open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked A real life look at insurance. Dare I say add a credit score?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

NinjaSpud
Posted - 2011.02.18 17:09:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 22:08:02
Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 20:35:43
Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 19:11:06
Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 17:37:40
Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 17:35:52

EDIT: The scope has changed a little, Let's get a colaberative effort to fix the insurance. Read my thoughts, and feel free to find the bugs and post a few of your own here. I will endevor to update this as often as possible based on your suggestions...flames will be extiguished, and Trolls hunted down and displayed to the public for a flogging Razz

edit 2.0: Just to be clear here, my goal is to get insurnace payouts a little higher without making it SO, here's my fix...take it or leave it.
scamable. More ins payouts = more pvp.

The so called insurance this game has always had me a little confused.

Lemme get this straight. I can buy a 100 million isk ship, add 50 mill worth of mods, pay for platnium insurance wich will cost 40 mill only give me about 90 mill back when the ship goes byby. (im just using rough estimates right now to make a point)

So for a total cost of almost 200 mill...I'll get about 50% of what I invest.
Insurance is so terrible that most corps have their own method of insurance in the form of ship reimbursment plans.

So again, I'll say "Not very lifelike" (and again I'll recognize the irony of comapring real life to a online spaceship game)

Obviosly insurance is this way becuase of the insurance scams. If you start getting a profit on ships, people will simply create, insure, and blow their own ships up.

If you where caught doing this in real life (ignoring the fact that you'll probably go to jail), at the very least your insurance rates would skyrocket. Your $50 a month full coverage from progessive would jump into a $150 a month liability, that is if your insurace company didn't give you the ol'Boot out the door. Lets try to build a system that relfects that shall we?

So, why do people lose ships in Eve? I can really only think of two main ways!
1) Careless carebears
1a) bad mission fit Battleship puts on the wrong hardners, gets scramed by a lvl 4 mission frig, dies to rat fire..tough luck, shoulda googled the mission.
1b)those poor carebears who fall victim to gankers

2) Pvp battles.
a-z) <add scenario here>

SO, here's my fix...take it or leave it.

Creat a insurance system that asks 'why' (did you lose your ship). Based on the formula: Why = Who + What When + Where + How.
How was the ship destroyed? Who was flying it? Whats this pilots history/What was on the ship? Where was it destoyred at? When was it destroyed?

Combine all these factors and create a 'credit score'. This credit score will dictate how much you get back in insurance. A perfect credit score = 100% return on items destroyed.

The best part is, there's allready a system that keeps track of this....BATTLECLINIC

Like all forms of insurance, you need to submit a claim...Eve claims could be in the form of Kill Mails.

NinjaSpud
Posted - 2011.02.18 17:11:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 22:14:17
Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 22:12:44
Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 22:11:11
OK, so Eve insurance looks at the kill mail you submitted and takes these into consideration:

Who : Who lost their ship? Whats his standing? Of course a - standing will result in a lower sec status becuase you participate in pvp alot and lose ship, thus are a liability. Where as a + status means you're more of a carebear and thus trustworthy of a good payout.

What (what killed you) : If it was in a mission by an angel gurista, thats ok...if it was another Eve player that has a - standing, you may have been ganked. go to Who and determin your standings

When : Pirats with - standing, might incrase their standing by ratting to get higher insurance payouts..make a minimal submission time for full insurance claims to prevent fraud

Where: High sec, in a mission = full payout (providing who and what are good). Low sec to a pirate = less of a payout if you have a + sec status. And even less of a payout if you yourself are a pirate w/ a -status. Null sec should not have insurance payouts, as your pvp does not affect your standing...this is the wild lands, let the coorperations deal with it themselvs.

How : How many people killed you? Did you get caught in a gate camp or where ganked? yes = high payout. Was it a 1 on 1 grudge match? yes = medium payout. (after, of course, who what when where are determiend)

Insurance history (exluding null sec, as null sec ins should be alliance based) : Each time a pilot looses a ship, their insurance payout goes down, and their expence goes up. Lets make this history last for severl months at a time. If you constanlty lose ships in high/low sec you're never gonna get 90% of your ships value...becuase chances are you're tyring to scam the system.



