open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: The Circle of Life
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (24)

Author Topic

CCP Fallout

Posted - 2010.03.30 14:04:00 - [1]
 

CCP Chronotis outlines changes to minerals and ship insurance that will be coming in Tyrannis in his newest dev blog.

el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:08:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: el caido on 30/03/2010 14:15:09
Excellent changes, on all fronts.

edit: While not an issue addressed in the blog, the 100% T1 insurance does not deter the other major 'problem' with insurance ... Flame on?

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:10:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Chribba on 30/03/2010 14:18:11
OMG and stuff Very Happy

And the supercap insurance plan is quite interesting to see what you make of it - are there perhaps any plans to actually allow us to put insruance on said undockable ships - or do we aim to build 40-50b ISK titans to die and get 500m insurance payout?

That will sure make the supercap market bloom like never before Laughing

Firesh
Etoilles Mortant Ltd.
Solyaris Chtonium
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:10:00 - [4]
 

Yeah!

Matalino
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:27:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Matalino on 30/03/2010 14:31:01
Good blog, nice changes. However, I have a couple of questions.

How often will insurance costs/payouts be updated?

While a change in payout affect insurance that has already be purchased? For example if I pay 3mil to buy platinum insurance of 10mil, and the payout drops to 8mil before my insurance runs out, would I get the 10mil that I originally purchased, or would I only get the 8mil payout? If the payout increased to 12mil would I get the higher payout?
Originally by: el caido
edit: While not an issue addressed in the blog, the 100% T1 insurance does not deter the other major 'problem' with insurance ... Flame on?
Yes, it does. A 100% market value insurance payout means a 70% market value net insurance payout. The current problem is that the insurance payout is now around 145% of the market price of the ship, the net payout is around 100% of the market price.

That is a big difference.

Valator Uel
Caldari
Mercenaries of Andosia
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:29:00 - [6]
 

Nice changes! Dynamic is always better Smile

Numance
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:31:00 - [7]
 

What is tech0 ?

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:31:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Aineko Macx on 30/03/2010 15:46:16
Edited, see my post on page 3: ?a=topic&threadID=1293612&page=3#71

el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:33:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: el caido
edit: While not an issue addressed in the blog, the 100% T1 insurance does not deter the other major 'problem' with insurance ... Flame on?
Yes, it does. A 100% market value insurance payout means a 70% market value net insurance payout. The current problem is that the insurance payout is now around 145% of the market price of the ship, the net payout is around 100% of the market price.

That is a big difference.
Thanks for clarifying. Very Happy

Havohej
Du'uma Fiisi Integrated Astrometrics
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:35:00 - [10]
 

Supercap insurance = best nerf ever. Laughing

Matalino
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:35:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Matalino on 30/03/2010 14:37:01
Originally by: Numance
What is tech0 ?
Meta 0: regular T1 modules.
Meta 1-4: "named" modules.
Meta 5: Tech II modules.
Meta 6+: faction/office/deadspace modules.


Tech 0 is a typo/shorthand for Tech 1 Meta 0.

Lockefox
Caldari
Hell's Librarians
Darkmatter Initiative
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:38:00 - [12]
 

I am liking the core of what you are putting down, but would like to throw two isk into the pile.

First: I am weary of T2 insurance balancing. I have always seen these investments as a significant part of the "don't risk what you cannot lose" style of EVE. Though better insurance programs would incentivize putting them in harm's way, I fear that there will be consequences... namely price-capping T2 ships by mechanic, not by market forces.

Second: Price balancing is great, but what of suicide gank mechanics. I know this has been a CSM discussion. Are there any updates on how you guys want to tackle this problem? I have no problem with suicide ganks, I just believe that insurance should be voided in this circumstance. It's part of the risk v. reward calculation that should be being made when choosing who to suicide gank.


