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

Thrasymachus TheSophist
Posted - 2010.03.19 21:17:00 - [151]
 

Edited by: Thrasymachus TheSophist on 19/03/2010 21:24:58
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.


Absolutely true that from an economic point of view they are the same - they both provide a mineral floor. That was of course the whole reason for the suggestion - to eliminate people's worry about what would happen to the mineral market if you removed the price floor provided by insurance. NPC buyers restores the floor.

That said, I think you underestimate the effect that eliminating the manufacturing middle man would have on the mineral AND manufacturing markets. (Alliteration ftw.)

EDIT: To be clear - I don't want to see any floor at all. Let the market set the price for minerals. My point was only that there are far better ways to create a mineral floor if that is the goal, that don't involve insurance at all.

RootEmerger
Posted - 2010.03.19 22:19:00 - [152]
 

Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist

EDIT: To be clear - I don't want to see any floor at all. Let the market set the price for minerals. My point was only that there are far better ways to create a mineral floor if that is the goal, that don't involve insurance at all.


"let the market set the price" dont mean a thing, the market will always set prices as mechanics decided by CCP will make it set prices, see disprosium prices before and after Dominion.

So the question is: how much CCP want the minerals be worth and how change mechanics to make them worth so much...

TheSlaveMaster
Posted - 2010.03.20 13:44:00 - [153]
 

to those who say suicide will die, i lol. This is only good. Many will think no one suicide now. starting to carry 300-1bill isk in a hauler. and bang 1400'tempest will suicide it. auch the suicide guy lost whole 30mill now instead of 10mill but earned 150-500mill isk....

Turiel Demon
Minmatar
Celtic industries
Posted - 2010.03.20 13:54:00 - [154]
 

Originally by: TheSlaveMaster
to those who say suicide will die, i lol. This is only good. Many will think no one suicide now. starting to carry 300-1bill isk in a hauler. and bang 1400'tempest will suicide it. auch the suicide guy lost whole 30mill now instead of 10mill but earned 150-500mill isk....


I don't think there's anyone who thinks that suicide-ganking will stop, we think suicide for insurance-fraud suicide will stop holding the prices from dropping, thats all.

Now then, roll on that dev blog Smile

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2010.03.20 16:25:00 - [155]
 

Originally by: Turiel Demon
Originally by: TheSlaveMaster
to those who say suicide will die, i lol. This is only good. Many will think no one suicide now. starting to carry 300-1bill isk in a hauler. and bang 1400'tempest will suicide it. auch the suicide guy lost whole 30mill now instead of 10mill but earned 150-500mill isk....


I don't think there's anyone who thinks that suicide-ganking will stop, we think suicide for insurance-fraud suicide will stop holding the prices from dropping, thats all.

Now then, roll on that dev blog Smile


For a while, then it will just continue.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.03.20 18:31:00 - [156]
 

On second thought... maybe it's all for the best.
Think about it.

First off, I always kinda' loathed mining. Before, I could tell people mining was boring and whatnot, but it was eventually a matter of taste. After the change, I could just tell people they're stupid if they want to become miners.

Second, sure, T1 ship prices will drop, and the "barrier to entry" into larger-craft PvP will be set lower... but the cost of a PvP loss will actually go higher. So, in a way, that's actually a good thing too.

So, to hell with it, I changed my mind, let the change roll...
...give all the people exactly what they ASKED for, as opposed to what they would actually need.
Twisted Evil

Sciencegeek deathdealer
Posted - 2010.03.20 19:36:00 - [157]
 

Originally by: Akita T
On second thought... maybe it's all for the best.
Think about it.

First off, I always kinda' loathed mining. Before, I could tell people mining was boring and whatnot, but it was eventually a matter of taste. After the change, I could just tell people they're stupid if they want to become miners.

Second, sure, T1 ship prices will drop, and the "barrier to entry" into larger-craft PvP will be set lower... but the cost of a PvP loss will actually go higher. So, in a way, that's actually a good thing too.

So, to hell with it, I changed my mind, let the change roll...
...give all the people exactly what they ASKED for, as opposed to what they would actually need.
Twisted Evil



Could you please go into a bit more detail asto why pvp losses will go higher? I actually im quite curious... (/me is a nerd :P)

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.03.20 21:38:00 - [158]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 21/03/2010 07:30:19

Right now, ships sell for barely a bit above 70% of platinum payout, and you can find deals that sell for below platinum payout (as much as 10 mil under, actually, in some isolated areas of the game).
So, basically, PvPing in a platinum-insured unrigged hull with cheap weapons and losing it might actually bring you some money in instead of making you lose some money.
If they keep adjusting insurance payouts down to build costs, even if overall the cost of purchasing a ship goes down, the overall ISK loss when you lose it will go up.