Why + Insurance History of pilot = Credit score = direct impact on your insurance payout.

War decs. EDIT seeing as how EVE is pvp based, lets have the insurance formula ignore war decs and war dec related pvp. so no matter how many times you kill your WT, your insurance wont skyrocket.



all these factors should result in your credit score. And only a perfect credit score will return 90% of your lost items when you lose your ship.
EDTE: As per a good suggestion (and the fact a few pointed out to me that insurance isn't an investment) I've reduced the possible 'max payout' to 90% vs 100%


NinjaSpud
Posted - 2011.02.18 17:18:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 22:04:33
Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 22:01:52
Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 20:49:22
Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 20:39:16
Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 17:43:17

To sum it up. If you hare a good pilot, not a raider, and you lose your t2 fit battleship one day in a mission becuase you broguth the wrong hardners...you should be able to get 90% of the value back.

If you have a history of 'behaving your self..more or less' and get cought in a gate camp in low sec...maybe you will get most of your money back, and face higher permiums in the future.

If you're a naughty piratYARRRR!!, intent in participating in hulkageddon and other mischievous acts...insurnace companies will see you as a high liability. Your rates will be high, and your payouts low.

Originally by: CosDa**** Palpatine
id say never let it become 100% then. I like the 3 month score cycle though because sometimes you change professions, sometimes your in a heavy PVP corp/alliance and have large losses often, sometimes you move out and mission to rebuild sec status and spend a while rarely getting killed.

A short cycle works, maybe even only 2 months.

Maybe you can boost your credit score with them by having more kills, since in effect the more ships you're out killing the more "customers" you giving them :P


Good idea, i support it and added it

EDIT Regarding t2 and t3 ships/mods Right now the max insurnace payout is based on the mineral vaule of the ship. Why can't the same rule be applied to the t2/t3 stuff? I've yet to produce t2 and t3 equipment, so I'm not sure in the cost of the moon goo/items that goes into it. but I do know there is a market value on everything. Why nto base the insurnace based on the production equipment for t2 and t3?

EDIT in Regards to Null Sec insurance I stated earlier that null sec should not have insurance. Let me sligthly adjust that phrase. "Null sec should not have high sec insurance, instead, make it alliance owned". It doesn't make sense that high sec factions should respect null sec activities. If I insure a car in America, and transport it Germany, and crash and burn it on the Autoban, the american company would be liable to reimburse me. Null sec alliances are large enough to afford the overhead of insurance, If managed correctaly it could turn into a cash cow for an alliance...if managed incorrecatly it could break them.
Insurance purchased threw the Imperail Arrmamanet, Amarr faction, shoudlnt' have to worry about what happens in PNQY, NC space.

Jaigar
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe
Transmission Lost
Posted - 2011.02.18 17:56:00 - [4]
 

Overly complicated while at the same time easy to exploit.

Why should you be fully compensated for failing on a mission, and why shouldn't null sec people get some form of insurance? Knowing you will get 20-30 mil back sometimes can cover your ass(when you are in a pinch).

And it discourages low sec pvp. Why is someone with high security status going to go pvp at all in low sec if it decreases their payout on insurance?

NinjaSpud
Posted - 2011.02.18 18:09:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 18:10:14
Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 18:09:37
Originally by: Jaigar
Overly complicated while at the same time easy to exploit.
Why should you be fully compensated for failing on a mission, and why shouldn't null sec people get some form of insurance? Knowing you will get 20-30 mil back sometimes can cover your ass(when you are in a pinch).

And it discourages low sec pvp. Why is someone with high security status going to go pvp at all in low sec if it decreases their payout on insurance?


It's not complicated. A simple algorythim and a small in game feature addition could implement it.

