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 : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (24)

Author Topic

ElvenLord
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:30:00 - [211]
 

Good to see more CSM ideas and suggestions from the summit reached the development status and are getting deployed.

We had a long discussion on insurance and mineral sources with CCP Hammer and CCP Chronotis good to see they listened :D

tnx guys

cok cola
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:32:00 - [212]
 

sounds like highend minns like zydrine and morphite are a good buy then, esp since theyve alrdy sunk to a plateau
possibly datacores as well?

Mono Loco
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:41:00 - [213]
 

I seriously would like the idea of insurance payout depending on the ratio (amount ships insured in total) vs. (amount insured ships lost) for a period of time (and each type of ship).

-> This is more realistic.
-> This may lead to more diversification of flown ships simply because ship types eventually get more expensive or cheaper over time (without using ccp-nerf-bats).

Don Pellegrino
Pod Liberation Authority
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:46:00 - [214]
 

I really don't like insurance on T2 and T3 ships.

Flying them should be an investment.
Whenever I use my T2 cruisers, I need to ask myself if what I'm going to use them for is worth it over a battlecruiser.

Those ships should remain special, not become Tech 1.5 that everybody can afford.

The other changes are great, but seriously, please entirely drop T2/T3 insurance.

Jack bubu
GK inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:46:00 - [215]
 

Originally by: Mono Loco
I seriously would like the idea of insurance payout depending on the ratio (amount ships insured in total) vs. (amount insured ships lost) for a period of time (and each type of ship).

-> This is more realistic.
-> This may lead to more diversification of flown ships simply because ship types eventually get more expensive or cheaper over time (without using ccp-nerf-bats).

That would hardly change anything.
Best example is the Sabre right now, it costs double as the other dictors and its a suicide ship pretty much but still its the most used dictor.

Mioelnir
Minmatar
Cataclysm Enterprises
Ev0ke
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:49:00 - [216]
 

Insurable Marauders sound very strange, but I like the idea of insurable deathtraps^WInterdictors.

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:51:00 - [217]
 

The right approach to take on all these things is the one that results in the following:

  1. People feel compelled to fly smaller ships because they can't afford to throw away yet another big ship.
  2. Mission running and rogue drones can't supply more than 25% of manufacturing activity themselves.
  3. Super Capitals become less affordable.


I want to see the power creep go down in the game. EVE has always been better when losses actually hurt and combat revolved around ships other than battleships, battlecruisers and HACs. If the changes create the results in the list, they are the right approach. If not, a bit more tweaking is in order. At least in my evil opinion. Wink

Xander XacXorien
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:53:00 - [218]
 

Oh and one final point.

Giving out more ISK on insurance for tackling ships is neither sensible from a storyline angle nor sensible from a gameplay angle.

Yes it provides income to those taking risks,,, but surely if they are taking more risks then the tackling ships are not doing the job as intended ? A half assed solution that doesn't fix the actual problem and penalises all other players. This will just make a host of players very upset and bias their gameplay.

Also it brings in a baised income to those who hold the tackling ship BPOs,, biased again. Balance is what is required.

Not impressed and quite frankly a dumb idea.

Personally speaking I think insurance should only be payable if in highsec otherwise how could any insurance company ensure illegal activites were not the cause of the claim ? If you seek to fund certain activites in low sec and 0.0 then fund them specifically - don't provide a mechanic which can be used for other purposes - spoils realism and abuses gameplay. Use your imagination, if you don't have any ideas ask the player base.

Shepard Book
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:53:00 - [219]
 

Edited by: Shepard Book on 30/03/2010 19:55:57
This is another chance to balance risk vs reward from high sec to 0.0 mineral and loot wise. I hope this is being taken under consideration.

A nerf to Captial or Super capital insurrance helps the biggest power blocks in 0.0 more than anyone. It will make blobbing even more important...

TheLostPenguin
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:55:00 - [220]
 

Originally by: Kuseka Adama
Originally by: LtCol Laurentius
Originally by: Nick Curso
Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:09:29
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The flip side of that would be the risk adversity argument, that some would risk them less because of this.




People wouldn't use them at all because of this. I think like viper said where is the logic in nerfing the one ship class where a respectable amount of ISK is lost in its loss. Not to mention the massivly expensive fittings they need. Unless ofc u want to see t2 fitted super carriers and titans.

