open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Insurance changes working as intended on test?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8

Author Topic

Setar Zi'lok
Posted - 2010.03.15 21:12:00 - [61]
 

It'd be nice if it took into account CONCORD/POLICE intervention.

I'm not proud of it but I've started suicide ganking random people in high sec. (Super high sec status and boredom)
Usually scan out decent loot in the cargo and then blow the target up with a battlecruiser.... and even though all the loot may blow up with it I still don't lose that much, while my victim who may be young is now as a consequence, poor.
(I try not to look too hard at their age, makes me feel bad)

People have discussed it before : no insurance for illegal activity. It wouldn't stop suicide ganking but It could protect young players with only 20m+ in loot in their cargo from douches like me.


Ghoest
Posted - 2010.03.15 21:36:00 - [62]
 

The only change that is needed is stopping pay outs for Concird kills.

Lowering insurance payout will simply low the price of minerals at which point the minineral prices will still be set by insurance.

Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
Posted - 2010.03.15 21:55:00 - [63]
 

Edited by: Zions Child on 15/03/2010 21:58:25
Reposting from the thread in GD...

Also, for those saying "It's just SiSi, so it's only a test." Realize that SiSi does not have an active market, and therefore does not accurately predict the market changes that would happen should the economy be altered. CCP Doesn't have a clue as to what's going to happen if they change the insurance rates on TQ if they only look at SiSi.

Something tells me that CCP listened to their economist, which was a terrible mistake.

/begin random analogy

EVE is essentially a free market model. It accurately models what would happen in the real world if there were unlimited resources available at all times. Let's take a look at a modern-day real life resource which is functionally unlimited - corn. Corn is pointless to grow. Farmers actually lose money purchasing the pesticides and fuel etc. needed to grow acres of corn. In other words, corn is so plentiful, and so cheap, because it is nearly unlimited in availability. There is so much corn being grown today, we have no clue what to do with it all. Brazil started using ethanol as fuel because they had too much corn. Corn would NEVER be grown, if it weren't HEAVILY subsidised by the government. So, what does corn have to do with EVE? Corn = Minerals.

/end random analogy

Minerals are functionally unlimited in EVE, belts respawn, rats respawn, missions are always available. No matter what, in the matter of a few seconds, you can produce minerals. EVE now has a large enough population, and the respawn rates on mineral sources are short enough, that mineral production is functionally unlimited. Insurance acts as a government (CCP) sanctioned subsidy. If minerals are so cheap that suiciding insured ships = profit, then the minerals start to get consumed by people willing to take the time to suicide the ships. By changing the insurance rates so that they are either dynamic, or are regularly changed based on the average mineral prices, you are essentially removing the subsidy.

Insurance isn't a soft price floor, it's hard as rock right now, because it doesn't go down. There are some people willing to lose money by selling minerals at rates that are cheaper than using them to suicide a ship, but they are not numerous enough to significantly alter the average price. Changing insurance in the way CCP seems to be planning, will destabilize the market over the course of a few weeks, possibly to the point that ships become pointlessly cheap. Removing the price floor, will reduce minerals to their actual price, which is next to zero. Supply currently exceeds demand by a HUGE margin. And, the worst part about this is that supply is still increasing at a rate far above that which demand is increasing. EVE is suffering, and flawed mineral balancing, not insurance, is to blame.

To re-iterate, EVE is a market simulation. It almost perfectly models a real-world situation. Unfortunately, there are very few real-world situations where there are unlimited resources. The EVE market is suffering from deflation, which is a known economic problem, but unusual. Reducing the price floor (insurance) in direct proportion to the unlimited resource (minerals) will result in a never before seen effect, hyperdeflation. Watch as your isk becomes so absurdly valuable, that it's meaningless, watch, as wealth in EVE becomes meaningless, and watch, in horror, as the EVE market quickly and effectively destroys itself. Although I'm fairly certain that if hyperdeflation did start to happen, CCP would think about pulling the plug on the market, and functionally reset it using npc buy orders and such...

TL;DR Version: Insurance rates are the only thing keeping the EVE economy from spiraling downwards into oblivion.

Cyclops43
Posted - 2010.03.15 22:15:00 - [64]
 

Edited by: Cyclops43 on 15/03/2010 22:16:20
Originally by: Marius Victor
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
15-30 minute global cooldown on insurance payouts. I just solved the insurance fraud problem for you all.