And, well, if not to cover peoples ass's without being exploited, what is insurance for?

you're right though, it does discourage low sec pvp. I guess I didn't think of that when I was trying to create a more usefull, scam proof system. I do not want to step on one group just to satisfy another, so for that reasoning alone perhaps the insurance system shouldn't be messed with

PVP is the driving force behind eve, but not the only force. I think 100% payouts for insurace shold be avaliable to those who do not participate in pvp.

Perhaps keep the current insurance payouts as they are, but give a little extra to the victims of ganks and high sec non-pvp releated tragedies??

Bill Banner
Posted - 2011.02.18 18:13:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: NinjaSpud

So for a total cost of almost 200 mill...I'll get about 50% of what I invest



Insurance is not an investment, it's very existence depends on receiving more money in than it pays out.

Manalapan
Dynasty Banking
General Tso's Alliance
Posted - 2011.02.18 18:20:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Manalapan on 18/02/2011 18:20:22
Two things:

1) Real Life insurance is based on the idea that you are protecting against the unlikely, house catching fire, getting hit by a bus, etc. EVE insurance is a way of buffering the guaranteed loss (players can afford to replace ships and continue to play EVE and pay the subscription).

2) Battleclinic is not owned, supported, or endorsed by CCP, so would not work as a viable mechanic for anything in game.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.18 18:38:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 18/02/2011 18:39:45
Insurance in EVE is not a business — it's a mechanic to take the edge off of ship losses and to make more ships explode. Therefore…
Originally by: NinjaSpud
If you where caught doing this in real life […] Lets try to build a system that relfects that shall we?
No, let's not, because the two have nothing to do with each other.

The only sensible way to make the EVE insurance system dynamic is this: the more ships you lose, the cheaper the insurance will be.

Durin Sarga
Posted - 2011.02.18 18:56:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Durin Sarga on 18/02/2011 18:58:33
If this is to be done by CCP, then they need to address the ISK faucet portion of insurance.

They need to develop an algorithm which incorporates the ISK they take in from purchasing insurance, and the ISK they pay out from pilots losing ships. Just like any normal insurance company.

Currently EVE insurance is like a sovereign bank providing insurance. You lose your house, they would cover the cost no prob, and just print the money to cover the payout. It's stupidity at its finest.

A true insurance 'company' is interested in taking more money IN than they pay OUT. Because that is how the company makes money and thus can pay their employees, etc.

I have no ideas for how this would lay out specifically, but this is the problem we are facing. The current insurance system makes no attempts to balance it's inflow with outflow.

A good start might be the removal of the minimum insurance. This would eliminate a lot of ISK production right there. If you don't pay into insurance, you shouldn't get anything out of it.

NinjaSpud
Posted - 2011.02.18 19:02:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Durin Sarga
Edited by: Durin Sarga on 18/02/2011 18:58:33
If this is to be done by CCP, then they need to address the ISK faucet portion of insurance.

They need to develop an algorithm which incorporates the ISK they take in from purchasing insurance, and the ISK they pay out from pilots losing ships. Just like any normal insurance company.

Currently EVE insurance is like a sovereign bank providing insurance. You lose your house, they would cover the cost no prob, and just print the money to cover the payout. It's stupidity at its finest.

A true insurance 'company' is interested in taking more money IN than they pay OUT. Because that is how the company makes money and thus can pay their employees, etc.

I have no ideas for how this would lay out specifically, but this is the problem we are facing. The current insurance system makes no attempts to balance it's inflow with outflow.

A good start might be the removal of the minimum insurance. This would eliminate a lot of ISK production right there. If you don't pay into insurance, you shouldn't get anything out of it.



are you infering that perhaps a player run insurance format would be better?


CosDashit Palpatine
Crypsus
Posted - 2011.02.18 19:14:00 - [11]
 

NinjaSpud, despite all the replies against your idea, i for oen think it was well thought out and personally think it works.

