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 : ... 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 ... : last (24)

Author Topic

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.31 21:02:00 - [421]
 

Originally by: Bisba
can all the big alliances in 0.0 then not manipulate the insurance pay out by making sure all minerals there being sold are sold very high? Just wondering......


"based on a trimmed mean of the ship's manufacturing materials global market weighted average prices"

Key word being "trimmed". They are going to cut out the "out of the norm" orders that they think may have been an attempt at insurance fraud. Then there is the issue that the tables will only be updated monthly or every few months. Trying to maintain the high price for many months between updates, could mean very high transaction fees, only to have all the transactions ignored anyway.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.03.31 21:15:00 - [422]
 

Originally by: Cang Zar
<snipped for space>


Insurance simply isn't needed.

Right now there are two reasons insurance is in place:

1) To prop up the mineral prices.

2) To subsidize player losses.

That's it.

Now, the first reason is simply due to bad game design. If mining were the only way to get minerals (instead of mining with guns a la drone regions and loot drops) and the mineral respawn rates were more tightly controlled so as to reduce the overall availability of materials (see T2 production and pricing) then we could easily see a revaluation of minerals and all of a sudden mining becomes a profitable activity again.

If the above changes take place then the price of ships will stabilize between something horribly expensive and super cheap, in other words, reasonable, and Eve will see a happy medium between ship prices, economic loss when one loses a ship and the value of minerals and mining.

Loss is a good thing in Eve. So what if some players are pushed economically into smaller less expensive ships? Right now everyone looks down on T1 cruisers and Tier 1 BCs because everything is so cheap to lose, there's no reason to not use a BS or super cheap Tier 2 BC.

Making everything super cheap and accessible only invites power creep. Once everyone has a BS, they have to get the next best thing in order to be on top. It's not like only *you* have to be penalized with no insurance. Everyone is on the same playing field.

I think the game has become better in some ways but far worse in others. It's been continually softened up with lots of idiot hand holding and coddling. The game was fun back in the day because it was harsh. No warning pop ups if you jumped into lowsec. No warning pop ups if you try and shoot someone in high sec.

Just think of all the time and effort and complexity that would be removed from the game if insurance was simply taken out of the game. Think of all the development time and effort and debate that has been wasted on this stupid subject. It's r3tarded.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.31 21:26:00 - [423]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
If mining were the only way to get minerals (instead of mining with guns a la drone regions and loot drops) and the mineral respawn rates were more tightly controlled so as to reduce the overall availability of materials (see T2 production and pricing) then we could easily see a revaluation of minerals and all of a sudden mining becomes a profitable activity again.


For the 'bots that log in right after down time and suck up all the 'roids. Anyone that has to leave for work as the system is booting back up (I live in AZ, and DT ends about 5AM here) there simply would not be any rocks to mine.

Hard limits on resources is the exact wrong thing to do for this game. It promotes exclusivity where an elete few that started playing first have a vested interest in keeping noobs out.

I got mine, so please hop in a frig and come out to null where I live in my moon mining POS that throws off 1 billion a week with little effort, so I can repeatedly kill you... sure, fun for those that have been playing for 4 years. No so much fun for the noob.

Universal availability and level playing field where it is the effort you put in, not control of the special, lopsided, supply constrained resources that provide imense competative advantage that determines results is what the game needs.


Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.03.31 21:27:00 - [424]
 

Edited by: Quesa on 31/03/2010 21:37:12
Edited by: Quesa on 31/03/2010 21:36:07
Edited by: Quesa on 31/03/2010 21:34:19
Originally by: Nick Bete


Smash YOUR self with the elitist, arrogant attitude bat. Oh wait....

Not everyone is a hardcore, full-time uber player like yourself, sitting in a fat-assed, established million toon blob alliance. Not everyone wants to play as you do. Not everyone views Eve as some kind of litmus test for intelligence, perseverance, fortitude, or e-peen size as you apparently do. It's a FREAKING GAME dude. Most of us play it for a few laughs, to hang with friends, to kill a couple hours here and there enjoying a pretty well thought out sci-fi GAME. And if you seriously believe that CCP wouldn't love to have the kinds of sub numbers that Blizzard does, you're totally naive or completely delusional.

Keeping Eve an entertaining, less grinding, fairly uncompromising vision of a harsh future reality while not totally alienating the more casual subscriber (of which there are much larger numbers of that you'd likely acknowledge) doesn't need to be contradictory. It only seems to be that way in the minds of players like yourself.

He logs in MAYBE 3-4 times a week.

If you could ever elevate yourself above using common memes and take a look at what made this game great, you might see that it wasn't government subsidy. It was made from players like:
Originally by: Bellum Eternus

What a joke. You would have never kept playing this game if you had to endure what it was like 2-3 years ago.

What if fitting your fleet sniper ship with T2 425mm railguns cost you 140m ISK? What if a cap recharger II cost you 28m ISK? What if a local hull cargo expander cost you 35m ISK? What if T2 EANMs cost you 11m ISK each? T2 Ballistic Controls? T2 Invulnerability Fields? 20-30M each. And this was before we had cheap/effective Tier 2 BCs like the Drake and Hurricane to PVP with.