Doof Hardcastle
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:38:00 - [13]
 

gay

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:39:00 - [14]
 

In before drone compound speculation Razz

Nye Jaran
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:39:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Nye Jaran on 30/03/2010 14:46:19
Edited by: Nye Jaran on 30/03/2010 14:43:23
Have you looked at insurance pay outs when compared to guesstimated values of ore prices after the mineral changes? Based on readjustment, it sounds like it's possible to get enough payout to cover the original cost of the ship, insurance and possibly even mods. In other words, it sounds like it could be possible to recover the entire loss (mods included).

Don't like the T2 / T3 insurance changes. I like knowing that I'm risking 600m+ when I undock my Widow. Makes me take things a little more seriously. When I undock a scorp, I know I'm risking around 30m (effectively), and generally not care about the ship loss.

Really disappointed to see that the devs continue actively supporting terrorism within Eve by leaving intact insurance payouts on ships attacked by Concord (read: suicide ganking). Suicide ganking, as a mechanic, is generally fine. It just needs a little tweaking on the risk / reward balance by removing insurance payouts.

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:41:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Lockefox
Second: Price balancing is great, but what of suicide gank mechanics. I know this has been a CSM discussion. Are there any updates on how you guys want to tackle this problem? I have no problem with suicide ganks, I just believe that insurance should be voided in this circumstance. It's part of the risk v. reward calculation that should be being made when choosing who to suicide gank.


At the moment, with 100% payouts set for basic T1 ships, I'd say they're probably leaving this alone.

Derus Grobb
Minmatar
Selectus Pravus Lupus
Transmission Lost
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:42:00 - [17]
 

Akita is going to explode Cool

Malakai Draevyn
Caldari
Knights Of Anarchy
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:44:00 - [18]
 

*dodges the 'bbq the carebear flames' here*
Changing the NPC loot tables will impact the missionrunners; some of us don't just mission for isk / LP - some of us use the minerals for manufacturing jobs. Gah - more mining. :(

On the other side of the coin - insurance increases (and market linked too) for T2 / T3 ships is a godsend. There is room for manipulation and creative playing the insurance market, but its gonna take a lot of work to do it....

Mixed bag, but not a bad blog overall.

Numance
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:45:00 - [19]
 

thanks for tech0 reply :)

i hate ****load of stockpile of t1 and t1 named modules from heavy missionning

should i refine them now or wait ^^ or selling now or wait ?
refining only tech1 ?

Nick Curso
TunDraGon
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:46:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Chribba
Edited by: Chribba on 30/03/2010 14:18:11
OMG and stuff Very Happy

And the supercap insurance plan is quite interesting to see what you make of it - are there perhaps any plans to actually allow us to put insruance on said undockable ships - or do we aim to build 40-50b ISK titans to die and get 500m insurance payout?
Laughing


pretty much this ^^ sounds slightly mental to me

Viper ShizzIe
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:47:00 - [21]
 

Wait so you're going to reduce the insurance payout on T1 ships (to make them more expensive to lose) while increasing the payout on T2/T3 (to make them less expensive to lose) while changing the insurance payouts on supercapitals so that the only ships where a respectable amount of isk is lost when they die are more expensive.


Right.

dischordia
Gallente
Knights Of Anarchy
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:47:00 - [22]
 

I feel that it will make people PLAY the game rather than AFK the game. Still extra tags is always good

Mielono
Caldari
SWARTA
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:48:00 - [23]
 

First I was worried, then I was interested, then I was intrigued, then I did a little dance.

I like the direction this blog seems to be pointing things.

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:49:00 - [24]
 

Long past time we got rid of meta 0 items in the loot tables.

This will be beneficial to both miners and builders I think.

The changing of the insurance tables will be interesting. I think t1 will pay less than now, t2 will pay more than now as will t3. It is obvious that the supercaps will pay much less than they do now.

Overall I think it'll be a positive change for the game.


