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

Cang Zar
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:32:00 - [181]
 

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


It's a great idea if you want less people out in low/null pvping.

As it is now, the cost of a loss of a tech 1 ship is mostly associated with the mods (and for battleships, especially the rigs) and the difference between the rich and the poor is mainly in the stuff they fit (generally faction>tech 2>meta 3) and especially whether they fly tech 1 or tech 2 ships. Imo that's not a bad situation, as it means you dont have to fly a useless ship just because you're only 3 months old and havent gotten a nice phat passive isk-generation going yet.
You can still drool/dream over the more expensive ships (hacs, recons, commands, faction and so on) and occasionally pay the big bucks and spring for the juice ship you've been wanting. As I see it, this change will likely screw over the newbs even more and remove alot of the easy/fun prey from the combat zones.. Both bad imo. I guess overall, I think that free t1 hulls is a good thing :)

Anyway, it's all conjecture at this point, but that's my 2 cents.

HeliosGal
Caldari
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:53:00 - [182]
 

the idea is to boost mining. Perhaps they could raise the refine of loot in 00 to offset or something or give us tech 3 barges with higher veld intakes

Nekopyat
Posted - 2010.03.24 02:52:00 - [183]
 

Actually, I wonder if this could potentially be a 'solution' to the 'problem' of too many minerals coming from mission loot.

There seems to be an assumption that only miners will watch the bottom line and care about how much they are getting for their time, but mission runners have another floor, the rewards/bounties. They currently loot/salvage because to do so yields more profit then going on to another mission.

If the prices of minerals bottoms out, I am guessing many mission runners will not bother looting at all.

Cyclops43
Posted - 2010.03.24 08:52:00 - [184]
 

Originally by: Cang Zar
It's a great idea if you want less people out in low/null pvping.

Try going back in time to when tier 2 battleships were 120m, T2 guns were 15m a pop, and a T2 cap recharger was 20m!

Surprise, surprise! People still PvP'd as much!

What simply happened was that the people who couldn't afford absolute top-of-the-line equipment simply downgraded a little bit, and fought on.
In fleet battles it doesn't matter much as 1 person in ANY ship is better than 0 persons in perfect ships!

Besides, according to your 'theory', nobody flies T2 ships in battle then, because they're 'expensive' Rolling Eyes

Your '2 cents' is simple scaremongering or ignorance, and is not in any way based in how things actually happen in EVE.

Costomojin
Snakes and Arrows
Posted - 2010.03.24 10:10:00 - [185]
 

This is all a clear cut example as to why government shouldn't be involved in messing with insurance.....Very Happy

Cang Zar
Posted - 2010.03.24 10:27:00 - [186]
 

Originally by: Cyclops43
Originally by: Cang Zar
It's a great idea if you want less people out in low/null pvping.

Try going back in time to when tier 2 battleships were 120m, T2 guns were 15m a pop, and a T2 cap recharger was 20m!

Surprise, surprise! People still PvP'd as much!

What simply happened was that the people who couldn't afford absolute top-of-the-line equipment simply downgraded a little bit, and fought on.
In fleet battles it doesn't matter much as 1 person in ANY ship is better than 0 persons in perfect ships!

Besides, according to your 'theory', nobody flies T2 ships in battle then, because they're 'expensive' Rolling Eyes


Reading comprehension for teh fail.

Let me guess, the rest of the post (specifically where I talk about about t2 ships) was too hard to read, the words were too long, sentences too complex? Or you were so foaming at the mouth angry at my 'ignorance' that you simply couldnt help yourself and had to post IMMIEDIATHLY! and didnt get that far?

Originally by: Cyclops43
Your '2 cents' is simple scaremongering or ignorance, and is not in any way based in how things actually happen in EVE.


I'm sorry if my terrible opinion scares you, dont worry.. safer, better, warmer opinions, which you agree with, will come along and make the bad ones go away.