Nice. Seems like a pretty damn effective idea. Maybe make it 45 minutes to an hour?

It'll not work the way you intend it to....

Imagine what will happen.....

Today, the people who commit insurance fraud in EVE does it for a profit of maybe a few million per ship. They'll not be able to do that any more after a change like this, but the imbalance between supply and demand will not have gone away.
So what will happen, is that since the market will be totally oversupplied, prices will start falling.
That means the profit in insurance fraud will begin to increase, and more people will do it, not as a career, but as a side income.

In effect, what will happen is that the insurance floor is lowered a little bit, but that's about it. There'll be just as much insurance fraud going on, and the supply/demand imbalance in the economy will not have been solved.

Even worse, once a new player earns enough money for his first ship, there's no need for him to actually play any more. He can just suicide still bigger ships as his 'career'. Not a good thing for the game as such....

The fraudsters could also just move their activity to dreads and carriers... A bit more cumbersome, but still as bad...

From the looks of things, CCP is thinking about implementing a rolling dynamic insurance payout. This is about the only thing that will work....

Janita Salud
Posted - 2010.03.15 22:16:00 - [65]
 

Interesting discussion …

I think several people have hit the issue on the head … insurance payouts for Concorded attacks.

Why would the same people who seem most vocal about nerfing insurance payouts be the same people that some point out that would be most adversely effected by the nerf … mining and industrial carebears … because these same people are sick of suicide ganking!

I agree with the argument that insurance both provides price support for minerals and makes PvP something more likely to occur in eve … BUT …

When the focus for a significant percentage of eve’s gaming population is that they can’t fly from point A to point B, with the entire route is in High Sec, and have other players blow them up, with basically no consequence to the attacking player because of insurance, then you enter the parallel universe where the players most likely to be adversely effected by an insurance nerf are the ones that argue the loudest for it.

Get the issue of suicide ganking and insurance payouts balanced and this issue goes away … don’t and the situation becomes more critical with an adverse effect on large numbers of players that have no interest or involvement in suicide ganking.


Cyclops43
Posted - 2010.03.15 22:23:00 - [66]
 

Edited by: Cyclops43 on 15/03/2010 22:30:38
Originally by: Janita Salud
I think several people have hit the issue on the head … insurance payouts for Concorded attacks.

It'll not make one bit of difference....

You can suicide a T1 hauler with a few catalysts.... How much do you think insurance money means?

The people who're stupid enough to carry 50+m in a wet paper bag (T1 hauler) will STILL be crying bitter tears on the forum about being suicided, and the intelligent players who actually think about what they do and don't AFK will still not be suicided at all....

Suicide gankers are not the ones at fault, stupid players are...

Cyclops43
Posted - 2010.03.15 22:58:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: Zions Child
EVE is dying...

And as the other 'EVE is dying' people, you blindly assume that the people mining now will continue to mine even when minerals reach 0.01 ISK Rolling Eyes

Prices will drop...
Some people will stop mining...
Prices will drop more...
More people will stop mining...
Demand now exceed supply...
Prices will rise...
More people will start mining...

Eventually a new equilibrium will be found where mining is paid what the effort is worth!

Your conclusion can only be as good as your assumptions, and your assumptions are completely laughable and not based in any kind of reality, real-life or in-game!

RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
Posted - 2010.03.15 23:24:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Cyclops43
Originally by: Zions Child
EVE is dying...

And as the other 'EVE is dying' people, you blindly assume that the people mining now will continue to mine even when minerals reach 0.01 ISK Rolling Eyes

Prices will drop...
Some people will stop mining...
Prices will drop more...
More people will stop mining...
Demand now exceed supply...
Prices will rise...
More people will start mining...

Eventually a new equilibrium will be found where mining is paid what the effort is worth!

Your conclusion can only be as good as your assumptions, and your assumptions are completely laughable and not based in any kind of reality, real-life or in-game!



If mining were the sole source of minerals you would be correct. Mineral prices would eventually equalize at a very low, but manageable price point. Mining would exist as a low-income "side" profession, similar to hi-sec exploration.

However, mining is not the only source of minerals. Reprocessing of mission loot produces a significant source of minerals as a by-product of mission-running - an activity that is completely unaffected by mineral prices or changes to the insurance system. 0.0 alliances are also producing a significant mineral stream as they mine for sov. upgrades. These minerals will continue to flood the market even at 0.01 ISK/unit prices. End result? Mining for profit becomes a myth, the Eve economy goes through massive price deflation, and mineral prices become a volatile trailing indicator to mission-running/0.0 alliance activity.

Sound like fun? Not to anyone with any amount of economic sense.

Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
Posted - 2010.03.15 23:27:00 - [69]
 

Edited by: Zions Child on 15/03/2010 23:30:07
Edited by: Zions Child on 15/03/2010 23:28:31
Originally by: Cyclops43

And as the other 'EVE is dying' people, you blindly assume that the people mining now will continue to mine even when minerals reach 0.01 ISK Rolling Eyes

Prices will drop...
Some people will stop mining...
Prices will drop more...
More people will stop mining...
Demand now exceed supply...
Prices will rise...
More people will start mining...

Eventually a new equilibrium will be found where mining is paid what the effort is worth!

Your conclusion can only be as good as your assumptions, and your assumptions are completely laughable and not based in any kind of reality, real-life or in-game!



Except that you fail to understand the majority of minerals in EVE do not come from mining. Mining should be producing over 50% of every mineral. As it stands now, mining only produces the majority of one mineral, and that is morphite. The people who have the most to lose are the ones influencing the mineral market the least. The combined effort of thousands of drone ratters and mission runners is what is influencing the market. The people who refine incredible amounts of minerals and then decide to undercut the lowest sell order by a few hundredths of an isk with their massive stores of recycled modules are driving the market. Ships should not be as cheap as they are now. Ships should not be nearly as easy to acquire as they are now.

As it stands, there is very little penalty to losing a ship, and considerable profit to be made suiciding ships. Imagine this - Rokh's are being sold at 5m isk below insurance payout value. You can suicide one ship about every 4 - 5 minutes. Let's get conservative, 5 minutes. That means, in one hour, you can suicide 12 Rokhs. 12 times 5m is equal to 60m isk. In other words, you can make 60m isk in profit doing nothing but purchasing and suiciding ships. Do you really think that's the way CCP intended the game to be played? And as for my assumptions not being based on reality, A CCP dev is quoted as saying that well over 50% of each mineral excepting morphite is produced through reprocessing loot, whther drone compounds or rat modules.What happens when you have massive growth of a resource (minerals) in a saturated market? That mineral's price will go down.

Will ship prices reach values of several isk or even several thousand isk? No, but they will go down, and they will go far below a level they should be at. And yes, I'm basing this on the belief that battleships should cost more than a 100m isk. Why? Because it makes the game harder. It makes you actually care about the ship you're flying. It means GoonSwarm tactics would be absurdly costly. Will people continue to mine? Some will, especially those alts of main accounts that have nothing better to do. But even if all the miners leave their profession, resources will still be streaming into EVE at a level that far outpaces demand.

And as for mining being paid the effort that it's worth, are you really willing to alienate an entire group of players for the sole purpose of cheaper ships? Miners don't make a whole lot as it is. If prices continue to drop (and they will, just look at the goddamn market history of the past few years) then miners will become marginalized players. I don't even mine for chrissake, I rat and pvp in nullsec, but I don't want to see an entire group of players leave EVE because their profession has been marginalized into nothingness.

Also, when did I say EVE was dying? I firmly believe CCP will prevent EVE from dying, no matter what that takes. EVE will survive whatever happens to it, and lowering insurance won't kill it. But it will make it less fun to play, and I don't want that.

TL;DR Version: You sir, are an idiot, read the goddamn post, and stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

Edited for typos

Cyclops43
Posted - 2010.03.15 23:34:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Cyclops43 on 15/03/2010 23:42:32
Originally by: Zions Child
Except that you fail to understand the majority of minerals in EVE do not come from mining.

Have a little faith in CCP...

Don't you think they know that (since they post numbers about it, my guess is they do)? And don't you think they'll address it if they push through a change like this? Especially since it took them so long to come up with it?

My guess is they'll completely nerf mission generated T1 modules, meaning this will be a BOOST to mining, not a nerf...
If they don't, then they really ARE completely clueless, and EVE will die anyway...

We only have a tiny bit of information yet about this change (no dev blog, not even a single dev or gm comment), and yet you post your 'EVE is dying' (yes, you did...) scare stories based JUST on that small bit of information... Rolling Eyes

If anyone here is an idiot running off half-cooked, you're it!

