open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked A serie of possible solutions to the Insurance Fraud crisis thing
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2009.12.23 08:51:00 - [61]
 

Insurance could be void in cases where you were under attack by concord (not the last hit or it can be circumvented) or selfdestruct the ship.

Othran
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.12.23 09:16:00 - [62]
 

I have a dreadful sense of deja vu here Wink

A fair few of the insurance "problems" could be solved by :

1) CCP revaluing insurance every 6-12 months based on average mineral/component cost over the period;

2) No insurance if you have an active wardec;

3) No payout if you are the initial aggressor.

The basic (and ongoing) problem with insurance is that its never been anywhere near the correct figure - especially on T2. The effects of this are more complicated than they initially appear and for all I know CCP don't want to revalue as the current values have a deflationary effect on T1 ships. Only they can say but if its not then periodic revaluation would be sensible.

2) and 3) are fairly simple and most people would view them as common sense. Providing insurance for wars/PvP would perhaps be an interesting player activity?

On 3) - I know that would probably be the controversial point, but we really just need some nice simple rules that newbies and current players can understand fast. It wouldn't put me off PvP as I hardly bother with insurance anyway. If they wanted to keep FW low-cost they could allow payouts there - think of it as the relevant state reimbursing its fighters.

Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2009.12.23 09:38:00 - [63]
 

Insurance controlled by players woudl never work. Why? BEcause woudl NEVER ever be profitable for the insurance ompanies. Eve is a war universe. DO you think any company of insurance is NUTS enough to insure war vehicles during a war?

NO... because the probability of those things exploding is very very high. So high that the insurance company woudl have to charge subscriptions costing around 80-90% of base ship cost.

PeHD0M
Posted - 2009.12.23 10:37:00 - [64]
 

How about this:
1. change insurance payouts, so it pays in minerals (not isk) - removes instant profit
2. create consumer goods, wich can be crafted via bpo system, and then selled to npc using dinamic prices (like antibiotics) - saves mineral prices

Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
Posted - 2009.12.23 11:10:00 - [65]
 

Removing insurance in limited conditions has hardly anything to do with insurance fraud.

You may want to make EvE more forgiving for new players or harsher for highsec gankers but this will not impact large scale insurance fraud. In EvE, if it is posisble with alts and metagaming, it is just plain possible.

The new player argument is strawman, single LSEII costs more than cruiser or BC hull.

The core question remains why do we need insurance and what purpose does it serve. Currently it's two main purposes are:

1) Encouraging removing assets from the game (and injecting ISK, see previous page for my musings on this)
2) Shifting large scale combat towards BSs (making combat cheap in ISK but imposing SP barrier; making pilot count and SP the only relevant variables).


SupaKudoRio
Posted - 2009.12.23 12:08:00 - [66]
 

Edited by: SupaKudoRio on 23/12/2009 12:09:10
Just remove insurance and get it over with. Isn't one of the core rules of EVE to not fly what you can't replace?

Edit: On second thoughts, keep the basic payout for accounts under a month old for ships cruiser and lower.

Albion Stormchaser
Posted - 2009.12.23 12:47:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: Albion Stormchaser on 23/12/2009 12:47:10
Originally by: Seishi Maru
Insurance controlled by players woudl never work. Why? BEcause woudl NEVER ever be profitable for the insurance ompanies. Eve is a war universe. DO you think any company of insurance is NUTS enough to insure war vehicles during a war?



Yes they do, mainly Aviation and Marine hulls, but then thats what ships are......

Check out the links below.

Brit Insurance
Clements

Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
Posted - 2009.12.23 12:50:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Aloriana Jacques
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Chaos Incarnate
Originally by: vulnevia
If Concord is invovled: no insurance. The only rule we need.


Doing this would unfairly harm newer players because older players want to suicide gank, which is not a good thing


I believe hey meant if you lose your ship to concord then no payout. That way the gankee still gets a payout.


The whole problem with this, as Chaos Incarnate realises, is that newbies often accidentaly get themselves killed for doing an illegal act in high sec without realising they've done something wrong. A blanket ban would hurt them.