Has it also been considered how much of a time sink it is to build super caps from a non ISK perspective such as compression time/hauling/build time etc. In some cases ppl have worked for years to get these ships and contrary to the myth don't have 100's of bils in the bank after the ship purchase. To be punished with next to no insurance payout meaning you have to start from scratch again.

Seems like a bit of a crazy plan to me maybe its time to look away from the numbers and actually consider the other requirements of getting a ship like that and think to yourself "Is this really fair?"


Its about high time CCP does something about the riddiccolous number of supercaps in the game. Currently EVE is heading towards "Titans Online". I believe this change will reduce the attractiveness of them, hopefully (in time) making them the truly unique flagships they were allways meant to be.


Try never seeing them in space. I wanted to make a Nyx the flagship of our group and i had the plans on paper almost complete i was nearly ready to propose the project. I cant justify it now. Not now not if we grow to 1000 players. Your talking a 50 billion hit in Supercarriers. Flat out. 50 billion. Your talking about a hit that an alliance will have a VERY hard time recovering from if they get a bad FC or CCP nodes go out. Like i said in my last post. These changes effectively price smaller outfits out of the supercap market. Titans online isn't good, i agree there. Pricing smaller outfits out of the super cap game entirely however just aint right. I cant think of many outfits able to justify an expenditure of this nature without some kind of reimbursement. With the 5 bill at least you had something to get off the mat with if something went wrong. Now? I wouldnt touch them with a 10 foot pole. Enjoy.


You seem to make one big basic error: Supercaps are not meant to be accesible, they are were envisaged as flagship super-weapons deployed as something special by only the most powerfull alliances, not as ships for small/medium sized alliances to be building. That they have become regarded as a "standard" ship class to some extent for many alliances to build shows more how these ships are not fulfilling their role. To be quite blunt, "small outfits" such as you state simply should not be able to afford them except as a all-or-nothing investment of potentially disastrous consequences.

Losses due to poor fc = fault of corp/alliance for fielding the ship with poor fc, losses due to server death I agree suck major balls, but you cant design the rest of the game around that possibility tbh.

Andre Vauban
Gallente
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:59:00 - [221]
 

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.




My opinion is we make insurance like medical clones, you either have it don't. The default is no insurance. The only other option is platinum level insurance. Eve is about making mistakes and those mistakes costing you something.

I do like the idea of cheaper insurance extensions if you remember to request one BEFORE your current insurance runs out or different prices for platinum insurance based on the duration of the insurance contract. ie 3 months costs y, but 6 months costs 1.5 x y.

Mr LaForge
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:59:00 - [222]
 

I don't see why T2 insurance isn't based on the components instead of the moon goo. You can insure a crappy truck in real life(T1) and get crappy payout but if you insure a high value car you get more. I'm just really confused at why T2 insurance is so low.

Rhea Aies
0ne Percent.
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:59:00 - [223]
 

Edited by: Rhea Aies on 30/03/2010 20:00:44
Edited by: Rhea Aies on 30/03/2010 19:59:53
I'm very skittish about the changes listed to T2 and T3 insurance. Don't suppose CCP would mind divulging the rationale for why they want to see the numbers listed in the blog? As it stands, I really do think those particular changes should be looked at again. Not to mention it seems to be diametrically opposed to the Risk\Reward motif expounded when discussing the T1 insurance nerf (I mean seriously, I cannot begin to fathom why T3 should be insurable when taken into the context of the rest of the devblog).

Edit: And to make it all less negative, the rest of the changes sound good :|

Avenger1
Posted - 2010.03.30 20:02:00 - [224]
 

Not more tweaking / Ballancing, sad to say but I'm afraid I see Eve as like many modern governments of today, becomming a sufferer of, over fussy, and way over micro comparmentalised and over political correct ballancing effects, Gone are the days where you and a few mates could simply grab a ship each and just have fun we have somehow become so entrenched and aborbed in tweaking things so know one gets to much of a good thing instead of just playing the cards you have been dealt with, so what if one ship is better than another no one forces you to fly the poorer ship, just like those low secers who twitter on about folks in hi-sec alegedly having it Easy, load of bol**cks, no one forces us to stay in low sec, nor dose it stop us from having an alt to work the hisec side of the game. And yes I am an alt of an old Char who has seen the game develop over more than five years. Come CCP get the fun element back in the game stop making it so serious and over "teched".