INSURANCE DIDN'T PAY YOU TO LOSE YOUR SHIP THEN EITHER.

You don't have it hard. The noobs these days don't have it hard. It's not "already like that".

PVP, particularly using T2, has never been cheaper, easier or less costly than it is right now. A loss is nearly meaningless. A few million ISK at best. Get a clue.

Remove insurance.

and from a universe full of:
Quote:
When in reality, this game rose to it's popularity through vindictiveness, treachery, jealousy, misery and blood. If you want to play a game where there is no loss, go here.


While I can agree with CCP's desire to open the game up to more new people, the answer clearly isn't giving them the items but showing them how to obtain it and giving them the tools to attain their own New Eden Destiny.

I'll reiterate a past statement. Mining is supposed to be a core profession, as it stands it's a red headed stepchild of a secondary profession. It's less than interactive, hardly profitable and a huge PITA logistically as well as horrendously time consuming. If you don't believe me, go mine for Tritanium in the lowest Tru-sec system in 0.0 that hasn't been touched for months and you'll find that trying to build ships strait from mining is just not worth it.

If they truly want to fix the market, they need to remove themselves from artificial price fixing. The current iteration of the insurance system is a horrible artificial price fixing apparatus. I would LOVE to see the removal of the insurance system, however I'm not sure it is feasible to remove it as a whole but the basic mechanic must remain. You must have to put out the ISK to get the protection and there must be a time limit on the policy. THIS is yet another one of those risk/reward dynamics that, while might be tedious, is essential to Eve Online CORE gameplay. This goes for clones too, the basic mechanic needs to stay, even though there are some basic improvements that can be done to make it smoother.

PS. The addition of Drone Compounds ****ed the mineral market to no

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.03.31 21:34:00 - [425]
 

Originally by: Lenaras

You want to get rid of macros? Make more players into GMís or make a new role for a large number of players. Call them Macro Hunters MHís or something not so silly soundingÖ Give them a title, a cool little ship and a little bit of power in EvE. Maybe they canít directly ban anyone but the will have the ability to jump like a GM, popup a chat window to get you to talk to them and let them know you to talk to them and let them know youíre there. No response, they turn it over to a GM (if they canít warn and or ban themselves). They donít need to have a seat at some council or anything like that. Trust me guys, you will have no shortage of people willing to fly around catching macros. If you need to, give them loyalty points, ISK or PLEXs as rewards. Itís simple and yet brutally efficient. Build it and they will come!


Oh yes, I see them "You are a macro?" "No", 30 seconds, next guy "You are a macro?" "No", 30 seconds "You are a macro?" "die idiot!"

Seeing the number of people that love to annoy you in this game mining would become an hell. No, thanks.

Nerad Tendo
Posted - 2010.03.31 21:51:00 - [426]
 

Edited by: Nerad Tendo on 31/03/2010 21:54:32
Edited by: Nerad Tendo on 31/03/2010 21:53:09
I support removing the requirement of purchasing insurance. Just give the player a static payout based on the current market/mineral/componont prices and let's move on.

If I may suggest a tweak on that though, introduce the concept of 'raising rates'. If I buy insurance and lose the ship right away, then the next ship I insure costs more to insure. We end up with a calculation of your insurance being based on how many ships you've lost how recently. This makes insurance less valuable for the PVP'ers and makes the PVP'ers have to think and strategize more to avoid ship losses while at the same time makes insurance for the mining ships still potent. This system should account for 'ganks' e.g. if you get suicide ganked in high sec, it doesn't raise rates as quick as if you were actively fighting.

You could also account for how much time the player spends in dangerous space. If they spend their days in low-sec/0.0, their premiums go up while the high sec guys get relaxed fees.

It's more like RL insurance. It's probably a menace to code though.

---

Here's an alternate idea: have separate insurance companies. Some cheap plans only insure ships that stay in high sec (e.g. if you lose it in low sec, you get NOTHING). Others provide a higher risk insurance with a more aggressive premium. Some plans include wartime coverage, others don't. Some higher premium plans cover concordokken.

So my insurance buying experience would go like this (assuming all ships cost 5M ISK): High sec mining ship? Pend insurance basic Premium level (covers 100% ship cost on losses to belt npc's only in high sec) for 1M isk. High sec mission ship? Pend insurance utility plan Premium level + wartime (covers 100% ship price and losses due to npc pirates or capsuleers in belts or deadspace in high sec even during wartime): 1.75M isk. Fighting ship for low-sec/0.0? Hurtel Insurance basic (covers 80% ship price against anything but station guns or concord in low or high sec) for 2M isk. etc...

The concept is: if you had to pay extra for concord insurance, would you be deterred from suicide ganking as often? And the older players who know what they're doing could choose not to buy it.

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.03.31 22:03:00 - [427]
 

Originally by: Khaelis
Originally by: Dorah Hawkwing
Anyone also considered that T0 module drops from missions fuel the T2 Module market to some extend?


It is a very significant factor yes, but this decline has the great positive side effect of possibly making T1 Manufacturing profitable again..

I hope
Yes, the T0 drops are a big influence in the T2 manufacturing market. Drastically reducing T0 drops means that people will have to start manufacturing them again. This will almost certainly push prices up on T2 mods.

Yay, CCP, always finding ways to get more time and therefore RL money out of your customers. Sometimes I think of CCP as a mentally challenged child with a big hammer in its hand trying to fix the broken plates in the room by hitting them as hard as it can.

Kenz Rider
J Club
Posted - 2010.03.31 22:05:00 - [428]
 

Originally by: Nerad Tendo
Edited by: Nerad Tendo on 31/03/2010 21:54:32
Edited by: Nerad Tendo on 31/03/2010 21:53:09
I support removing the requirement of purchasing insurance. Just give the player a static payout based on the current market/mineral/componont prices and let's move on.

If I may suggest a tweak on that though, introduce the concept of 'raising rates'. If I buy insurance and lose the ship right away, then the next ship I insure costs more to insure. We end up with a calculation of your insurance being based on how many ships you've lost how recently. This makes insurance less valuable for the PVP'ers and makes the PVP'ers have to think and strategize more to avoid ship losses while at the same time makes insurance for the mining ships still potent. This system should account for 'ganks' e.g. if you get suicide ganked in high sec, it doesn't raise rates as quick as if you were actively fighting.

You could also account for how much time the player spends in dangerous space. If they spend their days in low-sec/0.0, their premiums go up while the high sec guys get relaxed fees.

It's more like RL insurance. It's probably a menace to code though.

---

Here's an alternate idea: have separate insurance companies. Some cheap plans only insure ships that stay in high sec (e.g. if you lose it in low sec, you get NOTHING). Others provide a higher risk insurance with a more aggressive premium. Some plans include wartime coverage, others don't. Some higher premium plans cover concordokken.

So my insurance buying experience would go like this (assuming all ships cost 5M ISK): High sec mining ship? Pend insurance basic Premium level (covers 100% ship cost on losses to belt npc's only in high sec) for 1M isk. High sec mission ship? Pend insurance utility plan Premium level + wartime (covers 100% ship price and losses due to npc pirates or capsuleers in belts or deadspace in high sec even during wartime): 1.75M isk. Fighting ship for low-sec/0.0? Hurtel Insurance basic (covers 80% ship price against anything but station guns or concord in low or high sec) for 2M isk. etc...

The concept is: if you had to pay extra for concord insurance, would you be deterred from suicide ganking as often? And the older players who know what they're doing could choose not to buy it.


EVE INSURANCE IS NOT INSURANCE.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Insurance in eve is just a word. This is a "ship replacement after loss" program. It's a subsidy program to promote PvE. Just like governments subsidize education to promote education. The only argument now is how much subsidy not if there is to be one or not or worse a real insurance program which is designed to STOP losses from happening (as well as to spread risk).

Real insurance and warfare are mutually exclusive concepts.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.03.31 22:20:00 - [429]
 

Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
If mining were the only way to get minerals (instead of mining with guns a la drone regions and loot drops) and the mineral respawn rates were more tightly controlled so as to reduce the overall availability of materials (see T2 production and pricing) then we could easily see a revaluation of minerals and all of a sudden mining becomes a profitable activity again.


For the 'bots that log in right after down time and suck up all the 'roids. Anyone that has to leave for work as the system is booting back up (I live in AZ, and DT ends about 5AM here) there simply would not be any rocks to mine.

Hard limits on resources is the exact wrong thing to do for this game. It promotes exclusivity where an elete few that started playing first have a vested interest in keeping noobs out.

I got mine, so please hop in a frig and come out to null where I live in my moon mining POS that throws off 1 billion a week with little effort, so I can repeatedly kill you... sure, fun for those that have been playing for 4 years. No so much fun for the noob.

Universal availability and level playing field where it is the effort you put in, not control of the special, lopsided, supply constrained resources that provide imense competative advantage that determines results is what the game needs.




*sigh*

Then why not come up with a way to mine that reduces/eleminates the ability to macro mine?

I've been a long supporter of more interactive and engaging mining. The reason I don't run missions or mine is because they're horribly horribly boring. If I could hop in a mining ship and sneak through lowsec and scan out some amazingly valuable ore and then swoop in and mine it as fast as I could while trying to avoid being discovered/caught, I might actually do it.

I'd like to see a system where player skill changes the yield per time so that if an AFK miner may produce 1km3 of ore per minute an actively engaged miner with some practice (think the learning curve for using probes as an example) could produce 10-20x as much ore in the same amount of time.

I have tons of ideas and suggestions about how to fix the problems Eve has with macros. I don't see anything coming from you as far as suggestions go. I'm all ears if you have something positive and productive to contribute.

Nerad Tendo
Posted - 2010.03.31 22:30:00 - [430]
 

Originally by: Kenz Rider
Originally by: Nerad Tendo
snip


EVE INSURANCE IS NOT INSURANCE.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Insurance in eve is just a word. This is a "ship replacement after loss" program. It's a subsidy program to promote PvE. Just like governments subsidize education to promote education. The only argument now is how much subsidy not if there is to be one or not or worse a real insurance program which is designed to STOP losses from happening (as well as to spread risk).

Real insurance and warfare are mutually exclusive concepts.


True that. Then how about the argument that insurance becomes unavailable once the player has been playing for 6 mo. 1 yr. whatever? This protects the newer players in their experience learning the game, but then drops them in the ocean of PVP risk vs reward which EVE is famous for.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.03.31 22:52:00 - [431]
 

I don't care one way or another about the insurance changes as long as T1 subcaps stay "fully insurable" (by some measure of the word). Battleships, for example, are already expensive enough to lose if you actually fit them. Once you consider the higher cost of BS modules and large numbers of slots... blah. All things considered, I think the insurance changes are a clever way to eventually "phase out" insurance and leave a free market balancing itself. May I suggest using .9 as the T1 modifier instead of 1.0 though? It'll speed the process up a bit, and 10% isn't terribly noticeable.

As to the loot changes... I have several comments that I'd love to have answered:
- Nerfing mission loot is a direct nerf to L4 marauders. There have long been arguments over whether or not it was better to use a better killing faction BS and ignore the loot or use a marauder and loot it.... but the answer now is spelled out in black and white. You just killed marauders for being better than faction BS's. IMO the correct answer here is to unnerf Marauders for PVP, but I would accept some better PVE related bonus instead of the tractor bonus now that looting is going to be a waste of time.
- Replacing solid money makers (T1 M0 modules) with effectively worthless modules (tags/scrap) is a really annoying waste of my time. IMO, if you're going to use tags (and **** scrap entirely) as mission "rewards", then please make a use for them. Right now, it takes on the order of 1500 republic fleet private tags to get a 5 run imperial navy small neut bpc. It is reasonable to introduce alternative offers which capitalize on the newly (more common) tags - even if they are much more "expensive" (tag wise). I am -1 to making tags an ISK faucet (NPC buy orders).
- I would like to echo support for the T1.5 "damaged module"/bpc idea. Instead of dropping raw meta N>0 items, drop them in a damaged state and use them to create the actual named modules. Making this worthwhile would probably entail making named modules actually useful in some way - ideally without stepping on the feet of T2/faction/deadspace/officer items.

BTW, you keep reemphasizing that faction ships are T1 - does this mean that they will become insurable? How will you determine market value since they can't be sold on the market - from mineral volumes sold at a price point across the last quarter or something? Can you please make all items (or at least all faction items!) sellable on the market?

-Liang

Guttripper
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2010.03.31 23:01:00 - [432]
 

I have not read through this whole thread yet so if I am repeating another's words, then I apologize.

Years ago, as part of an agent's bonus reward, a player was able to accumulate quite a stockpile of ammunition. Other players that manufactured such goods complained that potential sales are lost due to how easily it is to gain such goods. So CCP removed the gifts of ammo and replaced them with ISK.

I would feel those manufacturers that create the simple meta zero goods would like to see a similar change today. Having a niche occupation, such as mission runners, should not be completely subsidized by trumping another niche occupation like mining. While many of us play, and prefer the lone wolf approach (author included), as a multiple player game, everyone should rely upon another, even for a small amount. So destroying rats will not be a pinata of goods, but of scrap. It's a wreck - not too much should survive, save for the most sturdy (higher meta level) goods, and even then with some substantial damage.

And if CCP were inclined to expand, they could create another niche occupation that deals with repairing said broken goods and selling them "used". Make it a subsection of the next expansion being released involving planetary goods. The original module was created from minerals of the stars with repairs created from the extractions of planets.

*tunes the old "Sanford and Son" theme music here.

Stark Thunder
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2010.03.31 23:27:00 - [433]
 

For supercaps dont change the pay out give them a skill loss penalty like t3 ships. Like lose a mom you lose 2% of your skillpoints. If you lose a titan you lose 5% of your skillpoints. Or make it a flat amount 2mill SP for a mom and 5 mil SP for a titan

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2010.03.31 23:45:00 - [434]
 

I'm not in favour of removing insurance altogether - it's a vital crutch for players who are learning the ropes.

I would suggest though that new characters get 3 instant insurance renewals, which then reverts to one renewal every two months, with a maximum of one ship insured per character at any time - the same kind of timed activity as neural remaps.

Insurance should be perpetual, so folks aren't tempted to self destruct their ships the day before the policy expires.

Totally Rafiki
Amarr
Crimson Nation
Posted - 2010.03.31 23:58:00 - [435]
 

Whotf spearheaded these changes? Who's in charge of this project?!

I would like to give them a hug.

Good stuff, for realsies. As a hardcore ratter i sadden that my income will be nerfed somore but allinall its fair, realistic and seemingly balanced. Play on!

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.04.01 00:19:00 - [436]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
....
- Nerfing mission loot is a direct nerf to L4 marauders. There have long been arguments over whether or not it was better to use a better killing faction BS and ignore the loot or use a marauder and loot it.... but the answer now is spelled out in black and white. You just killed marauders for being better than faction BS's. IMO the correct answer here is to unnerf Marauders for PVP, but I would accept some better PVE related bonus instead of the tractor bonus now that looting is going to be a waste of time.....
-Liang
This. I don't honestly know why CCP does this, but I assume it's part of their grand plan to get everyone to spend more money on CCP, because, if you didn't have a trading/mining/industrial alt before this to fund you, you'll increasingly be needing one now.

Banlish
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas.
Posted - 2010.04.01 00:33:00 - [437]
 

Originally by: Nick Bete
Originally by: Banlish



Smash YOUR self with the elitist, arrogant attitude bat. Oh wait....

Not everyone is a hardcore, full-time uber player like yourself, sitting in a fat-assed, established million toon blob alliance. Not everyone wants to play as you do. Not everyone views Eve as some kind of litmus test for intelligence, perseverance, fortitude, or e-peen size as you apparently do. It's a FREAKING GAME dude. Most of us play it for a few laughs, to hang with friends, to kill a couple hours here and there enjoying a pretty well thought out sci-fi GAME. And if you seriously believe that CCP wouldn't love to have the kinds of sub numbers that Blizzard does, you're totally naive or completely delusional.

Keeping Eve an entertaining, less grinding, fairly uncompromising vision of a harsh future reality while not totally alienating the more casual subscriber (of which there are much larger numbers of that you'd likely acknowledge) doesn't need to be contradictory. It only seems to be that way in the minds of players like yourself.


Full time uber player? No.
Player that figured out the 'passive' way to make isk? Yes.

If your casual and only want to play 1 or two hours per month, no problem WoW awaits such an 'awesome' player as yourself.
I don't give a crap what you think of my attitude, people that worked for years and years to be able to get awesome ships should be able to use them. And I don't mean the 'gifts' of t2 bpo lottery and stuff like that. I work hard for my isk, every day for around an hour I changing buy/sell orders. Why should someone who plays once per month or so be given a level playing field. They don't have to be in 0.0 by any means, nor should they get the best ships unless they SAVE for it.

This isn't a communist game, just because your here or whatever doesn't mean you have the ability to or even intelligence to get the same ships as others. If that was the case we'd all be on sisi roaming around in titans and other super caps. And no it's not 'that way' for players like myself.

We worked hard for our 'toys', I've never owned a super cap, and even with something like 5+ years in the game I know I probably never will. Why? Because I am still pretty casusal, I have a life and wife, I can't afford to play 15+ hours per week. Yet I STILL am able to get a few billion per month pouring in. People shouldn't be 'assisted' by insurance because they can't figure out the basics of making money. It's rewarding laziness. If I can make 3 bill a month pretty passively, ANYONE can.

But no, lets have it so casual players that don't play more then a few hours per month are welfared along so that the pile of players (more then YOUR likely to admit to) that work hard are hindered by lower mineral prices because of it, or blobs are stupidly huge because EVERYONE can have piles of good ships with little to no effort.

Yeah that sure makes me want to play. In real life it'd be like everyone having and driving a Ferrari, it's not special when everyone and their brother can have it with no effort. Part of the joy of having something that almost no one has is EARNING it. I guess you don't or can't understand that, but many people in the game do. Some people love having a titan because they EARNED it, same with Mom pilots etc etc. Yeah it's a game, but making it so everyone can fly the same exact same ships with only a few hours played per month goes against the whole reason many of us are here this is a sandbox it isn't supposed to be a welfare program/game.

Enjoy WoW if that casual playstyle is what you want, some of us play games for a challenge not because we feel we're 'entitled' to everything.

Kanatta Jing
Posted - 2010.04.01 01:05:00 - [438]
 

Pliable insurance rates and reduced mineral from loots.

I have no idea what this will do.

I'll just say we shouldn't go cold turkey from Insurance. Eve has been on insurance for a long time.

Junma Chow
Posted - 2010.04.01 01:16:00 - [439]
 

Some here have touched on my thoughts about insurance.

Lets look at RL insurance:
Do you take part in hazardous activities? (skydiving, scuba diving etc) Oops! you rates have just gone up.
How about vehicles? A Corvette vs a Chevy Impala. Think the rates for each are the same for the same driver? How about the guy/gal who claims against his insurance more than once? Yep, up go the rates.

Do we want/need that sort of guideline for ship insurance? Personally, I see risk/claim to be more in line to how insurance should be setup. Definitely a cap should be placed on how high the premium should be, but also, those that claim against their insurance a lot should also have some sort of consequence in terms of premiums. I don't think tying it to mineral rates alone is a good idea. As a baseline? Sure! Then go from there.

A crude example:
Player X flys a Covetor.
Player Y flys a Eris.

Cost of the ship itself is close (20-24 mil average) But, is the use of each rated the same in terms of inherent risk? Not on your life. What are the chances that player X will have his ship for a long time? What are the chances that player Y won't last one engagement? Granted, there is a difference in mins etc needed for each, but the cost of the ship already incorporates that for the most part. Why would payout and premium be the same for these two ships?
Player Y SHOULD pay a higher premium due to the amount of risk that he is in. The premium should be what is changed here, not the payout. The player will still have to replace his ship, regardless. Insurance should be based on "replacement cost", premiums to potential risk.
Yes, I know, there are tons of ships out there that are used for missions and for pvp. Thre are also lots that are good for nothing except pvp. There are also those capsuleers out there who rarely claim on insurance, and those that claim daily, or more. It is not right to treat them all the same.

meh. My 2 ISK worth.

Night Snow
Posted - 2010.04.01 01:46:00 - [440]
 

Edited by: Night Snow on 01/04/2010 01:48:50
I should state first that I suppose you know what you are doing...

