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


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (24)

Author Topic

MofoNelsen
Posted - 2010.03.31 03:22:00 - [301]
 

Removing all non-named items from mission loot is a good thing. They currently sell for less than manufacturing cost. The problem is that named items need to be reduced in numbers too. The reason is lower meta items can be sold for less than the manufacturing cost of T0 items at times. As of now, there are few items found in missions that are sold over manufacturing cost. There are few that do, and the profit margin is slim. I can currently mission and reprocess my loot (excluding high meta items) and end up with the same rate of mineral collection as a Covetor. If I can collect more minerals that way, and still earn bounties, then there is a serious balancing issue that needs to be fixed. The markets in eve need a serious adjustment, and the problem stems from mission loot. Make it so T0 items can be manufactured and sold for a profit, and the game will be a lot better.

Darthewok
Perkone
Posted - 2010.03.31 03:58:00 - [302]
 

improved insurance on T2 and reduced on T1 is a step in the right direction to reduce the incredible gap between T1 and T2 insurance.
good stuff there.

but, until the underlying problem of fixed amount of moon goo is dealt with, T2 ship prices are still going to keep rising with no end in sight.
and i do agree Larkonis' assumption that markets are likely to see more T2 demand after the changes, leading to inflation of T2 ship prices, counteracting the cheaper T2 insurance full or in part.

fix fixed amount of moon goo already...

TIGRIS XIUHCOATL
Posted - 2010.03.31 04:06:00 - [303]
 

For the Mining/Mineral portion of these changes. I mission and mine, how pricing for ores works now isnt too bad, if I understood it even somewhat, balancing out prices is stupid, high end ores are at a much greater risk to acquire so should get paid accordingly. Really I would adjust the NPC loot issue and be done with it.

As for the insurance, in a game that already has more bugs than the rain forest, WHY is so much effort, thought, and more issues being introduced. VERY SIMPLE INSURANCE FIX:

1.Cut off Concord, self destruct, AND possibly killed by corpmate payouts.

2.The current insurance method would work ok with a couple changes. Base insurance payout on a constant market avg of the base materials needed to build the ship. Then add to that the cost of insurance and thats the payout. That just ideas off the top of my head but you get the jist of it, even things out for market purchasable ships.

3. (This was just a side thought) For ships that pretty much can only be bought off contract, figure out an avg price over say the last yr for the ships, cut that by oh say, 50% and that's the payout. Otherwise even offering a full payout of the ship cost avg but charging say 25% of the payout amount plus increase based on pilot loss rate will make insurance a viable option but making it where there is no way of taking advantage of the system.

The numbers here are just to fill in examples, I am no expert on things but after the almost 7mnths I have been in game, that is the rough conclusion I have come up with to fix the issue.

IN ALL HONESTY, besides fixing the insurance so its a little more balanced out QUIT WITH THE DAMN EXPANSIONS!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS GAME HAS WAY TO MANY ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE FIXED FIRST JUST FOR GAME MECHANICS, leave the damn economy alone, leave the fraking planet crap alone UNTIL YOU FIX THE GAME SO THINGS WORK LIKE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO. This game has bugs that cost players assests and in many cases, I am one that almost quite game which I play on 3 paid accounts, because CCP told me and other players I hang with to jump in a lake when a bug cost an expensive lost and we requested compensation for it. FIX THE BUGS AND YOU WONT HAVE PEOPLE LIKE ME CHEWING YOU OUT ALL THE TIME and you would keep more players in game.

Terminal Entry
New Fnord Industries
Posted - 2010.03.31 04:28:00 - [304]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships.

In this case you would then only get a single payout per ship always on death with caveats in the future which might affect this like concordokken for example and never need to insure the ship.

To give you some data: 75% of ships that were insured were platinum. Most ships were not insured with only battlecruisers, battleships and dreadnoughts being the most insured groups as a % of the total for each group.




At first I was like, "What! Remove insurance premiums are you crazy?!" but thinking about it, it sounds like a very good idea. It gets rid of some of the tedium out of the game and it insures that newbies are always insured, including the forgetful types, It'll also help to reduce emo rage quits Cool.

Term.

Dex Timor
Valklear Guard
Posted - 2010.03.31 05:14:00 - [305]
 

I'm undecided between removing insurance alltogether and just removing the premium payments.

I fly many different ships depending on what is needed for a fleet and what I'm willing to risk under the current FC. So both solutions would make me happy, since I rarely insure ships or I lose them before insurance runs out.

Would removing insurance encourage more blobbing ?
Does having insurance in the game make it more "hello Kitty" like ?

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.03.31 05:25:00 - [306]
 

Edited by: Quesa on 31/03/2010 05:32:04
Edited by: Quesa on 31/03/2010 05:28:16
Edited by: Quesa on 31/03/2010 05:26:06
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether.
Horrible idea.

Look at it this way. Just about every step you take in the direction of removing steps that a pilot takes in preparing for battle, cheapens the game and removes risk.

Insurance is another layer of complexity and adds depth into the risk:reward equation.

I implore you to take a look at the current game, why it's so wildly popular with your players and then look at the direction you are moving.

YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST MAINTAIN THE RISK FACTORS IN THIS GAME.

This goes for the overall insurance system as well.

Drop T1 insurance payouts to 75-80%
No insurance payouts for T2 or T3
Shorten the duration of insurance on all capitals.

Furthermore, drop uninsured payouts all together. If you don't gamble the money, you shouldn't get anything in return.

Edit, it's also most disturbing in your use of certain terminology.
Quote:
Our new insurance system recalculates the value of all ship classes which includes Tech 2 and Tech 3 classes establishing the base material cost of the ship.

Material cost is more than just base minerals, that includes all components necessary to complete the ship. This is bad, if you absolutely must remove risk from the game, minimize it by only basing T2 and T3 hull payout amounts by MINERAL COST. However, I URGE you to not payout anything for T2/3 ships, these are investments into performance and any cost minimizing efforts you do deploy will cheapen the game and the meaning of losing a ship.

Yon Krum
The Knights Templar
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2010.03.31 05:39:00 - [307]
 

Interesting Blog. Comments for CCP follow:

On minerals: about time. More specific details would be nice, but I assume will follow (around patch release, if nothing else). Refine yield changes (low-end minerals from high-end ores) sounds interesting, and useful. I remember certain minerals were really, really scarce in dronelands, for example, because they were not in belts and did not drop from BS rat alloys.

On insurance:
Quote:
Our new insurance system recalculates the value of all ship classes

Good! Mark-to-market is a good thing. Replacing tier 0 modules with scraps (tritanium) and tags (isk) sounds great. I don't remember if tags have NPC orders out for them--I assume so. If not, they should (like sleeper drops).

Quote:

On the high end game play side of this is the role of strategic ship classes as valuable targets ... done with the intention of making strategic ship classes be more valuable targets and their death have much stronger meaning and value.


Good change, as these ships are--generally speaking--strategic corporate assets and the corp can afford to replace them (or not, which tells members something). Freighters and Orcas (as opposed to jump freighters) should have much higher insurance payouts, however, due to their extensive highsec use.

Quote:
Here we can then say that a tackler class which is a highly dangerous role and prone to see you dying a lot might pay out more than say a specialist covert ops class of ship has a higher survival rate. So players who fly the ships with short life expectancies will be more sustainable to fly on lower incomes, and the same can be applied to more casual ship classes such as cruisers or battlecruisers used more by newer players to allow them to get to grips with the game whilst not losing everything constantly.


Bad. No: insane. What is this--a state subsidy? Why are the insurance companies being bilked to pay for pod-pilot violence? I would expect them to lobby hard against this legal change that will crush their bottom-lines and put faceless white-collar workers starving out on the streets!

Seriously, this is exactly the opposite of what an actual insurance market does: charge higher rates for riskier behavior/assets.

The smaller ships are already more attractive to a learning player due to their inherently lower pricetag--nothing more needs to be done.

How about a set of counter-proposals here:

1) Adjust insurance premium rates according to how many "recent" ship losses the given player has--as listed in their loss record. You could even adjust according to ship class losses (frigate, cruiser/BC, battleship, capital).

2) Give a pop-up warning on undocking in an uninsured ship (can be toggled off of course).

3) Extend the term of insurance indefinitely. If a given ship sits in the hanger collecting dust, that tells the insurance company something about the riskiness of that asset. If it survives constant use, then that ALSO tells the company something--both are signals that the pilot in question is a good person to do business with. As pointed out, the expiration of insurance is an incentive to commit fraud, and I would expect the insurance companies to change the terms of their contracts accordingly.

