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

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.18 22:55:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Durin Sarga
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.
Because there is no market on the test server. The game isn't about combat combat is just the enabler of industry, and industry is the enabler of combat. What sits at the core of EVE, and which makes or breaks the game, is the market that lets those two interact.

What the game is about is having a living universe and the market is the machinery that makes that happen. People aren't blowing each other up on the test server because it serves no purpose. It doesn't drive anything. Nothing gets accomplished by it. It's entirely meaningless.
Quote:
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.
The inflation only happens if there is no production to match the influx of ISK (and, obviously, if the outflux of ISK does not match the outflux of items). The ISK injected by the insurance is (meant to be) counterbalanced by the injection of produced goods that the ship destruction generates. Historically, it was also meant to provide a base value to minerals, but botting/no-sense-of-opportunity-cost blew that plan out of the water and that role was removed a large part of inflationary effect insurance had was lost when they made the payouts market-based.

Durin Sarga
Posted - 2011.02.18 23:12:00 - [32]
 

40% Base insurance without any investment by the player is a farce. Insurance should be scalable.

You want 40% coverage, pay 4% for insurance.
You want 100% coverage, pay 10% for insurance.

Then we will start to clamp down on the ISK faucet.

You want fitting coverage? Fine, how about a 'rider policy'. Say I have a 30M ISK battlecruiser. I want 15M ISK in 'fitting overage'. I buy 100% insurance (3M ISK) and a 50% fitting overage rider policy (1.5M ISK). These are not scaled for true economics, but give you an idea of the vision.

Then if Mr PvP fits too much value in mods to his ship he eats the excess that is not reimbursed. But according to our example he is reimbursed 30M for the ship and 15M for the fittings. A 'check' would be in place to see if the fittings lost constitute a full reimbursement on the fittings or not.

But once again I think this isn't the 'whole picture'. We need to look at insurance from an EVE-wide perspective. CCP has no intention on running a 'true' insurance agency which actually keeps track of inflow vs outflow. So why pretend? Just eliminate the ISK faucet altogether, and allow the players to insure each other. What about trust and scams between players? Oh, you mean the ones that already exist? We scam each other all the time, and still players find trustworthy sources of credit, partnership, etc. That's why EVE is a sandbox. Eliminate the CCP backed insurance and you will be surprised what players will do to encourage PvP and help each other.

At the very least tie insurance payouts to the characters 'risk'. This way players who blow up more ships aren't killing the economy as quickly as they normally would.

Centri Sixx
Posted - 2011.02.18 23:40:00 - [33]
 

That's impossible to do on any sane level. Just get rid of insurance. CCP honestly doesn't give a damn about suicide ganking: if anything theyd encourage it, because they want us all to lose ships. Most insurance for the new people that need it isnt worth it anyways-it may cover the hull, but the hull is a tiny part of the cost next to rigs and mods.

It wont depress PvP because there is too much ISK in the economy anyways.

Sheledra
Posted - 2011.02.19 02:42:00 - [34]
 

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?


Remember the number one rule of being the good guy, the pirate is the one who shoots first. The good guy doesn't loose sec status, and in fact gains sec status from killing outlaws.

Pirates are just happy to be in the fight, even if they loose. The good guys need a reason, some sort of goal. Ideas like this while not perfect, are a step in the right direction.

Di Mulle
Posted - 2011.02.19 09:35:00 - [35]
 

What I would propose is renaming insurance to something else. Amount of people being tricked by the familiar word is astounding.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.19 14:00:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Di Mulle
What I would propose is renaming insurance to something else. Amount of people being tricked by the familiar word is astounding.
Could work.

Just name it "industry incentive subsidy" and everything will be fine. Wink

Corina's Bodyguard
Posted - 2011.02.19 16:19:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Di Mulle
What I would propose is renaming insurance to something else. Amount of people being tricked by the familiar word is astounding.
Could work.

Just name it "industry incentive subsidy" and everything will be fine. Wink

Thats pretty much what it is. And if renamed to that, we then will be free of the "no insurance for gankers" posts we get every week.


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