open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked A serie of possible solutions to the Insurance Fraud crisis thing
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

Broski Enterprises
Posted - 2009.12.22 20:42:00 - [31]

There is no issue.

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
Posted - 2009.12.22 20:48:00 - [32]

Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.


Plus what is wrong with scamming an insurence company all the time?

Elena Laskova
Posted - 2009.12.22 20:56:00 - [33]

Insurance fraud is a symptom of a badly messed up economy. It works, but it's on permanent "emergency" life-support.

CCP have a chance to fix the real issues as part of the introduction of T3. So far they don't seem to be taking advantage of the opportunity.

Posted - 2009.12.22 21:11:00 - [34]

Insurance isnt always a good business, that you should know by now.
Insurance covers always an estimative value of a ship(who cares if zydrine gets sold on jita market for 0.00000001 isk)
Suicide ganking, tough one, related to facultative insurances, hey i've smashed my car in a wall, i'm the only one to blame for, ofc the insurance will refund the whole stuff based on its current value.
Self-destruction , as above.

Insurance in eve is like the insurance in real world, you do not need it but it may help you when it's the case.

The Exploited.
Posted - 2009.12.22 21:21:00 - [35]

Originally by: Albion Stormchaser
Originally by: Chaos Incarnate
Originally by: vulnevia
If Concord is invovled: no insurance. The only rule we need.

Doing this would unfairly harm newer players because older players want to suicide gank, which is not a good thing

I think he means that theres no payout for the Ganker, but the ganked gets insurance.

Albion is right; if you get ganked by Concord you don't get any pay out Smile BUT that would mean that you couldn't gank macro miners as effective as we can do now.

Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2009.12.22 21:34:00 - [36]

They should just include a 5% tax/processing charge on insurance payouts. That should just about nuke the few million per destruction of each battleship that most people are reporting they make after the market cost and full platnium coverage.

Winters Chill
Ministry of War
Posted - 2009.12.22 21:38:00 - [37]

Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.




Aloriana Jacques
Royal Amarr Institute
Posted - 2009.12.22 21:41:00 - [38]

Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.

If this were true, then there wouldn't be even a fraction of the discussion on the subject that currently exists. :)

Posted - 2009.12.22 21:44:00 - [39]

Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.

^^ This

Posted - 2009.12.22 21:51:00 - [40]

Originally by: Aloriana Jacques
Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.

If this were true, then there wouldn't be even a fraction of the discussion on the subject that currently exists. :)

hmm , so if I start a topic with "Battleships issue" and start moaning about they should cost 1million isk only, then it will become a issue after it ?

Body Count Inc.
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2009.12.22 21:51:00 - [41]

Option number 9. Leave it alone except for removing insureance for criminally flagged activities.

Option number 10. Just leave it alone.

Mrs Thaiberian
Posted - 2009.12.22 21:53:00 - [42]

Originally by: Trvaeler

So you can make 10-15m/h self destructing ships at best? So what? You can make twice that doing a level 4 in the same amount of time.

Which brings us to other Hot thread: "Nerf L4's.." LOL oh my, I really love this game Laughing

Originally by: Magnus Orin
Insurance Contracts, in my opinion, are by far the best option.

For one, it is taking a market out of the hands of CCP and NPCs and giving it to the players, creating more sandbox.

For two, it would give Corporations and Alliances a huge relief to the headache of ship reimbursement programs.

And three, I think the guys up in the Market Discussion forums have been salivating over the insurance market in Eve for a long time brainstorming ways for this to work. I can see many insurance corps opening and a very competitive market emerging.

yeah, pretty much this.

I think it could be very interesting. I like it.

Posted - 2009.12.22 21:53:00 - [43]

I don't think theirs any problem, but i'm not a market guru...