Look at the initial 30% payout (for platinum) as being a large deposit that is kept in escrow and provides interest paid to the insurance companies as premiums. This arrangement would make sense in a universe where pod pilots are hard to track down for fee collection, and Empires are unwilling to withhold services from them (docking, etc.).

I do not suggest that you get rid of insurance payments. Point #2 above would satisfy the need to remind players of the presence and usefulness of insuring their ships--especially newer players.


--Krum

Jamie Banks
Quantum Horizons
Posted - 2010.03.31 05:52:00 - [308]
 

PLEASE, understand the role of Insurance is not to make money, it is not an insurance company with bottom lines and a necessity to turn a profit.

It is merely a game mechanic to promote PvP activities and to lessen teh negative impacts felt by newer players.

Yon Krum
The Knights Templar
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2010.03.31 06:00:00 - [309]
 

A few more thoughts on ship drops:

If tier 0 loot was calibrated to be part of the compensation for pirate and navy ship kills, then why not introduce a (tiered, like overseer effects) "<pirate/navy faction> ship data log", which could then be sold to DED or opposition navy stations.

Ship data logs would then be the "black boxes" of EVE ships, and like pirate tags, virtually indestructible and valuable for analysis by the right (npc) people.

Similarly, rogue drones could also drop various data recordings, which would still (like alloys) have to be transported to Empire in order to be turned into ISK, but would relieve further some of the price pressure that dronelands alloys puts on mined minerals.

Any comments on the role that salvage plays in compensation for ship kills, and whether wrecks could be made scan-able when abandoned (per various suggestions made along these lines)?

--Krum

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2010.03.31 06:01:00 - [310]
 

Edited by: Ranger 1 on 31/03/2010 06:04:44
Quote:
Seriously, this is exactly the opposite of what an actual insurance market does: charge higher rates for riskier behavior/assets.


Actually the current system of insurance actually IS something like a state subsidy. While it is understood pilots or corps buy their own vessels (instead of flying craft provided by a government funded military) they are reimbursed for loss through combat that supports the goals of whomever is supplying the "insurance".

[If you want to put an RP spin on it, the back story could easily be that powerful govt./pirate/super corporate entities that are like minded provide this service. We simply don't have to play out the under the table wheeling and dealing that would be required.]

Under the proposed system, pilots that have more dangerous duties would receive more generous payouts (hazardous duty pay if you will).

I'm still mulling this whole blog over, so don't take that as support for the idea's presented just yet.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.03.31 06:04:00 - [311]
 

Ever since the Sisi changes went live and it was mentioned that an insurance dev blog was coming, I've been kicking around with friends a list of what changes it'd take to make sure that the mineral market didn't implode. It seems CCP's been reading off the same list, because this dev blog is about 70% identical to my musing.

A couple thoughts though. One, the metal scraps thing seems like it'll be incredibly annoying. Is your loot table code so bad that you can't just cut the meta 0 stuff out without replacement of some sort? Two, supercap insurance doesn't need to change - getting back 4 bil on a mom that sells for 20 and fits gear worth another 10 isn't exactly going to keep people flying them without regard for losses. Titan deaths still make news, even after Shrike's assorted fun with the class and the lag bomb that ate the PL fleet. Getting 15 bil for it doesn't make it hurt any less. If you go to auto-insurance, then yes, crank them down so that you can't do any better than the 40% you get now, but barring that, it's fine as is. Also, guy a few pages back who had the idea of making insurance go to a shorter time period after the first few months was on the right track, and the people who are trying to make it more like real insurance are on the wrong track. It's a game mechanic, not an insurance policy.

Yon Krum
The Knights Templar
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2010.03.31 06:06:00 - [312]
 

Originally by: Jamie Banks
PLEASE, understand the role of Insurance is not to make money, it is not an insurance company with bottom lines and a necessity to turn a profit.

It is merely a game mechanic to promote PvP activities and to lessen teh negative impacts felt by newer players.


For sure, everything in EVE is game mechanics, but CCP applies a veneer of respectable reality in order to permit us to suspend disbelief in their "world". The proposed arrangement by this blog is just silly.

Now, if the goal is to subsidize pod-pilot losses, then I would expect to see either:

A) Pend Insurance as a wholly-owned subsidiary of CONCORD, operating thus in order to encourage pod pilots to stay gainfully employed shooting each other and not the Empires (tin-foil incoming!).

or,

B) The faction navies offering insurance subsidies to militia members to encourage them in going out and violencing the rival navies. This would make more sense.