I think that insurance might be weighted towards installments, such that if I buy an expensive ship, I start paying a regular installment to cover it. As I pay more, the amount of coverage increases, and once I've paid a certain amount, I need pay much less to keep it covered. That way, if I die more frequently than I pay installments, I don't get rewarded for my loss.

On ganking: Concord should introduce an insurance penalty not on the paid out ship (after all that's under contract) but on the ganker's future insurances, so their premiums would get higher if they get a record for repeatedly being a cold bastard.

On degrees of payout: If a class of ship has a regular threat of being bumped off, then make the payout in a ship not ISK.

On losses: quite often the kit on a ship and implants are worth quite a bit more than the ship itself. Almost any Eve pilot can bounce back from the loss of a ship because it's a singular item. Loss of kit though can be more tedious to deal with because you have to hunt around all over the place for it, plus keep track of what you had. It would make sense to alleviate some of that suffering, at least as an option for those wiling to pay for a service to do so. Some people probably enjoy fussing about to re-equip. Consider battleclinic, which promotes entire ship load outs. Why not have a service in the game which will sell me a set load out in one go, rather than in bits and pieces? Bundles are popular in many real industries and a way to create some variety in selling and distribution.
Perhaps, if I insure my ship, it might include a bundle discount on new kit when I get ganked.
And there should be a courier service that brings it to me - I don't want to go to Jita. The delay in delivery could be stepped such that delivery cost is based on speediness.

These may seem odd and conflicted ideas. Where laughable, you are welcome to laugh.

Cang Zar
Posted - 2010.04.01 02:09:00 - [441]
 

Originally by: Banlish

*SNIP*
If your casual and only want to play 1 or two hours per month, no problem WoW awaits such an 'awesome' player as yourself.
*SNIP*
This isn't a communist game, just because your here or whatever doesn't mean you have the ability to or even intelligence to get the same ships as others.
*SNIP*
We worked hard for our 'toys', I've never owned a super cap, and even with something like 5+ years in the game I know I probably never will. Why? Because I am still pretty casusal, I have a life and wife, I can't afford to play 15+ hours per week. Yet I STILL am able to get a few billion per month pouring in. People shouldn't be 'assisted' by insurance because they can't figure out the basics of making money. It's rewarding laziness. If I can make 3 bill a month pretty passively, ANYONE can.

But no, lets have it so casual players that don't play more then a few hours per month are welfared along so that the pile of players (more then YOUR likely to admit to) that work hard are hindered by lower mineral prices because of it, or blobs are stupidly huge because EVERYONE can have piles of good ships with little to no effort.

Yeah that sure makes me want to play. In real life it'd be like everyone having and driving a Ferrari, it's not special when everyone and their brother can have it with no effort. Part of the joy of having something that almost no one has is EARNING it. I guess you don't or can't understand that, but many people in the game do. Some people love having a titan because they EARNED it, same with Mom pilots etc etc. Yeah it's a game, but making it so everyone can fly the same exact same ships with only a few hours played per month goes against the whole reason many of us are here this is a sandbox it isn't supposed to be a welfare program/game.
*SNIP*


Jesus christ,

Insurance (and by proxy near zero-cost t1 ship hulls) doesnt make EVE a socialist-utopia, having insurance will not make everyone fly around in titans, or fly around in same ships as the mega-rich, wtf are you thinking? Noone will be flying around in huge blobs in "the best" ships because t1 hulls are fully insurable, it's just the most ridiculous assumption, I dont even know how to respond to that nonsense.

Also, are you seriously saying, that earning 3bil a month, doesnt currently give you enough of an advantage against players who earn maybe 100m a month? (that means he can afford 4 fitted battlecruisers, for reference) REALLY? You seriously need that guy to fly kestrels, to feel your "oh so hard earned" passive isk is worth something? Might I suggest the ships and setups sub-forum, if you're having trouble figuring out why t2 ships are better than t1 (of which the 100m guy currently couldnt afford even a single one in cruiser size, and also, check out faction ships, some of those are kinda good too).

If you want to play a game where the guy with the most money wins all the time, might I suggest dropping EVE and going for monopoly online?

Whether you realize it or not, you already have a huge ****ing advantage, huge! and btw noone is saying that people who play 1 or 2 hours pr month should be able to fly faction fitted recons, every time they want.. YOU'RE JUST MAKING THAT UP! (and no, it doesnt help saying it twice).

While I agree in theory/principle with the argument that earning something, is part of the reason it's rewarding, tbh the crazy misguided ranting about welfare-issues and real-life capitalism vs socialism ferrari-arguments mixed in with eve game-design just makes you look like a complete tool.

Finally the game is not in any way less sandboxy because of insurance! If you dont understand why, I'm sorry then you just have to trust me.

PS: Blobs arent stupidly huge because of insurance either, blobs are huge because most everyone in 0.0 are scared witless of not being blue to atleast half of eve (with good reason actually, but that's another discussion)

unwitting destruction
Posted - 2010.04.01 02:30:00 - [442]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Cang Zar


So, what you're saying is that losses should mean something for everyone - except for those that have the skillpoints/industrial-setup/lottery-BPOs and isk already? So in addition to having fewer skillpoints, less understanding of game-mechanics, noobs also need to fly rifters to be able to afford to pvp? Gee, that sounds SUPER fun for the new guys.