Practical example : you can buy a Rokh for as little as 105 mil ISK in some areas of the game, and for around 115 mil ISK just about anywhere. It costs 49.5 mil ISK to platinum-insure, and pays out 165 mil when destroyed, for a grand total of 115.5 ISK "paid out". If you don't rig it at all and fly with cheap meta-gear, you could actually gain money when you lose the ship if you got the cheap one, or barely lose about 10 mil ISK or so with the regular prices.
Now, say that insurance settles somewhere around 50 70 mil ISK for a Rokh or thereabouts (the eventual mineral cost) - about a third of what they "supposedly" should have costed, or less than half of what they cost now (a scenario which might seem a bit extreme, but not quite unlikely). Since manufacturers expect a certain income/slot/day too (otherwise why bother manufacturing), you can expect Rokhs to cost anywhere between 70 and 75 mil ISK a piece on the market. Insurance cost would be 21 mil ISK, with a 70 mil payout, so only 49 mil ISK back... so overall, you stand to lose between 21 and 26 mil ISK just for losing the hull, plus the gear which will probably still cost (the cheapest ones) around 10 mil or so, for a grand total of 31-36 mil ISK loss per ship... as opposed to almost no loss at all or barely 10 mil or so.

The story is more or less the same even if you use better gear or rigs, the absolute ISK amount lost extra is still the same... just the percentage our of the entire loss is different.
So, yeah, it's cheaper to get a brand new first ship, but it's also more expensive to lose it (then replace it), in this scenario.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.20 23:35:00 - [159]
 

And tbh it should cost some ISK to lose a ship. Free T1 ships are not, overall, a good thing.

SpiderWebMayhem
YSS Industries
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2010.03.21 02:17:00 - [160]
 

Originally by: Akita T

Right now, ships sell for barely a bit above 70% of platinum payout, and you can find deals that sell for below platinum payout (as much as 10 mil under, actually, in some isolated areas of the game).
So, basically, PvPing in a platinum-insured unrigged hull with cheap weapons and losing it might actually bring you some money in instead of making you lose some money.
If they keep adjusting insurance payouts down to build costs, even if overall the cost of purchasing a ship goes down, the overall ISK loss when you lose it will go up.

Practical example : you can buy a Rokh for as little as 105 mil ISK in some areas of the game, and for around 115 mil ISK just about anywhere. It costs 49.5 mil ISK to platinum-insure, and pays out 165 mil when destroyed, for a grand total of 115.5 ISK "paid out". If you don't rig it at all and fly with cheap meta-gear, you could actually gain money when you lose the ship if you got the cheap one, or barely lose about 10 mil ISK or so with the regular prices.
Now, say that insurance settles somewhere around 50 mil ISK for a Rokh or thereabouts (the eventual mineral cost) - about a third of what they "supposedly" should have costed, or less than half of what they cost now (a scenario which might seem a bit extreme, but not quite unlikely). Since manufacturers expect a certain income/slot/day too (otherwise why bother manufacturing), you can expect Rokhs to cost anywhere between 70 and 75 mil ISK a piece on the market. Insurance cost would be 21 mil ISK, with a 70 mil payout, so only 49 mil ISK back... so overall, you stand to lose between 21 and 26 mil ISK just for losing the hull, plus the gear which will probably still cost (the cheapest ones) around 10 mil or so, for a grand total of 31-36 mil ISK loss per ship... as opposed to almost no loss at all or barely 10 mil or so.

The story is more or less the same even if you use better gear or rigs, the absolute ISK amount lost extra is still the same... just the percentage our of the entire loss is different.
So, yeah, it's cheaper to get a brand new first ship, but it's also more expensive to lose it (then replace it), in this scenario.



This is a fallacious argument. Manufacturers in empire have long since proven that they will produce modules and hulls at barely above mineral cost. "Time is free" crowd, etc etc.

Minerals are so oversupplied right now that battleship prices will plummet to meet the new insurance floor. After a month or two of market instability what we will see is a new price floor where T1 hulls are once again basically free to lose. There will not be a big gap between insurance payout and price to fly a BS. We will see, as we do now, hulls that are essentially free to fly.

Unless the underlying problem of mineral oversupply is addressed nothing will change. The supply needs to significantly decrease or the demand needs to suddenly rise - two scenarios which will not happen from merely changing the insurance payouts.

Sith LordX
Posted - 2010.03.21 03:23:00 - [161]
 

T2 prices fell too much during dominion. Totally messed up the market. Hopefully this will rise their prices again and to a stable level.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.03.21 07:28:00 - [162]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 21/03/2010 07:31:21
Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem
This is a fallacious argument.