Who cares if a few guys are making millions off the fraud, its really not enough to be worth it in the larger market sense, and do you know why? Because more people would be doing it in mass if it was. Mineral prices are at the low of low right now, if they go lower, that profit margin per suicide gets bigger, and if it gets bigger, more do it because its more attractive, and if more do it, demand for the minerals that are required to make battlehips increases, and as demand increases for minerals, the prices on minerals will go up just a bit again. They'll go back up to about the point where they are at now, where its kinda profitable, if you are bored and crazy enough to want to do it seriously, but not profitable enough for everyone to go out and start popping their ships.

Now as far as suicide ganking hulks and payments go, thats all besides the point and reserved for one of the other threads. Insurance as it is, is not in crisis.

Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2009.12.22 22:00:00 - [44]

Originally by: Aloriana Jacques
Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.
If this were true, then there wouldn't be even a fraction of the discussion on the subject that currently exists. :)
By that logic, EVE doesn't even exist any more, considering the amount of "EVE is dead" threads we've seen. And highsec, lowsec, and nullsec all need to be purged from the game. In other words, the amount of discussion (which, btw, is very very tiny compared to most other issues around) has nothing to do with whether there is an actual problem or not.

…also, none of the "problems" in the OP are really problems. At most, insurance might be an unduly large ISK faucet because mining is poorly implemented, but that's about it.

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
Posted - 2009.12.22 22:12:00 - [45]

Originally by: Kalnov

There is no issue.

There was no issue with ghost training either... until everyone started doing it. Then CCP took notice. Funny that.

Now that the knowledge of how to self destruct for fun and profit is is out in the general population, you will see everyone taking a shot at it. CCP will take notice, sooner or later and changes will be made.

Might as well have a thread such as this one where ideas can be discussed before that happens.

I'm partial to Concord bowing out of the insurance business altogether.
Sandbox, remember?
Let we, the players figure out how to make it work. Either through corp sponsored or private insurance companies.

Mr Epeen Cool

The Greater Goon
Clockwork Pineapple
Posted - 2009.12.22 22:13:00 - [46]

Originally by: SweetHoney
Originally by: Aloriana Jacques
Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.

If this were true, then there wouldn't be even a fraction of the discussion on the subject that currently exists. :)

hmm , so if I start a topic with "Battleships issue" and start moaning about they should cost 1million isk only, then it will become a issue after it ?

Yes. You would have to convince many others in order to flood the forum, but yes, if there's enough *****ing about a particular topic, then it becomes a "problem" regardless of the merits. Additionally, I fully encourage you to start this "battleship issue" campaign, as I think it would be sweet to fly 1m Megathrons.

Versatech Co.
Posted - 2009.12.22 22:24:00 - [47]

Originally by: Woodwraith
It's puzzling that a 6 year old game mechanic that has never changed is suddenly a 'crisis'

Your precept is incorrect.
It is not an unchanged 6yr old game mechanic.

Posted - 2009.12.22 22:56:00 - [48]

Transferring insurance system to players will be very problematic:

Let me try explain the basics of insurance, this a a very general explanation without getting textbook:

The whole point of insurance is to spread risk, so that not a specific single person would have to bear the full financial risk of any particular event.

The types of events that can be covered falls into two broad categories:
1. Where the risk is purely a loss
2. Where the risk is either a loss or a gain (such as gambling)

By logical reasoning, no insurance company will sanely insure the latter type of event.

The insurer takes a small premium for providing this service.

The events in point 1 are statistical in nature and as such follow 2 fundamental rules of statistics (which i will instead give the meaning):
1. When a sample becomes sufficiently large, it will be close to the true probability (LLN)
2. Even though it gets close to this true number, the absolute difference increases (CLT)

So with a very large base of clients, rule 1 will be sufficiently met
and with a large initial capital cushion, rule 2 is met (although in reality its too large for 1 insurance company to handle and so we have reinsurers which will obviously be Chribba since ive heard hes very honorable)

So far, all good.

The problem comes with this bit: the clients.

Insurance companies must try to minimize their risks by nit picking 'good' clients, thus they can reduce their premium and attract more customers.