Perhaps the other posters didnt read everything you wrote? They say an insurance system is meant to take in more than they pay out.

2 things.

1: your system does in fact do this, you pay into your insurance and get killed often they dont pay back 100% of your loss, and if you're high enough risky you'll be paying them far more than they're paying you.

2: real life insurance will pay out more than they take in if you have a clame early on in your business dealings with them. If you buy a car and buy full coverage and within a month get it totaled youll be getting back far more $ than you gave them for your 1 month of insurance.



I think there should either be no insurance at all, or something like this idea put into effect. THeres no logic behind making ISK for getting yourself killed by your own actions. The longer you go without getting killed the more you should get back since you obviously aren't likely to get killed so often as to cost the insurance company a lot to recover your losses. I've lost multiple ships in a single day, and ive had other ships that ive insured several times as it expires and still havent lost them meaning ive given the insurance system far more ISK for that ship that i would ever get back.

Your idea is fine.

NinjaSpud
Posted - 2011.02.18 19:17:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 19:20:22
Originally by: CosDa**** Palpatine
NinjaSpud, despite all the replies against your idea, i for oen think it was well thought out and personally think it works.

Perhaps the other posters didnt read everything you wrote? They say an insurance system is meant to take in more than they pay out.

2 things.

1: your system does in fact do this, you pay into your insurance and get killed often they dont pay back 100% of your loss, and if you're high enough risky you'll be paying them far more than they're paying you.

2: real life insurance will pay out more than they take in if you have a clame early on in your business dealings with them. If you buy a car and buy full coverage and within a month get it totaled youll be getting back far more $ than you gave them for your 1 month of insurance.



I think there should either be no insurance at all, or something like this idea put into effect. THeres no logic behind making ISK for getting yourself killed by your own actions. The longer you go without getting killed the more you should get back since you obviously aren't likely to get killed so often as to cost the insurance company a lot to recover your losses. I've lost multiple ships in a single day, and ive had other ships that ive insured several times as it expires and still havent lost them meaning ive given the insurance system far more ISK for that ship that i would ever get back.

Your idea is fine.


Thanks, I tried my best Very Happy
but keep in mind i'm still open for ideas. My idea is 1 idea among 200 thousand people. I'm open for suggestions and quirks that will make it better Very Happy

CosDashit Palpatine
Crypsus
Posted - 2011.02.18 19:26:00 - [13]
 

id say never let it become 100% then. I like the 3 month score cycle though because sometimes you change professions, sometimes your in a heavy PVP corp/alliance and have large losses often, sometimes you move out and mission to rebuild sec status and spend a while rarely getting killed.

A short cycle works, maybe even only 2 months.

Maybe you can boost your credit score with them by having more kills, since in effect the more ships you're out killing the more "customers" you giving them :P

Durin Sarga
Posted - 2011.02.18 20:16:00 - [14]
 

I generally agree with your idea NinjaSpud.

What I was trying to say is the groundwork principles we should be shooting for.

The 'mechanic' for addressing insurance claims makes sense. But insurance is much more than just addressing claims.

We would need additional mechanics for valuation of property. Is my ship worth 30M? 50M? What about my fitting? Can I get my fitting insured? How would we evaluate T2/T3 ships which currently fall through the cracks of the current insurance system?

To answer your question though Ninja, I am advocating a player driven insurance system. The problem with player run insurance is that it will always run into security issues. However, my alliance is currently exploring models for achieving adequate ship insurance for T2/T3 ships & fittings. So, we'll see.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.18 20:40:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 18/02/2011 20:41:08
Originally by: Durin Sarga
A true insurance 'company' is interested in taking more money IN than they pay OUT. Because that is how the company makes money and thus can pay their employees, etc.

[…]

A good start might be the removal of the minimum insurance. This would eliminate a lot of ISK production right there. If you don't pay into insurance, you shouldn't get anything out of it.
It would also eliminate the entire point of the insurance system in EVE. If it doesn't pay out more than it costs (including paying out more when the cost is zero), it serves no purpose.

