppl will leave the game in droves!
|
gpfwestie
Blue. Blue Federation
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 22:46:00 -
[85]
Removing insurance just means that those on a low income cannot play (PVP Combat I mean).
The rich kids already fly and lose T2 Fitted, Tech 2 ships on which the payout is a fraction of what they cost, so it will not affect them in the slightest.
|
Anubis Xian
Vertigo One
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 22:51:00 -
[86]
Removing insurance can only be a good thing.
If losing your ship hurts so bad you needed insurance to hack it, you should be flying something else anyway.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
Nika Vorbarr
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 23:04:00 -
[87]
People always shoot down suggestions to make hisec safer, etc, by saying that Eve is supposed to be a cold, cruel universe. I say we live up to those words by completely removing insurance, and by making ships stay in space if you logoff or your connection drops. And no getting ships back by petition, no matter what happened. Enough of this pansy game, let's go hard core.
|
TornSoul
BIG Soul of Fountain
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 23:05:00 -
[88]
Edited by: TornSoul on 07/04/2008 23:06:22
Originally by: Benco97
I don't want to remove PVP either, I like it. I just feel that loss makes things more real, more exciting.
These rich people with their huge warships who only lose a fraction of their money when it's blown up.. how is that loss? They may as well just get all their stuff back in the nearest space station automatically. Loss should hurt unless you budget yourself, not just "lol, i'md buy insurbance and noaw i no lose nufin'"
Eve IS PVP, I don't dispute that. Eve also used to be hard, it's a shame it isn't any more. I've never used insurance myself and I never will, don't care that it puts me at a disadvantage to those who do, it's that very disadvantage that makes the game fun. We're not in happy happy rainbow land where cows crap chocolate and rain is cola, we're in eve space and to me that means watch your back, stay vigilant and always remember to wear gloves.
*edit* - I'd just like to add, Before Insurance was around people still PVP'd, Before WTZ people still hauled, Before Learning skills people just shut the hell up and learned the skills they needed. If the game is so goddamn unplayable without those three things then how did it last?The game is getting softer and softer and one day there will be nothing of the original EVE left except for the fact that it's a game with spaceships. Still, if that's what you want then please, go ahead and make WoW in space, you'll be removing everything that makes EVE special.
I find myself agreeing with 87.634% of this...
An "all or nothing" solution, while I'd personally not mind, would probably hurt EVE overall more than it would do good though.
Some middleground should be found.
BIG Lottery |
Tim Dust
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 23:06:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Tim Dust on 07/04/2008 23:07:15
Quote: Enough of this pansy game, let's go hard core.
Besides, you could continue to allow noobs to have insurance, possibly even for free.
|
ViolenTUK
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 23:25:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Exile Devaltos
Anyway, as highlighted, the main concern of this thread is the impact of insurance on the market! We're talking boatloads of ISK flowing in and thus causing inflation. Is enough ISK flowing out to counterbalance it? etc etc.
Basic insurance is covered by default by the insurance company and wasn't donated by the contract acceptor and as such when the basic contact insurance money is paid out this money is in effect generated at that time. This could lead to inflation. However we have all seen a drop in ship prices over the years and in fact the economy has seen deflation rather than inflation. Inflation isn't a concern with the economy at present.
www.eve-players.com |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |