open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Adding realism to insurance in EVE
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Scagga Laebetrovo
Failure Assured
Posted - 2008.08.12 04:16:00 - [1]
 

I've noticed more than once that insurance has been quite a contentious issue in EVE. It is currently on a provisional schedule for removal with the next coming patch. Some have proposed that insurance should be completely removed, but I believe there is a middleground - adding realism.

Insurance is a business of risk. It makes little sense for an insurance company to offer the same benefits to pilots with starkly different 'safety records'.

In short, the modifications proposed are:

- Those who rarely lose ships can receive 'full' insurance benefits (current system)
- Those who regularly lose ships will have to pay higher premiums and receive lower payouts
- The insurance one receives is based on recent activity (e.g. insured ships lost in the last month)

A possible addition:

- Devolve insurance to the factions: make it possible to insure with corporations loyal to your faction, so your standings are made to matter more. This would be particularly useful for the faction militias.

Scagga Laebetrovo
Failure Assured

Posted - 2008.08.12 04:17:00 - [2]
 

And, I support this idea, Scagga!

Myrhial Arkenath
Ghost Festival
Naraka.
Posted - 2008.08.12 08:25:00 - [3]
 

Like this.

Grainjer
Posted - 2008.08.12 13:57:00 - [4]
 

Support.

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.12 14:08:00 - [5]
 

Great even more carebear buffs. Rolling Eyes

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.08.12 14:32:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
I've noticed more than once that insurance has been quite a contentious issue in EVE. It is currently on a provisional schedule for removal with the next coming patch. Some have proposed that insurance should be completely removed, but I believe there is a middleground - adding realism.

Insurance is a business of risk. It makes little sense for an insurance company to offer the same benefits to pilots with starkly different 'safety records'.

In short, the modifications proposed are:

- Those who rarely lose ships can receive 'full' insurance benefits (current system)
- Those who regularly lose ships will have to pay higher premiums and receive lower payouts
- The insurance one receives is based on recent activity (e.g. insured ships lost in the last month)

A possible addition:

- Devolve insurance to the factions: make it possible to insure with corporations loyal to your faction, so your standings are made to matter more. This would be particularly useful for the faction militias.


So, in short, the 0.0 players get the shaft?

Please consider the economics of attacking a cynojammed system. You need battleships, dozens and dozens and lots and many of them. The casualties are like a scene from The Wild Bunch. It's horrifically expensive even with insurance, and a majority of such attacks fail, meaning that you often have to try 2, 3 even 4 times.

tl;dr: Sov3 becomes virtually unbreakable unless the participants are wildly over-matched.

Scagga Laebetrovo
Failure Assured
Posted - 2008.08.12 14:58:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Malcanis

So, in short, the 0.0 players get the shaft?

Please consider the economics of attacking a cynojammed system. You need battleships, dozens and dozens and lots and many of them. The casualties are like a scene from The Wild Bunch. It's horrifically expensive even with insurance, and a majority of such attacks fail, meaning that you often have to try 2, 3 even 4 times.



I do visit 0.0. often, and I find you can make a lot more money there. Isn't it true that the richest groups in the game live in 0.0.? Don't you think this will encourage those few with obscene wealth to help equip their armies perhaps? Haven't many people in 0.0. been complaining about insurance all-together? Furthermore, aren't more ships are lost in empire space than 0.0.?

I might be wrong though, please point out if I'm not understanding this right.

The cynojammer issue is something completely different that does, in my opinion, need addressing elsewhere.

Foulque
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.08.12 18:43:00 - [8]
 

People should not be punished even further for PVP, what you propose would be a serious disincentive to people getting into it.

The only people that would benefit from this are high sec missioners/traders. There are already too few incentives for players/corps to move into low sec/00, making their losses hurt even more is the exact oposite of the way changes should be going.

Insurance may have issues, there's no denying it you only have to look at TII insurance rates but anything that is a disincentive to PVP is just a horrible direction to move in. This game would be absolutely terrible if it were restricted to PVE, the game as it stands cannot exhist without it.

Xtreem
Gallente
The Collective
White Noise.
Posted - 2008.08.12 18:53:00 - [9]
 

dont agree, pvp would suffer too much with this change

Aiden Bismuth
Gallente
Voortrekkers
Posted - 2008.08.13 05:34:00 - [10]
 

Supported!

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.08.13 06:43:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Originally by: Malcanis

So, in short, the 0.0 players get the shaft?

Please consider the economics of attacking a cynojammed system. You need battleships, dozens and dozens and lots and many of them. The casualties are like a scene from The Wild Bunch. It's horrifically expensive even with insurance, and a majority of such attacks fail, meaning that you often have to try 2, 3 even 4 times.



I do visit 0.0. often, and I find you can make a lot more money there. Isn't it true that the richest groups in the game live in 0.0.? Don't you think this will encourage those few with obscene wealth to help equip their armies perhaps? Haven't many people in 0.0. been complaining about insurance all-together? Furthermore, aren't more ships are lost in empire space than 0.0.?

I might be wrong though, please point out if I'm not understanding this right.

The cynojammer issue is something completely different that does, in my opinion, need addressing elsewhere.


You have some very wrong ideas about how things actually work in 0.0 for most players.

In essence, your proposal would make 0.0 very much harder for people who fly T1 ships, and very little different to those who fly T2. You might want to think about which type of player would be hurt by this.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.08.13 06:45:00 - [12]
 

Incidentally, if insurance in EvE was in any way "realistic", it simply wouldn't exist at all for Pod pilots. As a demographic, we rate as a worse risk than 15 year old male meth-addicted demolition derby fans.

Penchance
Posted - 2008.08.13 12:27:00 - [13]
 

If you want to make insurance realistic just have the company charge you 100m ISK per month and never pay anything out.

Jowen Datloran
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2008.08.13 13:17:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Esmenet
Great even more carebear buffs. Rolling Eyes


Wouldn't any kind of insurance removal make EVE more "harsh" so to speak?

Getting insurance can clearly only been seen as a carebear thing as it lessens the impact of losing a ship. Imagine how much more economical damage you would do to your opponents when repeatably destroying their ships, while you (being superior at pewpew) on the other hand very rarely loses a ship and as such benefit greatly from better insurance.

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.13 13:48:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Esmenet on 13/08/2008 13:55:06
Originally by: Jowen Datloran
Originally by: Esmenet
Great even more carebear buffs. Rolling Eyes


Wouldn't any kind of insurance removal make EVE more "harsh" so to speak?

Getting insurance can clearly only been seen as a carebear thing as it lessens the impact of losing a ship. Imagine how much more economical damage you would do to your opponents when repeatably destroying their ships, while you (being superior at pewpew) on the other hand very rarely loses a ship and as such benefit greatly from better insurance.


I'd support a complete removal of insurance but not one designed to make highsec even more profitable and 0.0 even more worthless. Even that would be a huge nerf to anyone living in 0.0. Probably putting the profitability far below high sec.

Winterblink
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.08.13 14:07:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
I do visit 0.0. often, and I find you can make a lot more money there. Isn't it true that the richest groups in the game live in 0.0.? Don't you think this will encourage those few with obscene wealth to help equip their armies perhaps? Haven't many people in 0.0. been complaining about insurance all-together? Furthermore, aren't more ships are lost in empire space than 0.0.?

I might be wrong though, please point out if I'm not understanding this right.

The cynojammer issue is something completely different that does, in my opinion, need addressing elsewhere.

"Visit"ing is not the same as living there, in an alliance, participating in alliance warfare. His example of the cynojammed system is perfectly valid in this discussion no matter how much you wish to marginalize the differences between empire and 0.0 gameplay. Your proposed changes affects everyone, but penalize by play style in an asymmetric fashion.

DaDutchDude
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2008.08.13 18:24:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: DaDutchDude on 13/08/2008 18:28:09
I think there's definately a point in changing insurance-mechanics, but changing it will have quite deep and also unwanted consequences.

Right now insurance in an unlimited resource that people can just endlessly use as extra funds for 'cheap fleet PVP': get disposable firepower for about a third of it's actual price. If this mechanic is changed, it should be changed in a way that doesn't discourage PVP unfairly, but does reward people for managing risk well. If for example it would cripple some 0.0-mechanics, there should be solutons found for that.

Natalia Duraldi
Gallente
Pillowsoft
Posted - 2008.08.13 21:50:00 - [18]
 

It would be better to make insurance not pay out for ships lost due to illegal activities, seeing as how Pend Insurance is under the Concord banner it would be unrealistic that they would pay you if you lost your ship to a concord action in empire space

Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Shadow Confederation
Posted - 2008.08.14 17:21:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Drake Draconis on 14/08/2008 17:22:43
I find it humorous to the people who think this would make 0.0 space worthless.

Removal of insurance would make a couple things very apparent.

The value of your ship is now much greater....
You have to stop and consider whether your ego/pride is worth more than your ship.

Makes corporations weigh whether its cost effective to attack someone making it more of a challenge as opposed to just an another slug fest.

War's don't have insurance.... thats what makes war..... nasty.
Course I don't like the prospect of losing a multi-million ISK investment like an freighter or something... or a battlecruiser.

Would put an end to the morons who can think they can just go off and do whatever they want realizing they have to buy there ships back without any payouts.

Worthless? Only if your griping about not having the ability to PvP 24/7.... make it much harder? Yes... but not impossible... would be an intriguing challenge. Hardly worthless... would make it more valuable even... as in your ship outlasting the challenges thrown at it.
I'd miss the insurance... but at least it makes PvP fights and attacks much more accurate to the true value of what takes place.... like the fact you can't just replace your ship at the drop of a hat without paying even more money to achieve the same goal.

A standoff suddenly becomes a question of whose a better "Steward" of ones cash.

Sure it won't be pretty... but it would take a lot of the "fun" out of people who don't care about money anymore... most of us don't have that kind of money anyway... that gives them pause.. and I like that.

: O )

/signed (none and tweeking for different insurance methods for sure.

Matalino
Posted - 2008.08.14 18:57:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Matalino on 14/08/2008 19:03:05
The entire premise of this proposal is flawed.

Insurance is not there to be realistic in any way shape or form.

It is there to take the bite off of ship loses.

Adding realism is not a factor when designing game mechanics.

"Realism" is used as a means to justify game mechanics after the fact.

The developers didn't start with the idea "Hey, we should allow players to buy insurance for their ships, how should that insurance work?"

They started with the idea "Hey, we should give some ISK back to a player when they lose there ships so they aren't totally screwed, now what "realistic" reason can we use to justify giving them that ISK?"

Try designing your idea with the game mechanic in mind, then try to make it "realistic" by adding fluff around it.

Your attempt to start with what is "realistic" and develop game mechanics from there will fail.

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Scagga Laebetrovo
Failure Assured
Posted - 2008.08.14 19:20:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Matalino
Edited by: Matalino on 14/08/2008 19:03:05
The entire premise of this proposal is flawed.

Insurance is not there to be realistic in any way shape or form.

It is there to take the bite off of ship loses.

Adding realism is not a factor when designing game mechanics.

"Realism" is used as a means to justify game mechanics after the fact.

The developers didn't start with the idea "Hey, we should allow players to buy insurance for their ships, how should that insurance work?"

They started with the idea "Hey, we should give some ISK back to a player when they lose there ships so they aren't totally screwed, now what "realistic" reason can we use to justify giving them that ISK?"

Try designing your idea with the game mechanic in mind, then try to make it "realistic" by adding fluff around it.

Your attempt to start with what is "realistic" and develop game mechanics from there will fail.

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.


I appreciate what you've said, and I agree. However, let us not ignore the state of the game - many people wanted a solution to capital ships online..I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping to one day see more combat taking place in smaller ships e.g. cruiser warfare and all...wouldn't you?

I admit that this idea would perhaps give titans a bit too much of an edge, however...

Scagga

Matalino
Posted - 2008.08.14 20:07:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
I appreciate what you've said, and I agree. However, let us not ignore the state of the game - many people wanted a solution to capital ships online..I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping to one day see more combat taking place in smaller ships e.g. cruiser warfare and all...wouldn't you?

I admit that this idea would perhaps give titans a bit too much of an edge, however...

Scagga
So why the garbage about making insurance more "reaslistic"?

If you think that insurance payouts should be decreased to encourage people to fly smaller ships, then bloody well say so.

That is a far more reasonable proposal. I am not sure if I support it or not, but atleast you would be stating a valid reason for changing insurance.

With the goal clearly stated you might get some reasonable ideas on how to acheive that. You can worry about making it sound "reaslistic" later.

Holy Lowlander
Lone Star Joint Venture
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2008.08.14 20:32:00 - [23]
 

bad idea.

You will make pvp so incredibly costly .

Its realistic but it would not be good for the gameplay. Lets fase it , the last thing we want is an insurence system like that IRL . Everyone hates that . Thas why they made insurence in eve so win in the first place :).


Arna Padrona
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2008.08.14 20:39:00 - [24]
 

Amen Scagga. Much better than removing it. I like.

Scagga Laebetrovo
Failure Assured
Posted - 2008.08.14 20:39:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
I appreciate what you've said, and I agree. However, let us not ignore the state of the game - many people wanted a solution to capital ships online..I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping to one day see more combat taking place in smaller ships e.g. cruiser warfare and all...wouldn't you?

I admit that this idea would perhaps give titans a bit too much of an edge, however...

Scagga
So why the garbage about making insurance more "reaslistic"?

If you think that insurance payouts should be decreased to encourage people to fly smaller ships, then bloody well say so.

That is a far more reasonable proposal. I am not sure if I support it or not, but atleast you would be stating a valid reason for changing insurance.

With the goal clearly stated you might get some reasonable ideas on how to acheive that. You can worry about making it sound "reaslistic" later.


The 'garbage' Laughing

Indeed, what I put there was more of an afterthought. The feedback you gave led me to reconsider the idea, and that's what came out Wink

Now for more feedback!

Scagga Laebetrovo
Failure Assured
Posted - 2008.08.14 20:42:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Holy Lowlander
bad idea.

You will make pvp so incredibly costly .

Its realistic but it would not be good for the gameplay. Lets fase it , the last thing we want is an insurence system like that IRL . Everyone hates that . Thas why they made insurence in eve so win in the first place :).




Yes, it makes pvp more costly - especially if you're good at losing stuff often. Everyone would feel the brunt of it - including myself. But let's think of the results, shall we? Will it really be bad for gameplay?

If the result is fewer cap-blobs and more small-ship warfare, perhaps it is?

Sometimes improvements are painful.

Matalino
Posted - 2008.08.14 21:01:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
If the result is fewer cap-blobs and more small-ship warfare, perhaps it is?
Your system favors those who lose ships less often.

Therefore, those who form up capital ship blobs to minimize their loses will receive better insurance coverage than those roaming small gangs who frequantly lose ships.

You might want to rethink your entire mechanic given your stated objective is to encourage the use of small roaming gangs instead of large capital blobs. Wink

Scagga Laebetrovo
Failure Assured
Posted - 2008.08.14 21:24:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
If the result is fewer cap-blobs and more small-ship warfare, perhaps it is?
Your system favors those who lose ships less often.

Therefore, those who form up capital ship blobs to minimize their loses will receive better insurance coverage than those roaming small gangs who frequantly lose ships.

You might want to rethink your entire mechanic given your stated objective is to encourage the use of small roaming gangs instead of large capital blobs. Wink


*Scagga's 2-stroke 35bhp brain putts along merrily while it works out a possible solution to this uphill task...was that the wind changing direction? Damn...*

J Kunjeh
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.14 21:54:00 - [29]
 

I think the only way to make insurance truly realistic and effective, is to turn it over to the players. Why not allow players/player corps to sell insurance coverage? Yet another mini-profession created! And who knows what other mini-professions players will create around it?

Matalino
Posted - 2008.08.14 22:06:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
*Scagga's 2-stroke 35bhp brain putts along merrily while it works out a possible solution to this uphill task...was that the wind changing direction? Damn...*
Well said! Laughing

I look forward to seeing a new proposal.


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