PS: This is also a reply to post 68, except for the last two sections Cool

Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
Posted - 2010.03.15 23:50:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Cyclops43
Edited by: Cyclops43 on 15/03/2010 23:41:50
Originally by: Zions Child
Except that you fail to understand the majority of minerals in EVE do not come from mining.

Have a little faith in CCP...

Don't you think they know that (since they post numbers about it, my guess is they do)? And don't you think they'll address it if they push through a change like this? Especially since it took them so long to come up with it?

My guess is they'll completely nerf mission generated T1 modules, meaning this will be a BOOST to mining, not a nerf...
If they don't, then they really ARE completely clueless, and EVE will die anyway...

We only have a tiny bit of information yet about this change (no dev blog, not even a single dev or gm comment), and yet you post your 'EVE is dying' (yes, you did...) scare stories based JUST on that small bit of information... Rolling Eyes

If anyone here is an idiot running off half-cooked, you're it!

PS: This is also a reply to post 68, except for the last line containing the 'i' word Cool


I did include an 'EVE is dying scare story', followed by a 'CCP wouldn't let that happen no matter what.' Apparently, you stopped reading after you got what you want. The fact that no one in SiSi is talking about how T1 loot got nerfed is what is frightening the populace, as the only thing CCP seems to be doing, is lowering the price floor in the EVE market. If CCP made a comment about this insurance reduction, or said, don't worry, we're lessening the influx of resources from mission running, then I would be happy, and would stop complaining about said insurance reduction. The EVE market would still destabilize for a short period, but it would eventually bounce back. As it stands now, with this new insurance change, the mineral market will end up crashing to a point at which suiciding ships stops being profitable. CCP has made absurdly bad decisions regarding the in-game economy in the past, what with the veld-respawn rate increase (Sorry Chribba) and the addition of the Drone Regions, so I'm worried that they will be introducing a new feature which will further drive the market downwards.

AccesiViale
The Artful Dodgers
Posted - 2010.03.16 10:11:00 - [72]
 

I'm at work so I apologize if this was asked earlier. I didn't have time to comb this whole thread.

So the formula for insurance has not been revised but insurance(payouts/cost) just reduced across the board?

I was under the impression if they changed it it insurance cost and payouts would have something to do with costs of the ship (and possibly modules) to produce or/or average market price to aquire said insured ship.

I don't have a problem with reducing payouts and cost in this flat manner (if it is the case) per se...but it seems kind of lazy to go this route when it could be done better. Why bother messing with a system that is "broken" only to replace it with a system that is "broken" or will be after the markets equalize and put us right where we are now.

Again, my apologies for not having a chance to read the whole thread or take a look on sisi myself.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2010.03.16 13:11:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: sue denim

First you'd be wrong in assuming that most minerals come from miners, cause they don't.


I can as easily say that yes they do. That table you are thinking about - it involves also on 'refinables' side all the stuff used in mineral compression. Mineral compression is standard practice in EVE. Ofc drone goo has also sizeable share of mineral generation but the amount of low ends is not that great.

So perhaps you would care to explain a bit where do you draw that conclusion from, that mining is not the biggest source of minerals in EVE ?

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.03.16 13:28:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat
Can't wait for insurable t2 ships (CCP have talked enough about it that it is inevitable).


Protip: T2 ships already are insurable.

Draco Argen
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:47:00 - [75]
 

Er just a thought.

Why doen't they change the insurance to relfect RL insurance.
If you crash your car while commiting a robbery/felony, i'm pretty sure you cant claim.

If CONCORD are the ones who blow away your ship, no payout. Simples.


If you are proved to have deliberately crashed your car for insurance, it is fraud and no payout. ie Self destruct.

In addition when someone else drives your car and then you get back in it you are still insured. If the other person crashes, you are not insured. In Eve you "loose" the coverage.

Also Insurance payout is based on "for new" current values. Complex as the mechanic may be shouldn't a market average be used as a basis for a payout. (in RL it's usually the cheapest of three quotes)

Perhaps CCP need an insurance adjuster on the payroll for advice. Very Happy

Marius Victor
Posted - 2010.03.16 17:00:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Draco Argen

Why doen't they change the insurance to relfect RL insurance.
If you crash your car while commiting a robbery/felony, i'm pretty sure you cant claim.

If CONCORD are the ones who blow away your ship, no payout. Simples.