Soulita
Gallente
Inner Core
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:50:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Soulita on 30/03/2010 14:53:14
First page Very Happy

Changes sound good at first glance, though personally I would prefer to see insurance payout capped at 80%. A loss should always hurt somewhat, even if it is a t1 ship effected.

I do not think reducing maximum payout for t1 ships from 100% to 80% would be a gamebreaking experience for newer players. Instead they learn earlier on that a ship loss is not free, preparing them better for their future life in EVE.

dischordia
Gallente
Knights Of Anarchy
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:53:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Viper ShizzIe
Wait so you're going to reduce the insurance payout on T1 ships (to make them more expensive to lose) while increasing the payout on T2/T3 (to make them less expensive to lose) while changing the insurance payouts on supercapitals so that the only ships where a respectable amount of isk is lost when they die are more expensive.


Right.


the payout will be based on the MARKET at the time not a base payout from 5 years ago, so if its a booming market when your ship booms ... bonus for you.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:54:00 - [27]
 

The basic T1 loot from mission running should not be replaced by anything. Mission running is way too profitable as it is, and the loot is a relative minor part of the total rewards.

T2 should have insurance more or less like it is now. When taking a ship into combat where you KNOW that the loss will be felt, you get a nice adrenaline rush from it!

T1 capital ships should not give out full insurance, but maybe 50%. There should be significant risk to using these ships.

Otherwise looks like a good job! Especially the dynamic insurance will finally ensure a balanced mineral market in EVE Cool

Matalino
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:54:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Matalino on 30/03/2010 14:56:02
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Originally by: Lockefox
Second: Price balancing is great, but what of suicide gank mechanics. I know this has been a CSM discussion. Are there any updates on how you guys want to tackle this problem? I have no problem with suicide ganks, I just believe that insurance should be voided in this circumstance. It's part of the risk v. reward calculation that should be being made when choosing who to suicide gank.


At the moment, with 100% payouts set for basic T1 ships, I'd say they're probably leaving this alone.
Sisi was changed weeks ago. Basic T1 ships are getting a huge insurance payout cut. Dropping from 100% of "base" value to 100% of market value.

However, there is no indication of any change to insurance mechanics with respect to CONCORD. You can still buy insurance for suicide ganking, you just won't get nearly as much.

Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:55:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Batolemaeus on 30/03/2010 14:58:21

One question.

Wouldn't the re-evaluation of insurance payout for certain battleships that are rarely used outside of pvp (like the armageddon or rokh) but have a rather low live expectancy especially during times of war result in these ships getting more and more easy to replace, to the point of making their loss nearly meaningless (like it is now)?

Of course i'm assuming this is an automatic process. And if it is, it would mean that certain ships *cough*drake*cough*raven*cough* would suddenly be more expensive to lose in pvp, since they rarely die due to being flown in pve a lot. If it is automatic, this could easily be a self reinforcing process, prompting people to fly other ships for their insurance payout, further reducing insurance payouts for these ships..

Originally by: Matalino
Sisi was changed weeks ago. Basic T1 ships are getting a huge insurance payout cut. Dropping from 100% of "base" value to 100% of market value.


I'm sure that those 100 isk sellorders for every single mineral don't screw up insurance calculation at all.

Malakai Draevyn
Caldari
Knights Of Anarchy
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2010.03.30 14:56:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Soulita
Edited by: Soulita on 30/03/2010 14:53:14
First page Very Happy

Changes sound good at first glance, though personally I would prefer to see insurance payout capped at 80%. A loss should always hurt somewhat, even if it is a t1 ship effected.

I do not think reducing maximum payout for t1 ships from 100% to 80% would be a gamebreaking experience for newer players. Instead they learn earlier on that a ship loss is not free, preparing them better for their future life in EVE.


Setting t1 at 100% is essentially paying out 70-80% of value after the insurance has been bought.

Ship A : Costs 100m from market : Pays out 95m on insurance : costs 20m to insure.

You're still 25m down..... thus the 70-80% thing is contained.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (24)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only