Although in reality, these companies are not allowed to be biased to a certain degree, foremost being race. Other things are taken into account: age, gender, geographical location - all of which is not relevant to eve. And two 'personality traits' of risk aversion of the client which are namely Moral Hazards and adverse selection.

The former describes a person who is normally risk averse becoming more complacent because of the pre-knowledge that he is insured. (Will you run back home if you cant remember whether you forgot the stove on)
The latter describes a person who will take up insurance knowing in advance that he/she will need to claim. (Everyone who is 18-25 and owns a car)

Real world population: General mix of all types of personalities
Eve population: All Moral Hazards and All adverse selections

Thus, with the current mechanics in the game. Player insurance premiums will be too expensive / It will make huge losses as everyone has adverse selection in eve. In any event, it will lead to economic imbalance, as the whole manufacturing chain is balanced off by the fact that time and effort used to mine the ore is eventually made into isk by ship destruction. Although even the current system can use some make over.

Another thing people fail to take into account is, in reality insurance is more for the convenience of sleeping well at night and ,of course, avoiding tax.

Another difference that i thought of (i may be wrong cause not in textbooks) is that in eve, everything is completely homogenous and can be perfectly replaced, whereas in reality we attach sentimental value to lots of useless things (Mona Lisa)

Bite me inc.
Narwhals Ate My Duck
Posted - 2009.12.22 23:13:00 - [49]

The situation is self regulating

Enoch Thered
Posted - 2009.12.22 23:47:00 - [50]

The only thing that comes close to 'needing fixing' is the self-destruct-insurance. Everything else is fine as it is.

Man these forums are full of nothing but terrible ideas and whines

Turiel Demon
Celtic industries
Posted - 2009.12.23 00:00:00 - [51]

Originally by: kyrieee
The situation is self regulating

Haha no it isn't.

Well ok, it kind of is in that 'insurance fraud' gets compensated by using up a ton of minerals making minerals more valuable and so the cost of building ships rises to make 'fraud' unprofitable...

The problem with that is it acomplishes the mineral basket price regulation by injecting a MASSIVE amount of ISK into the economy: At a rough estimate (and I'll be happy to explain it to you in detail but it shouldn't be neccesary - it's talked about here) about 12 people building BS on an industrial scale to profit off of insurance fraud generated 19.8 TRILLION isk in the period of about 6 weeks with nothing but player time spent.

We've actually jsut been talking about this on the MD, of course not for the first and almost certainly not for the last time. It's about as close to an intractable problem as that eve offers.

The Scope
Posted - 2009.12.23 00:24:00 - [52]

Originally by: Kalnov
There is no issue.

Halcyon Ingenium
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Sanctuary Pact
Posted - 2009.12.23 00:36:00 - [53]

The only sensible fix to this that I've heard is the cancellation of payments to self destructs and criminally flagged activity. Not altering the insurance system, and eliminating it altogether, are extremes that will cause more problems than not in the long run.

Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Posted - 2009.12.23 02:00:00 - [54]

Originally by: SebbyTheFreak
Idea 05 : Similar to above, put a STANDING SCORE with the insurance company. Would be a re-use of already existing game mechanics and probably fairly easy to add. Standing is affected by statistics like frequency of ship loss, ratio of money paid/gained to/from insurance company, security status, etc.


Base the standing on an NPC corp that you can't run missions for. (If Pend has agents, then spawn a Pend Account Auditing corp without agents and use that corp's standing.) Each insurance payout also generates a standings hit proportional to the "base: insurance payout (before reductions). If there are no payouts for a specified time increment (week or month) then you get a standings boost. And, finally, payouts are linked to standings (ex: you get 0% of what you'd normally be entitled to at -10, 50% at -5, 100% above 0. No bonus insurance for safe flyers, though positive standings would give you a buffer for future losses.

This would have a minimal effect on new players (they would get full insurance for a while, and they would need to lose many frigates and cruisers before having a meaningful impact on their standings), would prevent large-scale insurance fraud, and would penalize suicide gankers, as well, without simply removing insurance entirely.