Cang out

Cyclops43
Posted - 2010.03.24 13:56:00 - [187]
 

Edited by: Cyclops43 on 24/03/2010 13:57:16
Originally by: Cang Zar
Butthurt reply Laughing

Your postulate was that higher prices would lead to less people PvP'ing.
Originally by: Cang Zar
It's a great idea if you want less people out in low/null pvping.

Nothing you say supports that, nor does the history of the game Twisted Evil

Your claim translates to: "People will not PvP if ships are expensive!", which again is equivalent to you claiming that people will not use T2 ships (because they're expensive).

That you confuse your own argument (on T2) later in the post is your problem, not mine Cool

Either higher prices will mean less people PvP'ing and not using T2, or it'll not mean anything for numbers and people still using T2.
PvP'ers fight in the ships they can afford... Simple as that.

So yes, scaremongering or ignorance on your part!

Have a nice day Very Happy

ISellThingz
Posted - 2010.03.24 16:00:00 - [188]
 

Still waiting for that dev blog Neutral

Jarnis McPieksu
H A V O C
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2010.03.24 17:27:00 - [189]
 

Edited by: Jarnis McPieksu on 24/03/2010 17:28:06
Originally by: ISellThingz
Still waiting for that dev blog Neutral


Wild guess: Someone actually read some player feedback and it, slowly, dawned to him that this may not be the best idea ever unless one wants to crash the mineral market...

I mean, in theory that economist of theirs should be able to say as much in a heartbeat, having access to all the logs and datamining and stuff. It may be that nobody asked him. Or it may be that CCP didn't think of it until players kinda brought it up.

So my guess is that they are hastily reworking those plans and that devblog is on hold until they have figured out what they want to do.

Still, if the only change is to insurance as it stands on SISI right now, the massive oversupply of minerals will crash the prices to the new soft floor set by insurance - a tad unhappy situation for anyone who gets his (small) income of ISK by mining.


Kharamete
Amarr
Posted - 2010.03.24 18:14:00 - [190]
 

I sure hope we get that promised devblog soon about a change that would - probably - have greater impact on the game than the nano-nerf...

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.24 18:17:00 - [191]
 

You know what would improve this thread a whole lot?


A link to Chronitis' dev blog!

Manfred Rickenbocker
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2010.03.24 19:17:00 - [192]
 

This may sound bad, but I, for one, welcome the idea of a crashed mineral market.
On the consumer side, the loss in insurance will be offset by the drop in prices for commodities. On the production side, there will be fewer competitors allowing for increases in new trade opportunities.

Eve has had a huge problem lately with overprinted ISK. Back in the days when you had a few million ISK and you felt like a rich person, now you feel like a pauper. Furthermore, since most production tasks are a passive affair and have near-zero overhead, it becomes relatively simple and non-time consuming to min-max. Skills are practically moot (given enough time). If, at the very least, killing insurance kills off removes a large portion of new ISK into the system, it will be good for the EVE economy long term.

Fake Edit: What if insurance, in addition to being market based, were changed to time based and replacement based? For insurance companies, when you insure a car you get a maturity date, car replacement, and cost covered agreements. So if Eve's Insurance system were to be similar you would have:
1) Maturity date: Prevents a player from insuring a ship and instantly undocking and self-destructing for payment. Restriction of a few days/downtimes before payment is possible?
2) Ship Replacement: Instead of ISK, a new ship (sans modules) gets placed at a station of your choice. This prevents whole-sale ISK printing and insurance fraud.
3) Market Volatility: Insure a ship for the current market price. Regardless of whether the market goes up or down, you get a payout on the original agreed price rather than the current market average. This can lead to interesting investment opportunities where you can bet against downward market trends. You can, however, lose big if the price of the ship goes up.
4) Fraud Prevention: Self Destructs and Concord intervention negate insurance payouts.

Cyclops43
Posted - 2010.03.24 21:20:00 - [193]
 

Edited by: Cyclops43 on 24/03/2010 21:20:35
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
1) Maturity date: Prevents a player from insuring a ship and instantly undocking and self-destructing for payment. Restriction of a few days/downtimes before payment is possible?