--Krum, tilting at windmills of common sense

ChronoLynx
Caldari
Federation of Freedom Fighters
Posted - 2010.03.31 06:40:00 - [313]
 

I <3 the Insurance. For the last (nearly 6 years) I have been saying that the insurance needs to be fixed to the current value of the ships based upon global averages taking out the outliers (say 300% higher than or lower than average value.

Very Happy

Vanir Waelcyrge
Posted - 2010.03.31 06:40:00 - [314]
 

I like the suggested changes to mineral sources.
The reduction in meta0 drops have a nice positive side effect in making the production of these items more worthwhile. But replacing them with scraps is a bit silly. I don't think they have to be replaced with anything, but if it does then add some trade goods or a minor increase in LP. Keep scraps as the annoying result of salvaging :).

I find it strange that insurance companies are accepting the constant loss of money. They should go bankrupt and disappear from the market.

The insurance system is just an artificial price reduction on ships. This reduction is constructed as a lower cost on "the next ship" based on what you flew before. Kinda strange. If we want to reduce the baseline cost of flying/getting blowned up then there are easier/better ways to do that.
I propose a reduction in the amount of minerals needed for building ships. This reduction could be tailored to whatever the default payout is supposed to be for different ship types. This will lower the cost of the ship you are buying instead of the ship you will buy next.

Easing entrance into the game for new players is a good thing, but the insurance system helps old players more than new ones.
I propose a "Ship Replacement Initiative" for new players. Let the introduction agent personally hand out a replacement ship of the same type lost. The agent should only replace the first 5 (or 3 or 10 or...) lost ships and only T1 ships.

Removing the insurance system will reduce highsec ganking. This is in my opinion a bad side effect. I don't gank, I've been the target, but the threat/possibility of ganging adds to the excitement of the game.
I propose that the Concord response times are reduced (+25% time?) to make ganking possible in less expensive ships.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.03.31 06:42:00 - [315]
 

Dear CCP Chornotis,
the big, 1 billion isk question:

What data is CCP using in its evaluation of the quantity of mineral produced by the different activities?

The old, heavily contaminated data from summer 2008?

So new data but still contaminated by the compression items?

Some other data?

Second big question:

Will you care to share those data?


Third, and not so important:

Quote:
reducing the quantity of the Tech 0 items


Will you look what loot table are you nerfing and balance the nerf or work with the nerfhammer again witout discrimination?

On a hunk the loot tables that will be more affected are Serpentis/Gallente navy and to a lesser level Angels/Minmatar Fleet.

Serpentis have already one of the worst reward level for NPC. We will see them nerfed without any level of compensation? I.e. we will see missions becoming even more unbalanced depending on your opponent?





Hentes Zsemle
Posted - 2010.03.31 06:50:00 - [316]
 

imo

Remove insurance as it is now, and have a "fixed" compensation for ship loss.
It is ridiculous even roleplaying wise, who would insure your warmachine...

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2010.03.31 06:56:00 - [317]
 

Quote:

I could not disagree more strongly.

What is the goal? Make all the high sec carebears quit the game?



While I would not have any issue with that, I understand CCP needs and likes money.
Now, the situation in the "hypercapitalistic, engineered to be a cold, harsh world" is false and pathetic.

In another, very large diffusion MMO, once you are done with your level 10 quests the mobs turn "grey". The resources are quite low value. The money drops are 4 coppers.
You out-lived the place, you are to move and grow somewhere else.


In EvE, you finish the tutorial then look around... And your beginner mobs happen to rival in reward with the top effort "dungeons".
You dig resources and they happen to rival those in the top effort zones.


Anything feeling wrong in a oh-so-hypercapitalistic, cold and harsh world?



EvE is in the awful situation where to the 30k players we got 270k pure farmers. A dead weight only useful because they bring in RL money.
If EvE was a real sandbox, you'd have somewhat less than 270k farmers, let's say 50% and 50%.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.03.31 07:02:00 - [318]
 

Originally by: Quesa
Horrible idea.

Look at it this way. Just about every step you take in the direction of removing steps that a pilot takes in preparing for battle, cheapens the game and removes risk.


Been playing the game for over 5 years now. I can honestly say having to go thru the process of insuring ships did not add the experience of my game play. It is a tedius process and unnecessary.

I would not miss it one bit if they got rid of the premiums and it was automatically done. Just like having to update your clone is a ******ed feature. It should be simply removed from the game.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.03.31 07:10:00 - [319]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Quesa
Horrible idea.

