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 : ... 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 ... : last (24)

Author Topic

TheBlueMonkey
Gallente
Fags R Us
Posted - 2010.03.31 09:03:00 - [331]
 

FINALLY \o/

This has been a long time comming and hopefully, if done right, should insentivise 0.0 a bit more.

I'm hoping that you have removed Meta 0 from the loot table as well as reducing the amount loot dropped removeal rather than just saying "don't drop Meta 0 any more" and letting the other meta levels fill it's place.

If a large majority of materials keeps comming from reprocessed loot then thinking about dropping meta 1 + 2 might be worth giving some thought.

With drone poop I always found the size was an annoyance but then that's the price you pay for living in drone regions and if you don't like it, move.
I do agree that the ratios need examining though.

Insurance has always bugged me a little.
Firstly, if you don't take it out, you shouldn't get anything at all.
Secondly, I think all insurance should be capped at 75% of the value of the ship pre fitting.
for T2 ships that should be closer to 50%

but it sounds like it's going in the right direction and hopefully will make life more interesting for those that bother to put the effort in and a whole lot of whine for those that don't :)

win win

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2010.03.31 09:03:00 - [332]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
What data is CCP using in its evaluation of the quantity of mineral produced by the different activities?
Will you care to share those data?


/me wants to know too pls

Keitaro Baka
Babylon Scientific and Industrial Enterprises
Babylon Project
Posted - 2010.03.31 09:11:00 - [333]
 

These changes come from good intensions and ended up being horrible. I've never been a fan of forcing people to go low sec just to help the whining noob pirates get their ganks. People should move when they feel they want to, not because high sec has become completely useless. Between moon mining and planetary exploration, ratting mining plexing exploration and more consensual pvp, I feel there is enough insentive already, even I went there.

Insurance nerf.. seriously, if you're gonna bash on casual players that much, at least remove it for everyone that loses a ship while under a GCC AND due to self destruct. Completely negates insurance fraud and makes high sec ganking a little bit more tactical.
Insurance payout should be locked on the contract, you pay your insurance at a percentage of the payout, so it would be pretty fail if we could manipulate the market for certain ships in a macro way since the payout changes during the period. Either lock it per contract or make us pay insurance per period, for 3 months, where it could change every time. And removing premiums is a bad thing. Just give people the option.

Removing meta 0 loot is all well and good, keeping the named drop table is fine, more tags yay (or summin, make sure the faction LP stores are less profitable i can live with that), but messing with the miners is not a good plan. Production has always been pretty open for even new players, you are making it a lot harder to try and do your thing, making it harder to start eve.

T2 / T3 insurance is all well and good I suppose, make it even easier for the old powerhouses that hold t2 ship bpos :/ Really? It's already so much cheaper for them, this is just making it worse. I mean I fly a lot of tacklers, I would love to get more money back on them, but you should really think a bit longer on the implications here. Again prices for t2 materials will go up, since demand for t2 ships will go up, making t2 bpo production more profitable again.

The road to hell..

Miss Emmala
Posted - 2010.03.31 09:16:00 - [334]
 

What stops falling mineral prices from lowering insurance payouts and lower insurance payouts making minerals even cheaper?

Varrakk
Menace ll Society
Posted - 2010.03.31 09:17:00 - [335]
 

Changes to insurance is ludicrous.
That way they are suggested, it will take away the risk of flying standard T1 hulls in combat. With no risk, theres no fun.

T2/T3 shouldn't have insurance payouts at all. Especially T3.

ISellThingz
Posted - 2010.03.31 09:36:00 - [336]
 

Originally by: Miss Emmala
What stops falling mineral prices from lowering insurance payouts and lower insurance payouts making minerals even cheaper?

Nothing. Expect a huge crash in mineral prices combined with a slow down in t1 ship production.

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2010.03.31 09:38:00 - [337]
 

Originally by: Miss Emmala
What stops falling mineral prices from lowering insurance payouts and lower insurance payouts making minerals even cheaper?


hopefully, tweaked mineral supply that is planned along insurance change.