New players should learn the mechanics in small expendable ships, not flying their whole wallet while wearing their hearts on their sleaves...

Othran
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.12.23 13:17:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Seishi Maru
Insurance controlled by players woudl never work. Why? BEcause woudl NEVER ever be profitable for the insurance ompanies. Eve is a war universe. DO you think any company of insurance is NUTS enough to insure war vehicles during a war?


You'll find that most RL insurance companies do just that. Now obviously it is extremely unlikely anyone is going to insure a tank involved in an assault I think you'll find that plenty of companies will insure that same tank when its not in the warzone. That's RL, not the game so I'm sure that with the inventive people we have in-game they can work out ways of making ISK Wink

Insuring in 0.0 should be player-controlled.

Alternatively get rid of insurance except for the first 12 weeks of an account, and apply the "if you attacked you get nothing" clause.

Anvalor
Gallente
Germania Inc.
D0GMA
Posted - 2009.12.23 13:22:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Anvalor on 23/12/2009 13:26:58
Originally by: SupaKudoRio
Edited by: SupaKudoRio on 23/12/2009 12:09:10
Just remove insurance and get it over with. Isn't one of the core rules of EVE to not fly what you can't replace?

Edit: On second thoughts, keep the basic payout for accounts under a month old for ships cruiser and lower.



Yes lets remove insurance so that even more players are afraid to fly their ships. So you want them to fly only cheap ships? Let me guess, you have alot of money and would like to fly around in your big ship killing smaller ships and laughing at the people who can not afford them anymore because there is no insurance.

I still could afford expensive ships but i want more targets and not even more empty space !

edit: Looking at the guys post above me *slaps forehead*. You realize this is a game right? RL has no place here. When do people like you get that ?

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2009.12.23 13:28:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: SupaKudoRio
Isn't one of the core rules of EVE to not fly what you can't replace?
Yes. Insurance is one of the things that lets you replace it. Keeping or removing insurance makes no difference in view of that concept.

Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
Posted - 2009.12.23 13:52:00 - [72]
 

In RL, insurance companies are not central banks printing money. In EvE they are.

They are not insurance companies, they are big automated factories - feed it coal and lumber, it spits banknotes. Net effect is fixed price on lumber based on the amount of banknote paper you can make out of it. Doh.

Elena Laskova
Posted - 2009.12.23 13:58:00 - [73]
 

EvE may have a problem with losses (ship plus fittings plus implants plus clone) being too expensive.
If so, is insurance a good or a bad solution?

EvE may have a problem with the market value of (some) minerals.
If so, is insurance a good or a bad solution?

I think it's a very poor solution to both of these problems.

Hegbard
Posted - 2009.12.23 13:59:00 - [74]
 

What particular problem are the insurance whiners trying to solve?

No abstracts, just plain facts.

What concrete gameplay problem do you have because of insurance? Why does that problem need solving? How has this become a problem right now?

Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
Posted - 2009.12.23 14:11:00 - [75]
 

Edited by: Forge Lag on 23/12/2009 14:19:01
Edited by: Forge Lag on 23/12/2009 14:17:37
Originally by: Hegbard
What particular problem are the insurance whiners trying to solve?

No abstracts, just plain facts.

What concrete gameplay problem do you have because of insurance? Why does that problem need solving? How has this become a problem right now?



Ships and modules are too expensive for initial purchase for new player.

Ships loses do not matter, leading to blobbing, suiciding, pointless PvP griefing.

Single modules are order magnitude more expensive than ship hull.

It became problem after asteroid respawn was adjusted, it lasts for many months, just now the abusers are bored and fat and decided to came out.

On related note, there is no big issue with icelandic economic crash and the related wordlwide events. Still there are some people that would rather have it not happen. You may chose to be blind, after all, most people responsible for this RL event chose to be blind and keep abusing the faulty system as long as possible because else they would be outcast as whiners.