Again: insurance in EVE is not a business and any attempt to make it one (or even to think of it in those terms) means you haven't understood what its role and purpose is in the game. Insurance is there to incentivise combat — its purpose is to make you want to lose more ships, not to be careful with them, and to give industrialists something to do.

It cannot be player-run because players will want to make money from running that insurance business, but the whole point of the insurance system is to not rake in more money than the clients cash out.

CosDashit Palpatine
Crypsus
Posted - 2011.02.18 20:52:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Edited by: Tippia on 18/02/2011 20:41:08
Originally by: Durin Sarga
A true insurance 'company' is interested in taking more money IN than they pay OUT. Because that is how the company makes money and thus can pay their employees, etc.

[…]

A good start might be the removal of the minimum insurance. This would eliminate a lot of ISK production right there. If you don't pay into insurance, you shouldn't get anything out of it.
It would also eliminate the entire point of the insurance system in EVE. If it doesn't pay out more than it costs (including paying out more when the cost is zero), it serves no purpose.

Again: insurance in EVE is not a business and any attempt to make it one (or even to think of it in those terms) means you haven't understood what its role and purpose is in the game. Insurance is there to incentivise combat — its purpose is to make you want to lose more ships, not to be careful with them, and to give industrialists something to do.

It cannot be player-run because players will want to make money from running that insurance business, but the whole point of the insurance system is to not rake in more money than the clients cash out.


While this sounds good and is certainly a point to consider, is there any record of the dev's going over this as being the purpose of the insurance? If so i would change my stance, and agree with you here.

If this is simply how you view it or how it is viewed by others i would argue that it's always up for debate on how or why it works and how it should work. If the purpose of the game mechanics is to promote PVP then there should certainly be more risk for ganking and pirate activity and less reward for it since it doesn't promote risks to them just to others. Because of Concord its basically impossible to pre-emtivly strike at pirates or suicide gankers waiting for kills. I think there should be a balance to make things risky for everyone. Im not generally in support of taking away all risks but there are certainly professions avaliable in EVE that have little risk and some have that have high risk. Finding a balance to it all is certainly not easy. I think i just want a little more logic to it. Im happy they fixed a lot of the Insurance Scam aspects of it though, that was pretty ridiculous.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.18 21:14:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: CosDa**** Palpatine
While this sounds good and is certainly a point to consider, is there any record of the dev's going over this as being the purpose of the insurance? If so i would change my stance, and agree with you here.
Buy Dr Eyjo a beer at FanFest and he will tell you all about it… Razz
Quote:
If the purpose of the game mechanics is to promote PVP then there should certainly be more risk for ganking and pirate activity and less reward for it since it doesn't promote risks to them just to others.
No, the purpose is to promote ship destruction and ganking does that expertly. The target is (hopefully) destroyed and has to buy a new ship and the attacker is certainly destroyed and has to buy a new ship. They also get their money back and can do it again soon. Everybody wins (well… maybe not the target, but he's not particularly important on the scale of things).

It promotes the one risk that matters: that stuff blows up, often, and with 100% certainty.

Disincentivising ganks by giving them lower (or no) insurance pay-outs goes entirely against this purpose: they can't gank as often and/or they have to use cheaper setups, neither of which is good because that means less movement on the market and less work for the industry to replace it all.

CosDashit Palpatine
Crypsus
Posted - 2011.02.18 21:49:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Buy Dr Eyjo a beer at FanFest and he will tell you all about it… Razz


I'll def keep an eye out for him when i'm there. Should make for an interesting convo for sure, cant wait to pick their brains :D

Quote:
No, the purpose is to promote ship destruction and ganking does that expertly. The target is (hopefully) destroyed and has to buy a new ship and the attacker is certainly destroyed and has to buy a new ship. They also get their money back and can do it again soon. Everybody wins (well… maybe not the target, but he's not particularly important on the scale of things).

It promotes the one risk that matters: that stuff blows up, often, and with 100% certainty.

Disincentivising ganks by giving them lower (or no) insurance pay-outs goes entirely against this purpose: they can't gank as often and/or they have to use cheaper setups, neither of which is good because that means less movement on the market and less work for the industry to replace it all.


Interesting. Then perhaps we just need more things to blow up. More than the ships and POS items. Would def help to make Outposts splodable.

NinjaSpud
Posted - 2011.02.18 21:55:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 21:59:18
Edited by: NinjaSpud on 18/02/2011 21:58:59
I've updated the original post with a few suggested fixes that I liked. (they're in bold)

Tippia, I doubt very much that lower insurnace payouts would stop or even hinder ganking. People dont gank for money, they gank for the kills and the tears. That being said, I would not wish to penalize anyone for participating in a totaly legal aspect of the game like ganking.

The word I'm trying to use is Consequences. If you're a pirat, don't expect good insurnace. *paues* I mean, how funny would it be to see a group of scurvy lawless pirats in line at the DMZ...Pirats chose that path to become the 'badguys' of Eve. Being bad is fun. BUT as a pirat, one should accept the fact that the 'normal' society will most likly throw them out...why should a Pirat benefit from a 'civilized' comfort like insurnace?

In all fareness though, don't cut them totaly out, but just don't reward them for being wreckless with their status. Much like if you attack people in highsec/lowsec you will eventually not be able to enter high sec because of your security status. Or if you kill alot of Amarr rats, eventually you're not gonna be liked by the amar empire.
Both scenarios are fixable with a little grind and diplomacy training. why not make the insurance companies fallow the same pattern of Misbehaivor = Lower rewards.

Durin Sarga
Posted - 2011.02.18 22:07:00 - [20]
 

Ship insurance does indeed promote the concept that it is 'ok' to lose your ship because it is covered. However, the current system does not promote the other hallmark of EVE, which is the tradeoff between risk/reward.

As for player-driven insurance not being viable I humbly disagree. I know many pilots who fly T2 ships, but refuse to use them in combat because there is no effective means of insurance, and these are fairly high ticket items. Wouldn't it be a nice day if we saw more T2 pilots fielding more T2 ships?

Right now combat is reserved to the uber-wealthy (due to: only fly what you can afford to lose) and the cost efficient grunt playing the T1 insurance.

Again, I make no attempt to exactly define a system by which this could be addressed, but I definitely see where the insurance system is broken. It does flood the market with ISK. Buying a ship off the market changes ISK from Person A to Person B. Losing a ship in combat causes CCP to fabricate ISK from thin air. Thus we continue to experience cost inflation in the game and see an expansion of the monetary supply.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q3-2010.pdf

Page 32. 6.9 TRILLION ISK worth of ships were lost last July. @ a minimum 40% Insurance payout for all that we have 2.76 TRILLION ISK floated into the EVE economy for nothing. Page 17 shows the 'active' money supply at 226T ISK. So with our figure on ship insurance payouts, we get 1.2% inflation to the money supply every month. From ship insurance ALONE. Dr. Eyjo in the December CSM minutes expressed serious concern about the rapid 5% per month growth in the money supply. Well, hello, here is 20% of that in one go.

A new insurance system based around risk assessment and a 'pay in' before we 'pay out' would help A LOT. Does this seem counter-intuitive to the MOAR DEATHZ crowd? Yes. Is it probably a better 'overall' approach for mending EVE's broken economy? Yeah, it is. So the question becomes what is more important? PvP? or EVE on the whole? You tell me.

CosDashit Palpatine
Crypsus
Posted - 2011.02.18 22:12:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Durin Sarga
Ship insurance does indeed promote the concept that it is 'ok' to lose your ship because it is covered. However, the current system does not promote the other hallmark of EVE, which is the tradeoff between risk/reward.