If you are proved to have deliberately crashed your car for insurance, it is fraud and no payout. ie Self destruct.

In addition when someone else drives your car and then you get back in it you are still insured. If the other person crashes, you are not insured. In Eve you "loose" the coverage.

Also Insurance payout is based on "for new" current values. Complex as the mechanic may be shouldn't a market average be used as a basis for a payout. (in RL it's usually the cheapest of three quotes)

Perhaps CCP need an insurance adjuster on the payroll for advice. Very Happy



Why don't they REALLY change insurance to reflect RL insurance and let it be player run?

I really don't see the point of insurance for ANY player over 3 months old. Profit is so easy to make in this game as it is.

Explain to me why we need insurance at all? If anything just let players have access to it up until say 4 million SPs or whatever amount is less than enough to fly a t1 BS unfit... That way they couldn't make "Self Destruct" alts...

RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
Posted - 2010.03.16 17:11:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: Marius Victor

Why don't they REALLY change insurance to reflect RL insurance and let it be player run?

I really don't see the point of insurance for ANY player over 3 months old. Profit is so easy to make in this game as it is.

Explain to me why we need insurance at all? If anything just let players have access to it up until say 4 million SPs or whatever amount is less than enough to fly a t1 BS unfit... That way they couldn't make "Self Destruct" alts...


I explained why we need the current insurance system in post #60 of this very thread... If my explanation didn't make sense, please read any of the threads in Market Discussion, General Discussion, or Science & Industry. Each of the threads has at least one good explanation of the role insurance plays in stabilizing the economy.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.03.16 17:27:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: RJ Nobel
Originally by: Marius Victor

Why don't they REALLY change insurance to reflect RL insurance and let it be player run?

I really don't see the point of insurance for ANY player over 3 months old. Profit is so easy to make in this game as it is.

Explain to me why we need insurance at all? If anything just let players have access to it up until say 4 million SPs or whatever amount is less than enough to fly a t1 BS unfit... That way they couldn't make "Self Destruct" alts...


I explained why we need the current insurance system in post #60 of this very thread... If my explanation didn't make sense, please read any of the threads in Market Discussion, General Discussion, or Science & Industry. Each of the threads has at least one good explanation of the role insurance plays in stabilizing the economy.


I'm not sure whether insurance is as deliberate a mechanism as you postulate there.

RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
Posted - 2010.03.16 17:48:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz

I'm not sure whether insurance is as deliberate a mechanism as you postulate there.


I'm not sure either. Insurance may not have been intended to fill the role of safety-net mineral consumption, but it does meet the requirements quite well.

Thrasymachus TheSophist
Posted - 2010.03.17 04:30:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: RJ Nobel
Originally by: Sokratesz

I'm not sure whether insurance is as deliberate a mechanism as you postulate there.


I'm not sure either. Insurance may not have been intended to fill the role of safety-net mineral consumption, but it does meet the requirements quite well.


It fits the "requirement" HORRIBLY. Sure, it sets a floor for min prices, but it creates an infinite ISK faucet (limited only by supply of minerals) at the same time. The game mechanics should NOT (1) create infinite wealth systems based only on capital availability (as Insurance fraud permits) or (2) OVER encourage high-sec mining. The currrent insurance system does both.

If you want a mineral floor, then create one -- NPC buyers of minerals at pre-set (e.g. "floor") prices. Or I'm sure some genius will come up wiht an even better way to ensure miners can make a buck.

But using the insurance system as a backdoor economic support is seriously seriously stupid. Really really stupid.

LyghtCrye
Posted - 2010.03.17 05:16:00 - [81]
 

I'm sorry but, NPC's buying minerals for a set floor price is exactly the same thing as self destructing ships for the insurance policy economically. The only difference is then there is no possibility of a manufacturing middle man to get a cut.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.03.17 08:17:00 - [82]
 

They used to have NPC mineral buy orders at 50% of "baseprice". They have been all eliminated gradually many years ago.
If they would be willing to revert anything, they should revert the things they did more recently to break it all so badly instead, not bring back an ancient bootstrapping mechanic.

skotenok
Bad Robot Inc.
Red Alliance
Posted - 2010.03.17 09:02:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Akita T
They used to have NPC mineral buy orders at 50% of "baseprice". They have been all eliminated gradually many years ago.
If they would be willing to revert anything, they should revert the things they did more recently to break it all so badly instead, not bring back an ancient bootstrapping mechanic.