Hegbard
Posted - 2009.12.23 14:46:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Forge Lag

Ships and modules are too expensive for initial purchase for new player.



Which gives them a sense of accomplishment when they finally get that ship they worked so hard for. No instant gratification seems to be one of the selling points of EVE. So far, this is something positive.

Where would the sense of accomplishment be if you had to repeat the same grind over and over again?

Quote:

Ships loses do not matter, leading to blobbing, suiciding, pointless PvP griefing.



suiciding is good as is, this will be a pointless argument, so let's drop it.
"pointless PvP griefing" doesn't make any sense to use as an argument against insurance, since the griefer doesn't lose his ship and the victim gains from insurance.
"blobbing" is a meaningless word. It means you didn't have as many people as your opponent.
"ship losses do not matter", bull****. Fittings are often as expensive as the ship.

Basically, your argument is that there should be less PvP. Which is intereseting in a game where PvP is a big selling point. Insurance means that you have to grind that many hours less before you get into a fight. Look at it this way, for every battleship loss in large fleet fights, insurance saved 2-5 hours of grinding for ISK. Do you suggest that every time you go out to a fight, you should first spend 5-10 hours grinding ISK? How fun would the game be then? The only solution to that problem would be to make people lose less ships, which is already a problem in pvp, people are already too risk averse. Increasing cost of losses makes the problem even worse.

Insurance reduces the price of pvp for those who want to participate in it, while increasing the income for those who don't. Where's the problem?

Quote:

Single modules are order magnitude more expensive than ship hull.



Wait what? You're contradicting yourself with "ship losses don't matter". Unless you believe fights happen in unfit ships.

Quote:

It became problem after asteroid respawn was adjusted, it lasts for many months, just now the abusers are bored and fat and decided to came out.



Insurance fraud happened all the time and have been setting the price of the mineral basket for ages. It's just that some more vocal people came out with it now. Battleships have been steady at the edge of the magical insurance fraud limit for ages. The only big thing right now is that so much trit is being produced which drops the price so much that the normal insurance frauders can't keep up anymore. Anyone can do it.

Quote:

On related note, there is no big issue with icelandic economic crash and the related wordlwide events. Still there are some people that would rather have it not happen. You may chose to be blind, after all, most people responsible for this RL event chose to be blind and keep abusing the faulty system as long as possible because else they would be outcast as whiners.



What?

Does the economic crisis affect your game play? I don't get it.

SweetHoney
Posted - 2009.12.23 16:36:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: SupaKudoRio
Edited by: SupaKudoRio on 23/12/2009 12:09:10
Just remove insurance and get it over with. Isn't one of the core rules of EVE to not fly what you can't replace?

Edit: On second thoughts, keep the basic payout for accounts under a month old for ships cruiser and lower.



wow... Then welcome to 0.01 isk Tritanium 0.02 isk pyerite and the others...
also that 20-50k ppl who trained half year for hulk will be very happy to make 100k/h.

Right now supply>demand only thing stops falling mineral prices is insurance.

hmm maybe we will reach the point then where a megathron will cost 1mill Very Happy

Elena Laskova
Posted - 2009.12.23 17:00:00 - [78]
 

Denying the basic principles of economics never leads anywhere sensible. Price *should* be decided by the relationship between supply and demand.

Any effects this had would be good for EvE. Some might be a little disturbing: no more trash modules dropping from NPCs, no more stupidly high meta level drops from NPCs, fix the T2 blueprint mess (by full replacement with T3 BPs I hope), a period of tuning the mineral costs for manufactured items, etc.

But anything that moves the basis of the economy away from from subsidies and towards "player-hours" has to be good.


Cory Sopapilla
Minmatar
Kiroshi Group
Posted - 2009.12.23 17:17:00 - [79]
 

Where are the people getting info that this is only just now becoming an issue? I did a quick eve-search for 'insurance fraud' and found threads back to Feb 2004.

Personally I think the first step should be to remove Concord & self-destruct related insurance payouts. If someone wants to gank a bunch of miners, they still can. It falls under the 'don't fly what you can't afford to lose' category.