As for player-driven insurance not being viable I humbly disagree. I know many pilots who fly T2 ships, but refuse to use them in combat because there is no effective means of insurance, and these are fairly high ticket items. Wouldn't it be a nice day if we saw more T2 pilots fielding more T2 ships?

Right now combat is reserved to the uber-wealthy (due to: only fly what you can afford to lose) and the cost efficient grunt playing the T1 insurance.

Again, I make no attempt to exactly define a system by which this could be addressed, but I definitely see where the insurance system is broken. It does flood the market with ISK. Buying a ship off the market changes ISK from Person A to Person B. Losing a ship in combat causes CCP to fabricate ISK from thin air. Thus we continue to experience cost inflation in the game and see an expansion of the monetary supply.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q3-2010.pdf

Page 32. 6.9 TRILLION ISK worth of ships were lost last July. @ a minimum 40% Insurance payout for all that we have 2.76 TRILLION ISK floated into the EVE economy for nothing. Page 17 shows the 'active' money supply at 226T ISK. So with our figure on ship insurance payouts, we get 1.2% inflation to the money supply every month. From ship insurance ALONE. Dr. Eyjo in the December CSM minutes expressed serious concern about the rapid 5% per month growth in the money supply. Well, hello, here is 20% of that in one go.

A new insurance system based around risk assessment and a 'pay in' before we 'pay out' would help A LOT. Does this seem counter-intuitive to the MOAR DEATHZ crowd? Yes. Is it probably a better 'overall' approach for mending EVE's broken economy? Yeah, it is. So the question becomes what is more important? PvP? or EVE on the whole? You tell me.



But when you buy insurance doesn't that cash leave EVE? Isnt buying insurance a sink?

Durin Sarga
Posted - 2011.02.18 22:20:00 - [22]
 

Also, Tippia. If the game was just about combat, and designed to serve just combat. Why isn't everyone and their mother on the test server? Things are free over there. You can fight and fight and fight until you're blue in the face.

Combat in EVE is a result of us believing it has meaning. PvPers collect tears because tears are shed. Tears are shed because there is a sense of 'value' placed on that which is lost. If the items we lose cease to have value, PvP ceases to have value. If the items we lose have inherently more value, then PvP has inherently more value.

The goal should be to make PvP meaningful, not just something you do with a beer in hand on a Friday night expecting to accomplish nothing. Pirates kill for tears, and they kill for ISK. The ISK comes from a healthy economy. If a pirate were to kill a ship and get nothing for it, he ceases to find value in the game and quits. I want pirates to receive tears. I want pirates to receive ISK for well-done destruction. But that means making PvP have value. Not decreasing that value through obscene inflation.

Durin Sarga
Posted - 2011.02.18 22:22:00 - [23]
 

Yeah Cos, buying insurance is indeed a sink. You lose 10M ISK when you first buy some insurance. You then turn around and lose the ship and receive 22M ISK back.

Net ISK Faucet of 12M ISK.

So insurance as a complete system is still a major faucet.

NinjaSpud
Posted - 2011.02.18 22:24:00 - [24]
 

I'm starting to like you, Durin. Very good points to be made!

CosDashit Palpatine
Crypsus
Posted - 2011.02.18 22:31:00 - [25]
 

They can always have in game fines for certain activty. Instead of Concord blowing up a ship for illegal activty, fine them a bunch of ISK. Cause their ship blowing up is no sink, and their insurance is a faucet anyway, fine them a bunch of isk for their crime. only prob is that will def annoy a lot of players :)

NinjaSpud
Posted - 2011.02.18 22:34:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: CosDa**** Palpatine
They can always have in game fines for certain activty. Instead of Concord blowing up a ship for illegal activty, fine them a bunch of ISK. Cause their ship blowing up is no sink, and their insurance is a faucet anyway, fine them a bunch of isk for their crime. only prob is that will def annoy a lot of players :)


Careful with this one. Concord is the punishment, high sec ganking is the crime. No concord = no worries about losing your ship = bunches of rich pirats trolling around blowing everyone up. bad...very bad!