Insure.... Wait a few days... Blow up ship... Proceed to next one in hangar...
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
2) Ship Replacement: Instead of ISK, a new ship (sans modules) gets placed at a station of your choice. This prevents whole-sale ISK printing and insurance fraud.

And you essentially make minerals worthless as they're largely not needed any more.
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
3) Market Volatility: Insure a ship for the current market price. Regardless of whether the market goes up or down, you get a payout on the original agreed price rather than the current market average. This can lead to interesting investment opportunities where you can bet against downward market trends. You can, however, lose big if the price of the ship goes up.

This MAY be what CCP is intending (if they are in any way intelligent).
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
4) Fraud Prevention: Self Destructs and Concord intervention negate insurance payouts.

Shoot random POS (or player)... Job done!

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2010.03.24 23:08:00 - [194]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
You know what would improve this thread a whole lot?


A link to Chronitis' dev blog!


to save you the effort of the daily bump, it will be out early next week.




RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
Posted - 2010.03.24 23:40:00 - [195]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Malcanis
You know what would improve this thread a whole lot?


A link to Chronitis' dev blog!


to save you the effort of the daily bump, it will be out early next week.






Thank you very much. We'll continue to rumormonger and speculate wildly until then! ugh

Tiger's Spirit
Caldari
Posted - 2010.03.25 08:52:00 - [196]
 

Edited by: Tiger''s Spirit on 25/03/2010 09:03:57
Simple making insurance rules, but CCP dont want real ISK pay back for players, this is the truth.

They using hull basis repayment, which is a joke.
Why not using value basis repayment ? That's needed more code programing which watch the mediocre prices on market, and they are too lazy for work. Interesting all killboard can checking the lost value.

When someone lost his ship in pvp or pve lost a value which implies it the destroyed ship,rigs and modules values.

Just use this or something same:

Without insure repaid 20% of lost value. (or nothing, or just ship value)

Basic: RePay, 30% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value )
Standard: RePay, 40% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value )
Bronze: RePay, 50% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value )
Silver: RePay, 60% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value )
Gold: Repay, 70% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value )
Platina: RePay, 80% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value )

It's simple like a piece of cake. Or that's normal when they repaid for 200 millions value T2 ship, simple 10 million ISK ? The hull basis repay need change, this is a crap.

HeliosGal
Caldari
Posted - 2010.03.25 11:02:00 - [197]
 

Originally by: Tiger's Spirit
Edited by: Tiger''s Spirit on 25/03/2010 09:03:57
Simple making insurance rules, but CCP dont want real ISK pay back for players, this is the truth.

They using hull basis repayment, which is a joke.
Why not using value basis repayment ? That's needed more code programing which watch the mediocre prices on market, and they are too lazy for work. Interesting all killboard can checking the lost value.

When someone lost his ship in pvp or pve lost a value which implies it the destroyed ship,rigs and modules values.

Just use this or something same:

Without insure repaid 20% of lost value. (or nothing, or just ship value)

Basic: RePay, 30% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value )
Standard: RePay, 40% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value )
Bronze: RePay, 50% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value )
Silver: RePay, 60% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value )
Gold: Repay, 70% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value )
Platina: RePay, 80% of lost value. (or just ship % of lost value )

It's simple like a piece of cake. Or that's normal when they repaid for 200 millions value T2 ship, simple 10 million ISK ? The hull basis repay need change, this is a crap.


this is yoda speaking more tech 2 supply and quicker production are required, Bring on comets and moon goo which were promised but ccp has been play mum quite on it

Manfred Rickenbocker
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2010.03.25 15:37:00 - [198]
 

Edited by: Cyclops43 on 24/03/2010 21:20:35
1) Insure.... Wait a few days... Blow up ship... Proceed to next one in hangar...