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.03.30 20:05:00 - [225]
 

Edited by: Quesa on 30/03/2010 20:15:23
a) I hate to break it to you but people choose NOT to mine Veld it's of so low density and the quantity received from even an entire belt is drastically low it's almost insulting.
-There has been a great call for a super-dense veld, these calls have gone largely unanswered. The fact that mining out an entire belt of Veld will probably only net you enough Trit to build you a tier 2 battleship should say something. When you also look at the total m3 of ore pulled from a belt, these numbers do not come close to the ratio of minerals required for production. The annoyance of mining enough Veld is motivation enough to buy from or even mine with a macro-miner. Even making these super-dense veld rocks show up in anoms would be fine.

b) Tags. Don't do it. They are the worst part of the current LP systems.
-You can offset the change by slightly increasing bounty or spawn difficulties.

b) I agree that drone droppings need some adjusting but you absolutely have to realize that as long as you have drone droppings in the game they will always mess with the raw mineral market and any positive change you make towards drones you negatively affect the raw mineral market and indirectly, the mining profession.

c) I think you are on the right track with adjusting insurance paybacks. The paybacks should be reduced, maybe not drastically but at least 15-20% so that there is actual and REAL loss when you lose a ship, beyond the mods. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY DISAGREE WITH INSURANCE FOR T2 AND T3 SHIPS. This is a horrible idea. If you can't afford to purchase and fly T2/3 then you fly T1, that's the way it goes.
-Platinum insurance should only cover a maximum of 80% of current (or your averaged) mineral build cost.
-No insurance for T2.
-No insurance for T3.

To all you people talking about Super-Cap proliferation and how to stop it, you all have no idea how things work. Super-Caps will proliferate as much as long as there are people that want them. ISK will have virtually NO bearing. ISK is easy to come by, mostly because CCP opened up legal RTM.

Letrange
Minmatar
Red Horizon Inc
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2010.03.30 20:11:00 - [226]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Derus Grobb
Akita is going to explode Cool

Nah, they covered a lot of the things I could have been angry about, so overall, this is far, FAR better than I had expected it to be, at least in theory.

Of course, in practice, the actual numbers (loot drop tables, what they replace meta-0 loot with, how ore and compound refine ratios will be tweaked and so on) will be extremely difficult to get quite right, and I expect a long, painful transitional period even if they WOULD get it almost perfectly right.




S'why I pipped up about paying attention to CCP Chronotis's dev blogs. When CCP gets serious about some industry changes they end up on his table. As you say the final ratios are going to be the determining factor. Although I'm unconvinced this will halt the decline of Zydrine and Megacyte who's over supply are simply due to over concentration on those minerals who's abundance has been increased by the new sov and wormhole mechanics. Pyrite speculation in particular should take off like a rocket ship with a pastel of solid boosters attached to it. It was already running short in some regions due to mining patterns and it's about to loose a good 60% of it's current supply source. Look for there to be a Pyrite boost to the low sec ores heb/hem/jaspet and spodumain I susspect.

MeigsYan
Black Out Horizons
Posted - 2010.03.30 20:15:00 - [227]
 

Excellent on all points, I would offer the following as well for your consideration.

As to insurance, no payouts for self-destructs or Concord'ed losses.

As to minerals, the dangers of mining in low-sec, as compared to high-sec, need to be much much better rewarded. And of course null-sec even more so. As of now, there is very near zero advantage to mining in low-sec as opposed to high-sec.

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.03.30 20:18:00 - [228]
 

Originally by: MeigsYan
Excellent on all points, I would offer the following as well for your consideration.

As to insurance, no payouts for self-destructs or Concord'ed losses.

These two suggestions won't fix the suicide ganking or insurance fraud. There are so many ways around this, you aren't even thinking about it.

Hammershoc Titanothere
Posted - 2010.03.30 20:21:00 - [229]
 

The cost of tech 1 ships should be fully reimbursed since these ships will represent a much larger percentage of player overall value. However tech II ships should represent a smaller percentage of overall value but not something so small as to be 10% I think compensation in the 50-75% would be more in line with percentage of overall ship investment at that stage of player life cycle. Strategic cruisers should represent a much smaller investment in time and resources of a players overall portfolio. So I could see a 25% of the SC investment should be insurable. That would be my take on insurance.