Lieff
Over Dosed
Posted - 2009.12.23 17:28:00 - [80]
 

Making flagged ships un-insureable is not that fair tbh, it would create a VERY safe high sec, instead of just safe.

I'd just add extra policies, IE, basic cover up to plat, covers you from NPC kills, you being ganked, you losing ship in a typical pvp encounter.

Concord cover, this covers your ship should you be concorded, the premium would pay out the same as basic, but would cost you extra on top.

Self destruct cover, this would cover your ship should you self destruct, again you would pay a higher premium for this.

Let them be combined in any fashion you like.

Aside from making it that complicated, a simpler (in theory) way to do it would just base insurance payout on the current universal average ship prices, this could be calculated at downtime and ensure nobody can de-fraud the insurance.

Aphoticus
Posted - 2009.12.23 17:47:00 - [81]
 

Remove Concord related Insurance/Insurance (period) payouts for Non-NPC corps.

Only NPC corps (with their 11% fees) should have insurance to satisfy the newer players and should be tiered in either case; Non-combat versus combat related ships having different payouts and premiums.

Player corporations should provide their own means; Eve is harsh, act like it. If you feel so bold to start a one man corporation, be prepared. Why would anyone insure an ill-prepared corporate plan?

If the corporation is well established, and their net worth (in ISK) is right, and their "business plan" is sound, they can gain a small percentage premium and basic ship replacement payout for corporate members under a specific time frame in that corp.

After so long, and individual net worth is established, why would insurance be required?

Insurance should be a means to help the new player, not give seasoned players a means to not struggle and learn from their mistakes.

That's my take;

PS: I never insure anything.

You do the math, if you can make the price of the ship within a given period of time, insurance is a waste of money unless you are conducting fraud, or do not want to learn from your mistakes, or you want to play WOW.

Cory Sopapilla
Minmatar
Kiroshi Group
Posted - 2009.12.23 17:49:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Lieff
Making flagged ships un-insureable is not that fair tbh, it would create a VERY safe high sec, instead of just safe.

It's incredibly cheap to fit a suicide frigate or cruiser. A couple million or less and you're set in most cases. As it is now, it's actually a net gain from insurance when you suicide gank in some cases. The ganker gets to choose the gear and the target for maximum profit. The target, however, loses named/T2 gear or whatever and loses $$. No change would be made to safety of the gankee unless the majority of gankers are flat broke and have become too dependant on insurance fraud to make a living.

SweetHoney
Posted - 2009.12.23 18:16:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Aphoticus


PS: I never insure anything.

You do the math, if you can make the price of the ship within a given period of time, insurance is a waste of money unless you are conducting fraud, or do not want to learn from your mistakes, or you want to play WOW.


Because you are a care bear ...
Now go out and pvp a bit and lose couple of battleships a day, come back later and tell us will you consider insuring your ship next time ?

PVE ships can go that theory but eve not 100% pve, thats why this game still alive because the pvp aspect of the game.

Aphoticus
Posted - 2009.12.23 22:40:00 - [84]
 

Edited by: Aphoticus on 23/12/2009 22:49:45
Originally by: SweetHoney
Originally by: Aphoticus


PS: I never insure anything.

You do the math, if you can make the price of the ship within a given period of time, insurance is a waste of money unless you are conducting fraud, or do not want to learn from your mistakes, or you want to play WOW.


Because you are a care bear ...
Now go out and pvp a bit and lose couple of battleships a day, come back later and tell us will you consider insuring your ship next time ?

PVE ships can go that theory but eve not 100% pve, thats why this game still alive because the pvp aspect of the game.



Very funny... Oh, wait, you do not research the people you quote? Nevermind. Carry on with your delusions.

Statistics: Sweethoney ranked 86,827; me, nothing to brag about, in the 30k range. What do you know about the subject?