Clue-bat; it's already like that.. The change you're proposing is only going to make it even MORE like that. Some people can afford to lose literally thousands of recons and hacs, faction fitted, new guys can afford the fittings/rigs for maybe a couple of battlecruisers - this is a very favorable situation for the wealthy/skillpoint-heavy players.

You're proposing making this (already pretty significant) effect worse... We could just do away with all the ship-stuff instead though, and just measure wallets, and decide who wins EVE by that, sound cool?

Making losses matter even more, to those that it currently actually matter to (new/poor guys) is about as horrible an idea as I've seen on eve-o, since I started reading here - bad idea in terms of practically anything, from bringing in new players, to filling up low-sec, to having more than 10% of the players give a **** about what happens in 0.0, to stabilizing the economy, to incentivising a move to 0-sec.

Eve is not going down any mediocrity-roads, because t1 ships are insurable, and your star wars analogy is completely ridiculous, it's not even close to being the same thing, it's not even in the ball-park, gimme a effing break.


(just for the record, I'm not saying isk shouldnt matter.. I'm saying it matters ALOT now, and if anything imo it shouldnt matter more)


What a joke. You would have never kept playing this game if you had to endure what it was like 2-3 years ago.

What if fitting your fleet sniper ship with T2 425mm railguns cost you 140m ISK? What if a cap recharger II cost you 28m ISK? What if a local hull cargo expander cost you 35m ISK? What if T2 EANMs cost you 11m ISK each? T2 Ballistic Controls? T2 Invulnerability Fields? 20-30M each. And this was before we had cheap/effective Tier 2 BCs like the Drake and Hurricane to PVP with.

INSURANCE DIDN'T PAY YOU TO LOSE YOUR SHIP THEN EITHER.

You don't have it hard. The noobs these days don't have it hard. It's not "already like that".

PVP, particularly using T2, has never been cheaper, easier or less costly than it is right now. A loss is nearly meaningless. A few million ISK at best. Get a clue.

Remove insurance.


Exactly! Who needs a large player base! Let's find the niche crowd within a niche crowd. Anyone who doesn't like it can LEAVE! Elitism 4tw!!!

tosh eebaa
Posted - 2010.04.01 02:49:00 - [443]
 

Edited by: tosh eebaa on 01/04/2010 02:51:35

Originally by: Banlish


Full time uber player? No.
Player that figured out the 'passive' way to make isk? Yes.

If your casual and only want to play 1 or two hours per month, no problem WoW awaits such an 'awesome' player as yourself.
I don't give a crap what you think of my attitude, people that worked for years and years to be able to get awesome ships should be able to use them. And I don't mean the 'gifts' of t2 bpo lottery and stuff like that. I work hard for my isk, every day for around an hour I changing buy/sell orders. Why should someone who plays once per month or so be given a level playing field. They don't have to be in 0.0 by any means, nor should they get the best ships unless they SAVE for it.




I love how your answer for everything is "gtfo". It's a like a kid who wants everything done his way or no way at all, without a thought to the consequences of running off everyone who is playing with him. How fun will the game be when you've effectively reduced the number of available pvpers to 10-20% of the current playerbase? And of those 10-20%, only a handful at a time will be willing to go out into lowsec.

Insurance serves as a pvp motivator. Why in the world would people crash headfirst out into 0.0 space if not for insurance? Why in God's name would anyone except the most hardcore miners or large 0.0 alliance miners go out there for minerals? This isn't just a "I hate carebears gtfo" this is a "f*** you PvPers too! I just want to play with my cool toys and don't want to see duplicates flying around the universe!".

Personally? I enjoy this game far too much to watch it get killed off. So far you have been an outstanding salesman for WoW (hell, after reading your post even I was tempted to go pick it up) but I would like to play EVE... and that will only happen if I have people to kill and people who are willing to fly outside of highsec more than once a week.

The increase in ship costs due to the lowsec mineral market completely exploding since no one would be willing to fly out there would result in an even GREATER loss. The majority of players would basically have to carebear their own basic highsec minerals just to pay for the lowsec minerals they would need to purchase some ship beyond frigate.

I appreciate your devotion to WoW that you would not only come and try to kill EVE while screaming all overs its forums that its members should go play it, but we like our game... please leave it alone.

Muzta
Posted - 2010.04.01 03:09:00 - [444]
 

Edited by: Muzta on 01/04/2010 03:42:39
Insurance-I would like to see concord kills void insurance.

Tags-Ok if they have some LP or other value

Metal scraps-First thing I jettison when i need more room so would be left behind most of the time by me.

What I would like to see is a really rare drop that could come from a mission or belt rat. When I go fishing its always a bit more exciting knowing that I have a chance of catching a really good one.

tosh eebaa
Posted - 2010.04.01 03:59:00 - [445]
 

Edited by: tosh eebaa on 01/04/2010 03:59:34
Originally by: Muzta
Edited by: Muzta on 01/04/2010 03:42:39
Insurance-I would like to see concord kills void insurance.

Tags-Ok if they have some LP or other value


All joking/trolling about getting rid of insurance so we can all go play WoW aside, on a more serious note I like this idea. Particularly the whole CONCORD kills voiding insurance.