50% base price ? what price ? price six month ago when megocite 3k or price now when meg 2k
i thionk if CCP whant check price they need make worse mining and other thing where we can take minerals, but NOT INSURENCE! if insure go down CCP kill 4 region in game (im about drone region).
why minerals so cheap becose 2 thing
1 burst empire belts
2 dominion with non stop resp anomaly

Kyra Felann
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.03.17 09:17:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
15-30 minute global cooldown on insurance payouts. I just solved the insurance fraud problem for you all.


It does make sense. After all, what insurance company would insure someone who loses ships constantly, all day? If nothing else, they should have to pay for "high-risk" policies

There are plenty of ways to nerf insurance without cutting the amount paid out.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.03.17 10:13:00 - [85]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 17/03/2010 10:14:59
Originally by: skotenok
Originally by: Akita T
They used to have NPC mineral buy orders at 50% of "baseprice". They have been all eliminated gradually many years ago.
If they would be willing to revert anything, they should revert the things they did more recently to break it all so badly instead, not bring back an ancient bootstrapping mechanic.

50% base price ? what price ? price six month ago[...]

What part of "many years ago" was unclear and made you think of "months ago" ?
When I say that, I actually mean more than just 1 year (I would have said "about a year"), 2 years (that would be "a couple of years"), more like 3-4 years ago or maybe even a bit longer (since it can't be more than EVE was live, you know).

Also what price ? The BASE price. You know, the baseprices that were put in place ever since EVE started.
As in, trit 2 (NPC buy at base 1, up to 1.10 with price adjust), pye 8 (base NPC buy 4, up to 4.40 after adjust) and so on.
The price the insurance on TQ for T1 ships is still completely based on.
Get it ?

Originally by: Kyra Felann
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
15-30 minute global cooldown on insurance payouts. I just solved the insurance fraud problem for you all.

It does make sense.

No, it doesn't.
It's a war, and your outpost is under attack, you need every pilot helping. But wait, what is that ?
"Sorry, can't help anymore, in 30 minutes maybe again, when my insurance cooldown expires."
Wouldn't you just love hearing that ?

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.03.17 10:34:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: LyghtCrye
I'm sorry but, NPC's buying minerals for a set floor price is exactly the same thing as self destructing ships for the insurance policy economically. The only difference is then there is no possibility of a manufacturing middle man to get a cut.


What would be the worst case consequences of no mineral floor?

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2010.03.17 10:37:00 - [87]
 

CCP i hope you are aware that rising t2 insurance is a straight path to hell.

Not only from balance and gameplay issues.
But increasing t2 insurace = higher demnad for t2 ships with limited supply of moon minerals = t2 ships skyrocketing in price = technetium for 150k + terrible isk faceout that converts moon minerals to isk.

I hope your economist told you that.

In case he didnt( which is very likely ) i bought ****load of technetium. Thanks for free isk.



Zora'e
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2010.03.17 13:45:00 - [88]
 

Edited by: Zora''e on 17/03/2010 13:57:22
As an individual looses ships, the cost of their insurance should rise. After a point they should be classed as 'un-insurable' and not be able to buy insurance. It should be an a dynamic sliding scale. If you are 'wreck free' for X amount of time, your insurance costs drops (or you become re-insurable), if you have many wrecks in a short time, it skyrockets or vanishes.

This keeps insurance, and also adds a need for risk assessment to the player. Suicide ganking etc would still be viable, new players would not be penalized, older players who 'take care of their ships' would not be penalized. More risk taking players would either need to monitor their risk value, or forego insurance for some activities.



Slade Hoo
Amarr
Retired Gunslingers
Posted - 2010.03.17 14:55:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: Slade Hoo on 17/03/2010 14:55:53
higher T2 Insurance won't make any ships cheaper. It only produces more demand for t2 ships while the offer of moon minerals will be the same. In the end the price of t2 ships will increase with the same percentage and the insurance payout. So there is no difference in t2 ship prices at all but it will greatly improve the income of moon owners.

You have to compensate with more offer (more moons, planetary mining, sth else) in t2 minerals to actually make t2 stuff cheaper.

Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2010.03.17 15:46:00 - [90]
 

I still want to know where the PI mineral production will enter the production chain and how taht will affect the whole market. Because until now I saw no New products to have exclusive use of that troughput.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8

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