The hope is that the temporary dip in ship prices below the mineral/insurance cost/profit point is negated because players cannot move quick enough to self destruct their ships for ISK. By the time the insurance matures, the prices will have gone up and it is no longer profitable. In that case the insurance cost would be a loss. Furthermore, for those players dealing in high volumes, they would have to keep track of the individual insurance policies which hopefully would make it too much hassle.

Originally by: Cyclops43

2) And you essentially make minerals worthless as they're largely not needed any more.


A good counter question is what is the percentage of players that use insurance for combat loss rather than insurance fraud? If the latter outweighs, it instantly negates the ISK sink. Furthermore, restrict the replacement to a platinum plan. I can conceed that this might lowering the isk floor to the gold plan instead.

Originally by: Cyclops43

3) This MAY be what CCP is intending (if they are in any way intelligent).


It also only really works if you include maturity. I wonder if the redefinition of the problem is that players react seamlessly and instantly to the market price or if it takes them a while. For instance, a look at how long it took players to react to the 4+ ISK trit buy orders back when that was the balance point for reprocessing shuttles.

Originally by: Cyclops43

4) Shoot random POS (or player)... Job done!



Shooting players in highsec is concordokken. Need to add clause for corp members causing your death. Shooting a deathstar in highsec without a wardec is a concordokken as well if I remember. The industrialist would have to fly into lowsec to do it, and hopefully it would be a time-consuming deterrant to accomplish with multiple battleships.

Ariane VoxDei
Posted - 2010.03.25 17:28:00 - [199]
 

Originally by: RJ Nobel
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

to save you the effort of the daily bump, it will be out early next week.

Thank you very much. We'll continue to rumormonger and speculate wildly until then! ugh
I second that.

Next time, please don't take a week to tell us that we have to wait a long time for it.
It's such hot topic that it is what nearly all of us check this part of the forum for at least daily.

And here is a toast to more speculation and everyone forgetting the obvious mistake I made in my last post in this thread Embarassed

Ariane VoxDei
Posted - 2010.03.25 18:20:00 - [200]
 

Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
the industrialist would have to fly into lowsec to do it, and hopefully it would be a time-consuming deterrant to accomplish with multiple battleships.

Who need lowsec?

Wasn't there something about FW being awarded LP for blowing up enemy faction ships?
I seem to remember a Devblog about it.

I smell a cheesy doublepay system. Insurance for ship loss, and your partner in crime in the opposing FW corp landing the LP.
Double win.
500LP for a battleship, scaled with rank (1.0 to 2.0), combined with a vastly cheaper LP store than the regular ones.
Or do it with cruisers. Better LP/shipcost ratio.

Add that to the insurance payout and subtract a bit for the inconvenience of the shooting... and you have a new even lower floor before it becomes unprofitable to destroy the ship.

It is profitable? Yes. Perverted but profitable.

Read the blog.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.25 19:54:00 - [201]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Malcanis
You know what would improve this thread a whole lot?


A link to Chronitis' dev blog!


to save you the effort of the daily bump, it will be out early next week.






My daily bumping backbone! Sad

Zhang Lingkei
Einherjar Rising
Posted - 2010.03.26 01:09:00 - [202]
 

I really do hope CCP can introduce something that can tackle the current market problems. Just lowering insurance without doing anything else accomplishes nothing. In the short run, maybe, but in the long run, prices will just drop to the new levels, and we'll have the same old problems again.

As a number of people have pointed out, the problem isn't the insurance payout, it is the over supply of minerals that doesn't come from mining, but rather other activities. As much as we like EVE to behave like a real free market, it isn't. Reduce the amount of minerals that is in game and a lot of the current problems can be solved without huge price fluctuations which can lead to other negative side effects.

Mining already isn't a great profession, don't kill it even further and drive everyone to run missions. We need more options, not less.

Sargon I
Posted - 2010.03.26 08:25:00 - [203]
 

CCP should

a) remove insurance altogether;
b) add SP loss on ship destruction.