I'd also like to see the removal of little nuisances like having to purchase the premiums (just automatically set it to 70%) and upgrading clones (for newer players that isn't much of a problem... but 1 drunk/overly smashed pvp session for an older player and eve will have 1 less player come morning. =D) I honestly can't see a purpose to it. I mean, if you are hell bent on people losing money when they die, just take estimated cost of a sufficient clone from their wallet. After going into the negatives a couple of times people will learn. I don't care if you keep the costs involved with insurance premiums and clone upgrades... just remove that annoying step of having to keep up with them lol

Merouk Baas
Gallente
Posted - 2010.04.01 04:08:00 - [446]
 

CCP, if you wish to promote PVP by reducing the death penalty loss from PVP, then just do that. Your ship dies in PVP, you get reimbursed some amount. Your ship dies in PVE, nothing. Make the reimbursement in minerals rather than ISK, if you so wish.

BTW, alliances theoretically have actual insurance already: everyone can theoretically pay a fee or tax to cover the ship losses of the PVPers. Or, everyone pays during peacetime to cover the expenses of war. That's actual insurance. Why don't you implement some sort of game mechanic that automates and secures ship reimbursements a bit, and takes the tedium and clicking out of it?

I mean, honestly, we have to go outside of the game, through the API, and use web-based tools, to do an in-game activity.

How about some corporate / alliance tools, along the lines of automatic distribution of funds from some wallet as PVP compensation, based on killmails? And based on other triggers; I wouldn't mind stuff like being paid a salary, or being automatically reimbursed for minerals or things I put in the corp hangar...

Have a little vision for what you can do with your dynamic mineral averages.


Syrous Tlesta
Posted - 2010.04.01 04:18:00 - [447]
 

Originally by: Merouk Baas
CCP, if you wish to promote PVP by reducing the death penalty loss from PVP, then just do that. Your ship dies in PVP, you get reimbursed some amount. Your ship dies in PVE, nothing. Make the reimbursement in minerals rather than ISK, if you so wish.

BTW, alliances theoretically have actual insurance already: everyone can theoretically pay a fee or tax to cover the ship losses of the PVPers. Or, everyone pays during peacetime to cover the expenses of war. That's actual insurance. Why don't you implement some sort of game mechanic that automates and secures ship reimbursements a bit, and takes the tedium and clicking out of it?

I mean, honestly, we have to go outside of the game, through the API, and use web-based tools, to do an in-game activity.

How about some corporate / alliance tools, along the lines of automatic distribution of funds from some wallet as PVP compensation, based on killmails? And based on other triggers; I wouldn't mind stuff like being paid a salary, or being automatically reimbursed for minerals or things I put in the corp hangar...

Have a little vision for what you can do with your dynamic mineral averages.




lmao forced socialized shipcare, basically. =D I like the idea of the NPCs dealing with it rather than players having to. The reason for that being that, just like in the real world, this could lead to the death of small corporations that can't afford to take such measures. Only those with the most extreme loyalty would stick around with corporations if they didn't pay for their ship losses. I know I'd be looking for the biggest corp that would take care of me.

Lets keep it simple... the way that it is being planned by CCP: You blow up. You get a small percentage (70%) of the base cost based on average mineral prices of your ship from some NPC insurance company. This does NOT cover your equipment. End result? You pay out 70-100 mil for a battleship then another 70-100 mil for equipment... you get 50 mil back. Losing a BS is STILL a big deal and there aren't even MORE hurdles you have to pass to get them.

Leocadminone
Posted - 2010.04.01 04:22:00 - [448]
 

Originally by: CCP Fallout
CCP Chronotis outlines changes to minerals and ship insurance that will be coming in Tyrannis in his newest dev blog.


So while you're messing with insurance, are you going to FINALLY make the change announced in a dev blog almost 2 YEARS AGO about "remove insurance payout for those killed by CONCORD"?



Merouk Baas
Gallente
Posted - 2010.04.01 04:24:00 - [449]
 

Edited by: Merouk Baas on 01/04/2010 04:26:02

If it's handled by NPC's they'll just HAVE to make it depend on how much faction your corp has been grinding with the insurer. And then the point wouldn't be to fund PVP; what do NPC's care about PVP, or PVP'ers about NPC's and faction?

EDIT: BTW, I didn't say "forced". Entirely up to the CEO and directors to turn it on or not, and allocate funds / set up taxes or not.

tosh eebaa
Posted - 2010.04.01 04:35:00 - [450]
 

Originally by: Merouk Baas
Edited by: Merouk Baas on 01/04/2010 04:26:02

If it's handled by NPC's they'll just HAVE to make it depend on how much faction your corp has been grinding with the insurer. And then the point wouldn't be to fund PVP; what do NPC's care about PVP, or PVP'ers about NPC's and faction?

EDIT: BTW, I didn't say "forced". Entirely up to the CEO and directors to turn it on or not, and allocate funds / set up taxes or not.


They don't HAVE to make it depend on anything other than the value of your ship... and have you get paid out based on that. The idea isn't to force PvPers to become PvEers.

I'm confused by your way of thinking >_>


Pages: first : previous : ... 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 ... : 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