Karl Axelman
Posted - 2010.03.31 09:46:00 - [338]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
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.




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.


CCP, some great points made in here - please remove insurance!

Reiisha
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.03.31 10:01:00 - [339]
 

So when you get blown up by CONCORD, you get no insurance?

Implement this... Pretty please...

Wod
Gallente
Fallen Pandas
Posted - 2010.03.31 10:06:00 - [340]
 

So, buy a cheap ship in region A.
Fly it to 0.0 where the markets are much higher.
Insure said ship
???
Profit.

And removing insurance all together is bad. When all the isk in the wallets have drained. Everyone is forced to grind even more isk. And we all just love the grind, right?

Lenaras
Posted - 2010.03.31 10:23:00 - [341]
 

Miners finally get the bigger end of the stick (as it should be with minerals).

As far as the insurance issue:
Nothing against suicide gankers as it SHOULD be allowed in the game. You need to get rid of Concord Insurance for suicide gankers. If the target they are going after (freighters with expensive cargo, Hulks, Orca's etc) is of any value it will be worth the loss for them and they will be more then happy to do it.

If it's simply them doing it just for laughs (hulkageddon, etc)then it should cost them, and I'm sure they will be happy to do it anyway at the loss. They just shouldn't be paid by CCP for ruining someones day.
You say you want to keep EvE close to real life? If I blow up my house trying to kill my neighbors, I don't think my insurance will pay me a cent. Though it would look cool!

Doktor Colossus
Posted - 2010.03.31 10:34:00 - [342]
 

Make another step and nerf ALL reprocess yields. Easy solution.
(Maybe exclude drone alloys).
This would further reduce the minerals from missioning and maybe prevent the prices from falling into a black hole once they are not stabilized by full insurance payout any more.

Or replace meta 1-4 item drops with meta 1-4 item BPCs. That way they increase demand instead of supply and give ppl stuff that may be worth producing.

Maybe you should also consider to calculate the ship size in on insurance payouts:
Pay 100 % for a frig, 75 % for a cruiser and 50 % for a BS (or something like that). This would be more easy on the noobs and maybe also encourage ppl to use smaller ships more.
I dont like the idea of t2 and t3 insurance either. Ppl that fly t3 have enough ISK, and t2 insurance will be a step back towards the "moonmining afk empires" that Dominion was made to get rid of, once the moon goo prices increase.

Maybe introduce it later once your "alternative release valve for moon goo" (comet mining or whatever) kicks in.

However, if (some) moon materials can be mined planet-side in tyrannis, this might become a non-issue...

Also, the guys that propose removing insurance alltogether have very good points IMO.
Losses should cost more than replacing the modules.

And with the game getting more complex with every expansion, you CCP guys should not have to "waste" time with micromanaging instead of fixing the real issues that we all know are out there.

Nymabel
Posted - 2010.03.31 10:50:00 - [343]
 

Edited by: Nymabel on 31/03/2010 10:51:31
These seem like pretty good changes to me. Maybe some tweaking as has been suggested, but the insurance overhaul seems to be very sensible and much needed.

I have to say that ships destroyed by CONCORD should have their insurance voided. It is ridiculous that people deliberately commit acts that get their ships destroyed by CONCORD and yet still get paid for their acts.

As for the insurance of other ships... I fit my ships with far more value in modules than the value of the hull. I believe this to be the case with just about any other pilot out there. Modules are not (deliberately) covered by insurance, and neither should they be. Compensating a part of the price of the hull will help out noobs who tend to fit their ships with cheap modules anyway, and since most of the value of a t1 ship is generally in the modules for more experienced players, the risk of losing isk is still there.

If t2 ship insurance payments go up then people will start fitting more faction/officer gear on them. The market dynamics will change, but the isk risk will still be there. Also, more people will be able to use the most fun ships in the game. Saying nerf EVE because there are a few t2 bpos out there is quite simply daft.

Just my 0.02ISK

Sprobe
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2010.03.31 10:51:00 - [344]
 

Please adjust the payout values to include all materials, speaking of raw and extra:

T1 (raw)
Frigates 100%, Cruisers 90%, Battlecruisers 80%, Battleships 70%, Capitals 20%, Super Caps 10%

T2 (raw and extra)
Frigates 80%, Cruisers 60%, Battleruisers 40%, Battleships 20%, Capitals 10%

T3 (hull and subsystems, equals raw and extra)
Cruisers 40%

These numbers are based on estimations. A more precise model can only be calculated having a dump of the live database. Your numbers actually come very close to my suggestion, I only consider raw and extra materials to be included.

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2010.03.31 10:56:00 - [345]
 

Originally by: Hamish Nuwen
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
Revisions to drop loot tables and ore distribution are great but I'm somewhat concerned about the changes to T2 insurance. What with the finite supply of moongold if you make T2 ships cheaper to lose you will see more people flying them, driving up prices which then adjust insurance payouts etc thus potentially leading to spiralling costs all over the place.


The valuations are clamped to always payout a fraction of the market value of the materials used to manufacture the ships in the case of Tech 2. Yes if the value of those materials increases so does the cost of building the ship and it's market price and the relative insurance payout. The same is true of all ships hence why its called dynamic insurance :).


I also see a potential risk here. The ISK faucet of t2 insurance (especially driven by best ships to insure) rewards that moon material prices go up, but in case of t2 material bottlenecks there is not a elastic demand acting as a counterweight. This suggests a potential inflationary scenario in t2 material bottlenecks in long term.

Even the dynamic insurance will offload less than 50% of the cost of replacement (including the cost of re-insuring), so it won't drive hyper inflation. T2 ship prices and consequently insurance will stabilize at a level where the effective cost of replacement is roughly equivalent to before the change.

PS.: Corrected formula at page 3.

Vlad Wormwing
StarHunt
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2010.03.31 10:57:00 - [346]
 

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.




This sounds actually quite sensible solution as long as the automatic payout value is sufficently low, as let's face it if you know you will die you will insure for platinum anyway and if you are not sure if you do it's better to not insure.

Ofc one has to keep in mind that currently, if your insurance is about to expire you will just self destruct as mentioned earlier. Or get yourself killed in suicide op for additional profit.

Mack Bane
Gallente
Posted - 2010.03.31 11:14:00 - [347]
 

Edited by: Mack Bane on 31/03/2010 11:25:41
IMHO Insurance should handle like this:

T1 ships: 80-90% of value payout
T2 ships: 40-50% of value payout
T3 ships: 80-90% of "HULL" value payout
Faction ships: 20-30% of value payout
Capital ships:20-25% of value payout

No diferentiations in insurance. Insure it, or not.

Concordokkened: No payout
Selfdestruct: No payout
Insurance lasts, until the ship is destroyed.Every 3 months, the fee is collected automatically until you cancel the insurance.If you cannot pay, this ship is locked, until you pay (infomail 7 days ahead)
(make it harsh,like the rest of the universe)Wink


my 0.01 ISK

Fade Toblack
Posted - 2010.03.31 11:16:00 - [348]
 

Current situation.

Buy BS for 126m ISK. Insure for 54m ISK. Insurance pays out 180m ISK. So as long as I can get my ship destroyed (sit in a belt in lowsec/head into HED-GP?) within the 30 days - essentially the BS was free.

So I can have a free BS for as long as I'm willing to strip/explode/buy/refit ships.

As I see it at the moment "insurance" is basically a round-about way of making ships cheaper - so why not just cut to the chase, get rid of it and actually make the ships cheaper?

An alternate way of attacking this problem has already been mentioned - large up-front insurance with a nominal monthly fee. For example 54m ISK for the first month and 1m ISK per month after that. This actually makes it more like real insurance in that you're rewarded for being a safer pilot. However if the game did go down this route, it would be great if the renewal could be paid automatically. Having to check if your insurance is up to date is a silly mechanic that gets in the way of actually playing the game!

As far as the changes to insurance to track the mineral market - rather than acting as a floor - is a good aim. However I'm not convinced that a 3-month review cycle would be a good idea. Insurance will still act as a floor during review periods and the relatively long-time between reviews could mean that there are some big changes in insurance pay-outs. This is likely to cause considerable chaos in the markets around insurance review-time with speculation etc.

Vlad Wormwing
StarHunt
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2010.03.31 11:19:00 - [349]
 

Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Sian Kine

Scrap metal is stupid and bulky and everyone hates it.

Nobody missions in a hauler or freighter, so nobody has space for scrap metal, however good you may feel the volume/trit ratio is.

Given that you yourself have admitted that to most people it's not worth looting don't you think there's a case to be made for either looking at the volumes again or dropping something that is worth looting instead?


Anything worth looting would be dropped in such high quantity, that soon it would not be worth looting.

The whole POINT of dropping scrap is to drop something that already doesn't have any value.


Scrap metal is too bulky still. Might be better to just remove it and drop something else instead, as long as it's not bulky. It does not need to be refinable even, I mean even getting pirate crew memebers instead you can hand in to the authorities either for small amount of reward or standings gains (to some limit) would be better than getting those bulky scrap metal heaps.

Failing that I personally would prefer complete removal instead of getting scrap metal. Tags are ok, they are not bulky.

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2010.03.31 11:26:00 - [350]
 

Edited by: Gnulpie on 31/03/2010 11:29:11
Interesting changes ... but wrong direction, especially with insurance.

Insurance was meant for new players so that they are not put at too much an disadvantage compared to the old (and rich) dogs when losing a ship.

Instead of giving everyone the same insurance payout it would be much better if insurance payout would be calculated from previous losses and insurance payout of this player. The more insurance money you collected in the recent past, the fewer payout you will get now. Easy and simple system: insurance frauders will be in trouble, the new and young guys still are fine with it, and those guys who win more pvp battles than losing will also have an additional benefit.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.03.31 12:05:00 - [351]
 

Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 31/03/2010 12:07:20
Originally by: Wod
So, buy a cheap ship in region A.
Fly it to 0.0 where the markets are much higher.
Insure said ship
???
Profit.

So you're basically saying; Buy a ship on SiSi for cheap, and then blow it up on TQ?

Siena Petrucis
Caldari
Jelly Kings
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2010.03.31 12:06:00 - [352]
 

Scrap the whole insurance system. Its artificial and will never be right, and people will find a way to exploit it.

Example: BC nearly have the same battle performance as HACs, however the financial loss is just a 20% of a HAC because of the insurance.

Noobs already have a insurance that prevents total financial loss: free noob ships. Thats all what is required.

CCP, if you feel that people need to grind to long to replace a ship loss, better make it easier to earn money instead.

The whole idea of insuring war ships is not very realistic - no insurance in the real world will insure war ships. The only thing acceptable would be to insure non-fighting ships such as mining and transport ships.

And concerning the idea to have a higher payout for risky ship types such as tacklers compared to less dangerous ones such as covops: thats just increadibly wrong. Go and ask your car insurance. If you drive a dangerous car, you'll pay higher insurance fees.

Altarica
Posted - 2010.03.31 12:07:00 - [353]
 

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.




Just do it, perhaps let people under 3 or 6 months have insurance, otherwise you all keep saying Eve is a "cold, harsh universe". Let it be one.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.03.31 12:12:00 - [354]
 

Originally by: Gnulpie
Instead of giving everyone the same insurance payout it would be much better if insurance payout would be calculated from previous losses and insurance payout of this player.