No, it's just a typo, or better said, a change of mind without proper/complete overhaul of the previous post section.
The "5" in the "say that insurance settles somewhere around 50 mil ISK for a Rokh" part was supposed to become a "7", and the text around it was supposed to change, but somehow it slipped my mind.
Also, remember the "If they keep adjusting insurance payouts down to build costs" part of it too.
Give it a re-read with that correction Wink

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.03.21 13:28:00 - [163]
 

Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
Edited by: Thrasymachus TheSophist on 19/03/2010 21:24:58
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.


Absolutely true that from an economic point of view they are the same - they both provide a mineral floor. That was of course the whole reason for the suggestion - to eliminate people's worry about what would happen to the mineral market if you removed the price floor provided by insurance. NPC buyers restores the floor.

That said, I think you underestimate the effect that eliminating the manufacturing middle man would have on the mineral AND manufacturing markets. (Alliteration ftw.)

EDIT: To be clear - I don't want to see any floor at all. Let the market set the price for minerals. My point was only that there are far better ways to create a mineral floor if that is the goal, that don't involve insurance at all.


NPC buy orders create a hard floor for each mineral, with a specific rapport between the different minerals values.

The insurance generate mineral floor is a soft floor where minerals relative (minimal) value can shift depending on market forces.

SpiderWebMayhem
YSS Industries
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2010.03.21 16:15:00 - [164]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 21/03/2010 07:31:21
Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem
This is a fallacious argument.

No, it's just a typo, or better said, a change of mind without proper/complete overhaul of the previous post section.
The "5" in the "say that insurance settles somewhere around 50 mil ISK for a Rokh" part was supposed to become a "7", and the text around it was supposed to change, but somehow it slipped my mind.
Also, remember the "If they keep adjusting insurance payouts down to build costs" part of it too.
Give it a re-read with that correction Wink



My point stands. You are assuming that manufacturers won't continue dropping hull prices down to meet the new insurance floor. In the short term (1-3 months) you are correct, PvP will cost more because the gap between price and payout will be larger than today. But in the long haul, manufacturers will once again cave to the "my time is free" crowd and drop their prices to just barely above insurance floor, leaving us in the same situation.

All the insurance change does is decrease the value of minerals, since the supply of minerals vastly outstrips the demand. If CCP wants this to be a real player-driven market, insurance needs to go away completely. Or a massive mineral sink needs to be added. Or both.

Cyclops43
Posted - 2010.03.21 16:49:00 - [165]
 

Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem
My point stands. You are assuming that manufacturers won't continue dropping hull prices down to meet the new insurance floor. In the short term (1-3 months) you are correct, PvP will cost more because the gap between price and payout will be larger than today. But in the long haul, manufacturers will once again cave to the "my time is free" crowd and drop their prices to just barely above insurance floor, leaving us in the same situation.

You're basing your argument on the ASSUMPTION that what CCP is implementing is a new STATIC insurance floor.
If they're completely incompetent, that's what they'll do.... If they're even marginally competent, the insurance floor will be dynamic, rising and falling with mineral prices.
In the last case, mineral prices will drop until they find their 'natural' level, meaning the point where EVE market dynamics has set the value of the effort spent in acquiring those minerals so supply equals demand.

SpiderWebMayhem
YSS Industries
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2010.03.21 17:00:00 - [166]
 

Originally by: Cyclops43
Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem
My point stands. You are assuming that manufacturers won't continue dropping hull prices down to meet the new insurance floor. In the short term (1-3 months) you are correct, PvP will cost more because the gap between price and payout will be larger than today. But in the long haul, manufacturers will once again cave to the "my time is free" crowd and drop their prices to just barely above insurance floor, leaving us in the same situation.

You're basing your argument on the ASSUMPTION that what CCP is implementing is a new STATIC insurance floor.
If they're completely incompetent, that's what they'll do.... If they're even marginally competent, the insurance floor will be dynamic, rising and falling with mineral prices.
In the last case, mineral prices will drop until they find their 'natural' level, meaning the point where EVE market dynamics has set the value of the effort spent in acquiring those minerals so supply equals demand.


"Competent" isn't generally an attribute I associate with CCP.

Regardless, I don't think a dynamic insurance value will help the situation. Where are mineral values averaged at? Jita? Amarr? Nullsec? All of them together? Second, how often does it update? Daily? Weekly? When and where you take the average will have drastic effects on insurance rates and mineral price. I imagine it would also encourage insurance frauding. The BS that you bought a week ago at XX price has increased in value 10m because of mineral fluctuations, making it profitable to insure and destroy the ship.

In fact, this might create a whole new market of speculating on mineral changes by buying up hulls when cheap and blowing them up when insurance rises. Individuals or organizations with lots of money could even directly manipulate mineral prices to affect a change in insurance.

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2010.03.21 17:18:00 - [167]
 

CCP we are waiting for a DEVBLOG so we finnaly can have some constructive debate instead of theorycrafting.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.21 22:16:00 - [168]
 

I sure am looking forward to reading that devblog.