One element that is an extreme variable is the modules mounted which often is more costly than the ship. A way to insure even a small part of those modules selectively could make it more desirable for players to go the extra mile to get the high value modules if there was some form of insurance for those available.

Gotrek65
Caldari
Nex Exercitus
IT Alliance
Posted - 2010.03.30 20:21:00 - [230]
 

My question about this is: Are the prices for faction ship blueprints gonna be checked on contracts and will those prices be calculated into the faction ship costs?

Dylan Chan
Gallente
The Maverick Navy
IT Alliance
Posted - 2010.03.30 20:34:00 - [231]
 

is there going to be an API that we could pull the Material Values that the INs is calculating on?

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2010.03.30 20:40:00 - [232]
 

Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 30/03/2010 20:41:02
1 Nerfing NPC t1 meta1 loot = good
2 Redesigning drone allyos = good
3 making t1 insurance dynamic = good
4 giving t2 ships insurance = VERY BAD.
5 t3 insurance = quite bad ( new isk faceout )

Point nr 4 will only make t2 ships more expensive becuase moon minerals are limited.

Technetium will reach high levels , AND THE ONES PROFITING FROM IT ARE BIG ALLIANCES NOT AVARAGE PILOTS, they will be given isk by new isk faceout.

Good job on screwing things up by your t2,t3 insurance.






el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2010.03.30 20:42:00 - [233]
 

Originally by: Quesa
Originally by: MeigsYan
As to insurance, no payouts for self-destructs or Concord'ed losses.
These two suggestions won't fix the suicide ganking or insurance fraud. There are so many ways around this, you aren't even thinking about it.
Fix? Not completely, but they would certainly help.

Originally by: Gotrek65
My question about this is: Are the prices for faction ship blueprints gonna be checked on contracts and will those prices be calculated into the faction ship costs?
I asked the same question earlier. The response:
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
... faction ships are considered tech 1 for insurance ...

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.03.30 20:44:00 - [234]
 

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.

wr3cks
Reliables Inc
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2010.03.30 20:49:00 - [235]
 

Strongly supported, this is terrific.

Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
Posted - 2010.03.30 20:54:00 - [236]
 

Thank you CCP, for listening to our speculations and magic crystal balling, and actually making a concerted effort to change everything that needs to be changed.


+1 For loss of Meta 0 loot
+1 To more insurance on T2 Ships
+1 To less insurance on Supercaps, if only because it might slow or stop the inevitable progression to stupid fleet battles where if you dont have a titan you're screwed...

CCP, it's good to know you listen to us, and consider what we ask of you!

DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
Posted - 2010.03.30 20:57:00 - [237]
 

You're still allowing supercapital insurance coverage?

YOU'RE STILL PAYING OUT COLD HARD ISK FOR MOTHERSHIP AND TITAN LOSSES?

That is some seriously limp-wristed, soft-footed, no-******* development.

KINDLY, MAN THE EFF UP, CCP.

No insurance of any sort on Capitals or Supercapitals, period. No basic payouts, no coverage, no safety nets, nothing, nada.

MAKE IT SO.

Yours lovingly,
DigitalCommunist
Chairman of the Supreme Council for Carebear Exterminatus

Eto Tekai
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:00:00 - [238]
 

Won't this make T3 much cheaper to buy? thus lowering the price of the melted nanoribbon?

WH's already have to deal with only so many rats to kill every day, if you cut the income from nanoribbons it might not be very profitable or worth the risk.

0verkill
Evolution
IT Alliance
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:02:00 - [239]
 

I miss you digi

Ran Khanon
Amarr
Swords Horses and Heavy Metal
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:02:00 - [240]
 

Ohnoes, my meta 0 large loot income down the drain!!

Nah. Even as a mission runner I am happy with these changes. Seems they implemented everything which I had hoped for ^_^

Only thing I wonder is this: Already a lot of the Meta 0 items are much more valuable than their meta 1-4 counterparts, wont nerfing their droprate drive up their prices even more?


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : 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