Look at it this way. Just about every step you take in the direction of removing steps that a pilot takes in preparing for battle, cheapens the game and removes risk.


Been playing the game for over 5 years now. I can honestly say having to go thru the process of insuring ships did not add the experience of my game play. It is a tedius process and unnecessary.

I would not miss it one bit if they got rid of the premiums and it was automatically done. Just like having to update your clone is a ******ed feature. It should be simply removed from the game.


So just remove all insurance across the board. No premiums, no insurance. Problem solved. Zero hassle.

O'Niccollo
Posted - 2010.03.31 07:13:00 - [320]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Awesome changes!

Will there be a way to automatically compute / look up the recalculated base price (or insurance values)? Via an API call maybe?


It is on our 'backlog' to use agile speak. Something for the possible future.


What? I expected such a thing to be available with this expansion. Some alliances reimburse ships according to their insurance cost/payout and making it dynamic will require more frequent updates of these.

You might make the lives of such entities so hard with it that they would drop it or stagnate with the old payouts. These could lead to alliances bankruptcy or have flocks of non-dedicated pilots migrate to another alliance with a more up-to-date table (that could include ships that had no reimbursing).

Having that API callback should be p. easy for you to make as everything is really already in place. Do it!

Quark Zulu
Posted - 2010.03.31 07:17:00 - [321]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

Sweet Jesus. You just answered your own question. Note the <bolded> important part.

While I applaud the removal of Meta 0 items from loot tables and the massive reduction in 'default' payouts for Titans and Supercarriers, why waste all the time and effort with all this fancy insurance calculation stuff when you can just REMOVE IT ALL TOGETHER and be done with it.

You said it yourself, most ships aren't insured.

The benefits of removing insurance completely are almost too numerous to list. Here's a few:

You don't have to worry about 'balancing' anything. The market will do it.

You don't have to worry about whether or not to insure your ship due to time limits of the insurance.

Suicide pilots won't get any extra help.

It will be WORTHWHILE to consider paying a pirate's ransom for once.

Zero continued wasted effort focusing man hours of development time on insurance.


To the guys who love the crutch of insurance and whine about "less PVP" if insurance goes away: so what if people revert to using smaller, less expensive ships? Currently ships are so cheap (free) that nobody uses anything but BCs and BS anyway. T1 frigs and cruisers are usually never used in large quantities by anyone other than those who absolutely have to (noobs).

Everyone seems to always want it easy in this game. Easy for themselves, just not anyone else. How hard is it to see that anything that devalues the cost of making a mistake hurts the value of making good decisions for everyone.

In other words: if you're stupid, you'll suffer. If you're not, you won't. So tell me, do you think of yourself as stupid and pine for insurance, or are you someone who is going to win more than lose and insurance is a waste of time for you?

Which one is it?

With respect to fleet losses: damage done to opposing fleets should -mean- something. Right now losing 200 BS simply means replacing the modules. What's the point in that?

Remove insurance.


Agree with Bellum all the way on this one. There is no point in insurance other than make EVE a game where you can go it alone. Removing insurance would make miners, industrialists and combat pilots more dependant on each other - as i should be!

Cheers

Quark

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.03.31 07:23:00 - [322]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
We identified a core set of loot tables which are responsible for contributing to the majority of the NPC loot sourced minerals and these are the first ones we want to adjust with Tyrannis, reducing the quantity of the Tech 0 items being dropped and substituting it with a variation of scrap metals or tags, for example. There will still be the same amount of Tech 1 meta 1-4 modules being dropped and these will still act as mineral faucets if you desire a source of minerals still from NPC combat.

If you remove some Meta 0 loot, remove it all! (I hope that is what you mean by the text market in yellow)...

Not only because missions/ratting pay too much, but MAINLY because every single item type for which significant amount of basic T1 modules are dropped is an item type for which T1 manufacturing is dead!

There's precious few (any?) T1 items where a producer can make a profit, primarily because vast quantities are dropped as loot of almost all item types. Especially the cheaper ones where a beginning producer could start making money are totally dead!

The more diversity in the game the better, and you don't get diversity in the producing area if it is totally outdone by incidental rewards to mission running...

For the games sake, they should be removed totally...

McEivalley
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.03.31 07:27:00 - [323]
 

Originally by: Hentes Zsemle
imo

Remove insurance as it is now, and have a "fixed" compensation for ship loss.
It is ridiculous even roleplaying wise, who would insure your warmachine...