Nemesis Factor
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.03.22 00:29:00 - [169]
 

Originally by: Sunn Hunn
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

remove meta 0 item drops from rats, and consider switching to named item BPCs.


+100500 this :) bpcs, tags, named items with minerals in them near zero, etc.


I'm down with this as long as they replace the lost revenue with higher bounties / salvage. I know currently mission running is too profitable, so maybe replace the mod drops with about 70% of their value on top of bounties / salvage.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.03.22 08:49:00 - [170]
 

Originally by: Nemesis Factor
I know currently mission running is too profitable, so maybe replace the mod drops with about 70% of their value on top of bounties / salvage.

NO compensation is needed or warranted!

L4 mission running is about 3 times as profitable as it should be! The mineral value of loot is making up ~20% of the total.
Removing basic T1 loot completely WITHOUT any compensation, plus a few other nerfs (I prefer a 25% increase in NPC tank and DPS) is what is needed!

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.22 11:03:00 - [171]
 

Hope we'll be seeing that blog soon!

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2010.03.22 15:24:00 - [172]
 

before expansion, at least.

1OfMany
Posted - 2010.03.22 15:46:00 - [173]
 

Well.

To be honest a real world insurance would be that when a certain type of product (read ship X in this manner) is claimed more then other products, the cost to insure that goes up while the payout stays the same, this would solve partially the insurance fraud and associated suicide ganking as the cost for insuring the product goes up each time. On the other hand one could think of it being unfair for those that need to insure the product and have to pay more because of other players mischief's. But i guess such a system would never be implemented.

i've never looked into mineral costs associated with the insurance payout and such, but i just sell my products for a competitive price and do not care what the customers do with it ;)

One could also petition for a new kind of branch in game play, and those are the private insurance corps in EVE, when we do it right we could even create the first Virtual Financial crisis in history where a lot of corps go bankrupt and their CEO's took a run with a lot of it's assets under the motto of 'bonuses' ... but that would be wishful thinking...

Hentuku
Posted - 2010.03.22 16:01:00 - [174]
 

Originally by: 1OfMany
when we do it right we could even create the first Virtual Financial crisis in history where a lot of corps go bankrupt and their CEO's took a run with a lot of it's assets under the motto of 'bonuses' ... but that would be wishful thinking...


You mean like what happened with EBANK? Smile Already happened.

They are still trying to figure out who should get what now, months later.

Awaiting the dev blog with interest.

Kalia Masaer
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Posted - 2010.03.23 04:17:00 - [175]
 

Insurance fraud should not be possible, but sadly there is no way to actually stop it. One could make it slightly more difficult by not allowing a ship that self-destructs to claim insurance, but there are ways to get around that of course. Stopping payouts for ships destroyed by concord makes a great deal of sense.

The current insurance prices are based on the past, at one time they paid out significantly less than a ship was worth the price did not drop because of the insurance but because more miners became active and began to glut the market and as the population increases the value of minerals will continue to fall. If you are truly concerned about the value of insurance drop its value and correspondingly increase the quantity of minerals needed to build everything. This would cause a shortage of supply and hence push the prices up despite the fact insurance will pay of significantly less in proportion.


Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.23 13:57:00 - [176]
 

It would be really helpful to see that promised devblog IMO

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
Posted - 2010.03.23 16:33:00 - [177]
 

Originally by: Akita T
stuff...


please run for CSM Smile

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:13:00 - [178]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
It would be really helpful to see that promised devblog IMO

Click your heels and repeat trice, and a dev blog you will have.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.03.23 17:52:00 - [179]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 23/03/2010 18:09:15
Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: SpiderWebMayhem
This is a fallacious argument.

Also, remember the "If they keep adjusting insurance payouts down to build costs" part of it too.

My point stands. You are assuming that manufacturers won't continue dropping hull prices down to meet the new insurance floor.

The prices ONLY fall to the insurance flood when the "natural" supply-and-demand curves meet at a price-point below the price floor.
Right now however, thanks to all the changes in the way minerals are obtained (making it easier to obtain them, and in larger quantities), the "natural" mineral basket price lies noticeably below.
This has only been the case globally and constantly in the recent past (the coup-de-grace was the veldspar respawn rate adjustment) - before then, prices were happily hovering above the insurance floor in most areas, with them only dropping below in some remote areas and/or only occasionally.

So, if a periodic//continuous insurance value adjustment system would be put in place, after enough "iterations" minerals would eventually settle at a certain price point, with ship prices a bit above it.
And the reached equilibrium point, by definition HAS to be the new value of the insurance payout (not 70% of the payout i.e. the breakeven, but the full payout), since that's the only way insurance payout would remain practically unchanged in the next adjustment.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.23 22:27:00 - [180]
 

It's difficult to remember a time when T1 ship prices were significantly above the net insurance value.


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