Concord good...
Maybe, instead, the insurnace wont' pay out if concord is on the KM

NinjaSpud
Posted - 2011.02.18 22:36:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Durin Sarga
Yeah Cos, buying insurance is indeed a sink. You lose 10M ISK when you first buy some insurance. You then turn around and lose the ship and receive 22M ISK back.

Net ISK Faucet of 12M ISK.

So insurance as a complete system is still a major faucet.


yea, but that isk then goes where? New ships, New mods, new implants etc. and that equals a larger, stronger economy.

Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris
Etherium Cartel
Posted - 2011.02.18 22:42:00 - [28]
 

I personally hate suicide ganking and insurance etc, but if you accept nearly instant police response, you have to accept that insurance is unrealistic as well. If you come up with a better law enforcement system, then I'll join your hate insurance train revolution!

NinjaSpud
Posted - 2011.02.18 22:43:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Durin Sarga
Ship insurance does indeed promote the concept that it is 'ok' to lose your ship because it is covered. However, the current system does not promote the other hallmark of EVE, which is the tradeoff between risk/reward.

As for player-driven insurance not being viable I humbly disagree. I know many pilots who fly T2 ships, but refuse to use them in combat because there is no effective means of insurance, and these are fairly high ticket items. Wouldn't it be a nice day if we saw more T2 pilots fielding more T2 ships?

Right now combat is reserved to the uber-wealthy (due to: only fly what you can afford to lose) and the cost efficient grunt playing the T1 insurance.

Again, I make no attempt to exactly define a system by which this could be addressed, but I definitely see where the insurance system is broken. It does flood the market with ISK. Buying a ship off the market changes ISK from Person A to Person B. Losing a ship in combat causes CCP to fabricate ISK from thin air. Thus we continue to experience cost inflation in the game and see an expansion of the monetary supply.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q3-2010.pdf

Page 32. 6.9 TRILLION ISK worth of ships were lost last July. @ a minimum 40% Insurance payout for all that we have 2.76 TRILLION ISK floated into the EVE economy for nothing. Page 17 shows the 'active' money supply at 226T ISK. So with our figure on ship insurance payouts, we get 1.2% inflation to the money supply every month. From ship insurance ALONE. Dr. Eyjo in the December CSM minutes expressed serious concern about the rapid 5% per month growth in the money supply. Well, hello, here is 20% of that in one go.

A new insurance system based around risk assessment and a 'pay in' before we 'pay out' would help A LOT. Does this seem counter-intuitive to the MOAR DEATHZ crowd? Yes. Is it probably a better 'overall' approach for mending EVE's broken economy? Yeah, it is. So the question becomes what is more important? PvP? or EVE on the whole? You tell me.


We're forgetting a major thing here guys....the cost of mods.

You can buy a 32mill isk battlecruiser, and stack 40mill isk worht of mods on it no problem. Ya lose the ship, even insured, and you're still out tons of money.

CosDashit Palpatine
Crypsus
Posted - 2011.02.18 22:48:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: NinjaSpud

We're forgetting a major thing here guys....the cost of mods.

You can buy a 32mill isk battlecruiser, and stack 40mill isk worht of mods on it no problem. Ya lose the ship, even insured, and you're still out tons of money.


Yeah but those mods are built in game with minerals not ISK and all the isk moves between players not in and out of game.

A fine instead on concord they keep their ship but can lose the value of the ship they killed in fines. The ISK goes away, gone poof. They wont stay rich for long if they keep getting fined.

Biggest issue is where is the fine? if they get fined everywhere then game starts to lose ISK. Again this idea wont happen anyway.


The cost of mods are hard to take into account for insurance because as it is you get back more isk than you pay the insurnace system, as was pointed out to me, this means the game creats more isk than it destroys.


Pages: [1] 2

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