Nowadays, when masses are grouped over territory by nationality, the states insure the army. Have you ever heard of a tank or airplane being blown up and not being replaced? That is obviously better organized in first world countries rather than 3rd world, but the bottom line is that the national income comes to cover over military equipment losses.

In the eve universe, where alliances control systems with habitable planets (soon) the devs just didn't bother with getting the cause->effect implemented in the game mechanics clearly... but you can use the above to if you must ride a pony to play the game.

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2010.03.31 07:30:00 - [324]
 

Originally by: O'Niccollo
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Awesome changes!

Will there be a way to automatically compute / look up the recalculated base price (or insurance values)? Via an API call maybe?


It is on our 'backlog' to use agile speak. Something for the possible future.


What? I expected such a thing to be available with this expansion. Some alliances reimburse ships according to their insurance cost/payout and making it dynamic will require more frequent updates of these.


Yeah, our reimbursement programs was why I asked for that. As of SiSi right now, the insurance changes are implemented by adjusting the baseprice of items. That base price can be extracted from the client cache files (which is legal according to CCP), so expect regular lists to be around quite fast. Especially as the base price will not fluctuate too much even during the 3-month updates, that should work ok.

An API would be nicer, though. :-)

jepper
Posted - 2010.03.31 07:46:00 - [325]
 

Originally by: Nye Jaran

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


I totally agree here.
Suicide gankers are on almost every gate in a short time; it will be the best profit job in eve thanks to insurance.

Why is there insurance anyway? If you have little isk, fly cheap. The longer you play, the more money you can make, the more you can afford to lose, the more expensive ships you can buy, and the more skills you have to fly them well.

Infinion
Caldari
Awesome Corp
Posted - 2010.03.31 07:59:00 - [326]
 

What will this look like for ships like carriers and faction ships that are mostly found on contracts?

Tomarix Vindigo
Posted - 2010.03.31 08:22:00 - [327]
 

Originally by: Cinori Aluben

I am also a supporter of death-by-concord paying ZERO in insurance, but also (and I've not seen it noted yet here) - self-destructing a ship should pay ZERO in insurance. These should each be considered a "breach of contract", and thereby negate the insurance contract.



This is the way to go (soon(TM))

I like the overall changes. Premium insurance is not needed as well.

Originally by: Tres Farmer
Would you consider replacing T1-4 intact module drops with something similar found in sleeper wrecks/cans (damaged mods/parts/items) a possible 'T1.5 industry' could use to build T1-4 meta items?


Sounds good to me as well.

Sulu Omega
Posted - 2010.03.31 08:25:00 - [328]
 

Insurance in Eve has never made even a tiny bit of sense. Imagine being an insurance agent in space for a minute.

You: "Okay, mister... uh. Dethkok. Uh huh. You want to insure your ship."
Them: "y"
You: "And you wrote here on the application that you use your ship for, am I reading this right? 'Killing gay AFKers.'"
Them: "lol ya"
You: "You do realize that your ship would then be destroyed by CONCORD within ten seconds, don't you?"
Them: "ofc r u stupid/ thats y i need insurens1"
You: "Uhh...huh. Sooo. You want to pay us five million ISK to then reimburse you fifty million ISK when your ship goes up like a viking funeral in a shootout with the space cops."
Them: "uh huh"
You: "Yeeeah. Let me just go talk to my manager real quick."

The insurance companies in Eve would be bankrupt in less than a week. In order to make it less insane, I'd suggest a sliding premium rate that hinges on security standing and the frequency with which the pilot loses ships. A carebear miner who's best buds with CONCORD and never leaves highsec should have a much more advantageous rate for insuring his ship than a lowsec pirate who gets shot on sight by the space cops and loses a ship every day.

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2010.03.31 08:44:00 - [329]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships


I like it. This would help when I temporarily trade/contract ships to other players and don't have to worry about insurance, it also allows me to be able to fly whatever I want instead of having to die within 3 months as well as removing tedious checking of insurance whenever I undock.

Di Mulle
Posted - 2010.03.31 08:52:00 - [330]
 

Originally by: Sulu Omega
Insurance in Eve has never made even a tiny bit of sense. Imagine being an insurance agent in space for a minute.



It is your thinking that "insurance" in EVE is even distantly related to RL insurance what makes no sense.


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (24)

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


 


The new forums are live

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

These forums are archived and read-only