Junko Togawa
Caldari
Posted - 2009.12.23 23:17:00 - [85]
 

Edited by: Junko Togawa on 23/12/2009 23:17:47
ITT supernerds jerk their gherkins over being able to defraud spacepixel insurance companies for spacepixel money. ugh

SweetHoney
Posted - 2009.12.23 23:18:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Aphoticus


Very funny... Oh, wait, you do not research the people you quote? Nevermind. Carry on with your delusions.

Statistics: Sweethoney ranked 86,827; me, nothing to brag about, in the 30k range. What do you know about the subject?


sorry I didn't want to hurt your feelings i fix it.
I meant you talkin about care bearing and not you are.

Also sweethoney is a forum alt of mine. so no ranks here, maybe you found some info when I take her out scout something.

Smabs
Posted - 2009.12.23 23:27:00 - [87]
 

I'm amazed that people think ship destruction doesn't impact a player just because of insurance.

Your typical battlecruiser costs about 25 - 45 million in modules if it's mostly t2 fit. A battleship tends to cost upwards of 70 million in modules. If there's no insurance the cost of a pvp battlecruiser/battleship pretty much doubles. Not to mention dreads and carriers. BCs and BSs tend to be the the most common hulls a pvp'er uses for damage dealing.

Removing insurance will just make players even more risk averse. Whereas once a player might've undocked their drake knowing they'd lose it, they would probably think twice if they were looking at a 60 mil loss instead of 30. Losing 200 mil for every battleship would make a lot of players extremely reluctant to take them out regularly in risky situations (unless they had an alliance replacement program). So you'd end up with more frigs, dessies and cruisers floating about, and probably less pvp overall. In other words it'd make eve more boring.

Of course suicide ganking is a whole different thing altogether.

Wet Ferret
Posted - 2009.12.23 23:57:00 - [88]
 

If you're trying to remove insurance fraud the only way to do it is to remove insurance altogether. At best you can reduce large scale fraud by limiting how often you are paid out or something else, but as long as insurance exists it will be abused to some extent.

If you're trying to prevent behavior encouraged by insurance, do it directly. Like removing insurance for criminal acts. This has only one minor drawback, in that idiots who disable or ignore their CONCORD warning will be occasionally killed without compensation. I'm certainly not losing any sleep over that.

Removal of insurance for self destruct would be a pointless waste of dev time. Use your brain for 2 whole seconds to figure out why.

Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
Posted - 2009.12.24 00:54:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: Forge Lag on 24/12/2009 01:12:10
Originally by: Smabs
Your typical battlecruiser costs about 25 - 45 million in modules if it's mostly t2 fit.

...

So you'd end up with more frigs, dessies and cruisers floating about, and probably less pvp overall. In other words it'd make eve more boring.




For that module price you can field uninsured Ferox, or a few Blackbirds. And they are still cheaper than T2 frigates.

Why is more cruisers in PvP bad? (More T1 frigs? Oh please, when we started to talk T2 prices all of sudden?) Why do you insist that propper PvP must be done in BSs? If they start to cost close to HACs, you will actually have more options. Also PvP will become more accessible to low SP players.

Also, ships and T1 modules will become cheaper because insurance will stop inflating the price and because there will oversupply of minerals. So, less mining overall, not more.

Edit: I never said ship destruction does not impact player. I said that ship aka hull loss is meaningless while modules are very expensive and that this situation is absurd (Abaddon is cheaper than CoercerShocked). It was just some troll above that had to point out that indeed modules cost order of magnitute more than hull, which I explicitly said.

Allen Ramses
Caldari
Zombicidal Mania
Posted - 2009.12.24 02:38:00 - [90]
 

What about simply removing the unconditional 40% base value portion of the equation and leaving the 1:2 payout alone? That would mean the rates would remain the same, but the maximum payout would be significantly decreased.

For example, a plantinum insurance policy for a Drake would still cost 11.4 mil (30% base value). However, the payout for this policy would go from 38 mil (100%) to 22.8 mil (60%). For insurance to break equal as it does now, the drake would have to cost 11.4 mil. I don't see this happening in the near future.

I always thought the unconditional 40% loss compensation was a bit absurd.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

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