Because eve isn't designed to look like a cold, harsh place, it's designed to *be* a cold, harsh place right? Very Happy.

Stop pandering to these weak pansies. I want to know my victim is suffering when I kill them. SP protecting clones and more-than-100% insurance takes all the joy out of trying to ruin someone's day :(.

Widemouth Deepthroat
Posted - 2010.03.26 08:49:00 - [204]
 

Remove insurance lol must be but hurt after getting suicide ganked. If you pvp then you wouldn't support insurance removal which means you must be a but hurt carebear whiner who doesn't need insurance anyway (unless you are ******ed and lose your ship to npcs lol).

Javajunky
Posted - 2010.03.26 15:05:00 - [205]
 

1. can develop software that has virtually eliminated Macro/Botting in the game, there's not reason CCP can't pull it off either. When I played WoW I used to run into bots all the time, before I quit the game they were barely notice-able. I had a buddy coder that used to write bots all the time just to try and beat the WoW developers, the WoW developers would also catch up kill the account and he'd try again. It can be done, it just needs to be an accepted cost to CCP for growth in the game.
2. Everyone *****es about miners, it's not the miners its the amount of minerals from items looted and reprocessed. I'm not sure where I read it, but I've heard repeatedly that more minerals are generated from meta 1 salvaged items than from actual mining. Remove Meta 1 salvage and you greatly balance supply and demand. CCP interferes with market prices with this secondary source of mineral production.

Removed references to other games per forum rule 17 - Adida

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.26 17:48:00 - [206]
 

Originally by: Sargon I
CCP should

a) remove insurance altogether;
b) add SP loss on ship destruction.

Because eve isn't designed to look like a cold, harsh place, it's designed to *be* a cold, harsh place right? Very Happy.

Stop pandering to these weak pansies. I want to know my victim is suffering when I kill them. SP protecting clones and more-than-100% insurance takes all the joy out of trying to ruin someone's day :(.


Yes. What this game needs is even more reasons for people to avoid fights unless they are 100% sure they have 2-1 advantage.

Forge Trader
Posted - 2010.03.26 18:15:00 - [207]
 

A big word of caution about changing Eve game mechanics:

Eve has the success it has, and has the player base it does, because current players find something interesting in the way Eve is currently played.

Thus, changing in any way how the game is currently played risks alienating some of the current players. Making a major change risks alienating a lot of the current players.

CCP has to take this into account.

I enjoy mining at times, (as well as most of the other mini-games in Eve). As Eve is a sandbox, there are actually a lot of ways to play the mining game. Different strokes for different folks. Those reading this thread know of these, so will not list them.

The only minigame I do not play is "aggressive" pvp. I do not like destroying other player's ships, and I do not want mine destroyed.

But, I do play "defensive" pvp. I have characters well trained in all aspects of pvp, and have spent a lot of isk on good ships and mods that will help me protect my ships: cloaks, nanostructures, ECM, rigs, faction hardeners, bait ships, etc. I learn and practice good tactics. However, when I lose a ship, I do not sweat it - it is just a game.

Frankly, I am happy with the mining minigame just as it is. But, I would not change my game play in any major way if the price of minerals went up, or down.

So, I repeat the caution - make changes very carefully. Too many contributors have a favorite way they play this game, and want changes to make their way more "fun" (for them).
This is not necessarily good for Eve as a whole, however.




HeliosGal
Caldari
Posted - 2010.03.27 04:56:00 - [208]
 

just add t3 materials for ship building watch proces move

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2010.03.27 07:58:00 - [209]
 

Originally by: HeliosGal
just add t3 materials for ship building watch proces move


CCP Chronotis should totally release his blog on April 1st with just the above.

xOmGx
Gallente
A-Priori
Red Alliance
Posted - 2010.03.27 12:38:00 - [210]
 

CCP gonna kill mining.

do NOT neft inshurance it's fine, go do somesing what's metters and fix lag, imnpowe speed and give OLD capital jump effect!!!


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