CONFIRMING THAT WE WANT 10 MILLION ALTS CREATED THE FIRST WEEK WHEN SOMEONE FIGURES OUT HOW TO MAKE A BOT THAT CREATES CHARACTERS THEN COLLECTS INSURANCE ON 5 SHIPS BEFORE BIOMASSING.

Celia Therone
Posted - 2010.03.31 12:41:00 - [355]
 

Imho if you want to discourage super-capital blobbing the way to do it is through charging upkeep for them rather than nerfing the insurance payments (which at least partially mitigate losses due to things like node death which are largely beyond the pilot's control and seem to be resulting in really quite a large number of current cap deaths.)

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: Gnulpie
Instead of giving everyone the same insurance payout it would be much better if insurance payout would be calculated from previous losses and insurance payout of this player.

CONFIRMING THAT WE WANT 10 MILLION ALTS CREATED THE FIRST WEEK WHEN SOMEONE FIGURES OUT HOW TO MAKE A BOT THAT CREATES CHARACTERS THEN COLLECTS INSURANCE ON 5 SHIPS BEFORE BIOMASSING.

I think something like a 50 mill isk insurance cap on account (not character) creation + 10 mill isk/month would help new players but would make fraud much more annoying to do. Veteran players wouldn't get insurance assuming they died semi-often, but it's (supposed to be) a cold, hard universe out there.

Bado Sten
Minmatar
Republican Guard
Posted - 2010.03.31 12:46:00 - [356]
 

In general I think it looks great, but will there be a reseeding of asteroid belts in 0.0 to ensure that some high-end minerals are available for building? Now getting enough of this is dependant on processing meta0 loot

I live 50/50 in a Stain NPC 0.0 system and a Metropolis 0.2 system. Currently the low-sec empire system has actually way better mining than the 0.0 system with regards to getting zydrine.

Karonys
Balderfrey Enterprises
Deadline.
Posted - 2010.03.31 13:13:00 - [357]
 

Originally by: Trimutius III
Idea

Add crew to loot tables instead of Meta 0. Like ships will drop people, that could be sold later on...


I like this idea a lot. It serves the same game mechanics function as dropping metal scraps, but it adds a little background story type flavor to the game. All the ships in this game that are larger than frigates are supposed to have non-capsuleer crews, but you never see anything about them in game.

I would personally also like to see a "crew size" listed in the attributes of a ship, even if it has zero in-game effect, but I digress.

Now what would happen if you reprocess the dropped crew members.....

Lezard Maltese
Posted - 2010.03.31 13:14:00 - [358]
 

Edited by: Lezard Maltese on 31/03/2010 13:14:20
Maybe that one day the players can produce meta 1-4...

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.03.31 13:54:00 - [359]
 

Making supercap insurance less than a carrier's plat won't stop the growth of supercaps, they will be just as expensive and just as unkillable, what it'll do is make people less likely to use them without massive amounts of backup. Making them much harder to lose still yet. You talk about making them "more attractive targets" when in reality they are already the most attractive targets in the game. If you can kill one you do, and to imagine that people who lose one and simply buy another will not have this ability is patently flawed as people who make 9-60b once can probably make it again or already have it stashed away specifically for such an occasion. What the **** CCP?

Jimu Orgas
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Sanctuary Pact
Posted - 2010.03.31 13:57:00 - [360]
 

Originally by: LHA Tarawa


So, they are adding scrap and tags to fill in the numbers.

1 in 100 of a meta 4. 1 in 100 of a tag. 5 in 100 of a meta 3. 10 in 100 of a meta 2. 20 in 100 of a meta 1. 10 in 100 of a meta 0. 53 in 100 of a scrap metal.

Meta 1-4 drop exactly the same frequency. meta 0 from 1/5th as often. Small chance of a tag to make up for some of the loss of the meta 0. Likely to get a scrap metal that you are going to leave behind.


I didn't say it well: what I meant is not to increase the drops of Meta 1 to 4, but rather just to drop nothing rather than scrap metal.


Pages: first : previous : ... 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 ... : 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