Excellent idea!

Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
Posted - 2009.12.23 02:39:00 - [55]

Edited by: Forge Lag on 23/12/2009 02:55:05
We are searching for answers but what was the quiestion? Why do we need insurance?

New players: well insurance is nice but from may own nub experience I took only baseline free insurace and I never got anything for lost modules. On top of it, I wanted to sell my ships anyway as I upgraded, especially if they were rigged. If we indeed need insurance for new players, than we need to broaden insurance into destructed modules too (they have base price the same ships do, it is used for repair costs).

Fleet PvP: now this is IMO the real reson to have insurance. So that CCP can boast they have huge battles. Because huge battles with Apocalypses are so much more awesome than battles with Moas and Feroxes. If you remove insurace, lots of ships, mostly BSs, would become obsolete. Suprisingly enough, BSs will start to actually mean something again.

I am really not sure what is the reason why we still have insurance even after the often cited yet largely pointles removal of shuttles.

Maybe CCP master design revolves around all activities producing raw ISK - ratting, L4s, but also mining (insurance) and wormholes (sleeper tags). Maybe the reason is that converting items to ISK is irreversible process that de-facto removes items from game (but why sell skillbooks for ISK then and not minerals?). It is pretty sick line of thinking but it might be true. And it might be true even if such design was not intentional.

Edit: Actually, no, ISK are not the final step, I was blind when slapped with skillbooks. You buy those - and blueprints. That is the real end, you will never ever get to trade skillbook to NPC neither will you get to trade BPO in any way. This would explain why CCP has no issue with insurance and neither they have issue with T2 BPOs, they cannot be changed into another game item. Either I am genius or moron, should I laught or vomit? Someone correct me and make some sense of it :)

Vagrant Troubadours of the Vast Expenses
Bitter Nomad's Orchestra
Posted - 2009.12.23 05:44:00 - [56]

Edited by: SebbyTheFreak on 23/12/2009 05:56:15
Originally by: Erayo
Transferring insurance system to players will be very problematic:

Yeah I know that. Also, however, everyone in EvE is "rich" by real world standards as well.

Personnally, I'm not really proposing a complete transfer, but the ability to offer it as well. Even if simply for corp logistics.
In retrospect, it's not really a "fix" but a feature. As it has been said, there's been people asking for it for years now.

Nit-picked clients could profit from cheap, weekly-paid insurance, or even module insurance, etc. Some people would enjoy the possibility on both sides.
Setting checkable conditions (security status of system in which the loss occured, not payable if killmail is from a corpmate, etc.) Paying through either one large sum or daily/weekly/monthly micropayments. Etc. After-all, LOANS are doable through contracts, could just be summed up to it's simplest part and made a sub-version of it. "Free-form contracts" was a nice idea... too bad it's sorta ill-fated.

Anyway, lunatic raving mode "off".


Also, whoever said buying and self destructing a ship took as long as making a mission is kinda ******ed.

Level 4 mission: takes between 15 minutes and an hour at least from blitzing for a net payout of between 5 and 30 mils.

Building hundreads of battleship WHILE running missions, and then spending about an hour to undock and get concorded with a criminal flagged character can net between 10 and 15 millions direct profit every minute from insurance (25 seconds undocking, 25 seconds re-docking, 5 second lag between the two) and then the money made from salvaging all the abaddon wrecks can easily add another million or two (or more) per ship.

It's like looting an arbalest heavy missile launcher every minute. Plus it's a super-easy task to make a macro of.

Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2009.12.23 06:26:00 - [57]

if we were to scrap insurance.... mineral prices would "plummet", mining would be even less interesting. the "arkonor for everyone \o/" policy that got kicked off with wormholes and got more ridiculous with the new sys-indu-upgrades has only just begun to unfold.

but hey... without it, the economist would no longer be able to denounce inflation with a straight face... Rolling Eyes

i'd sign anything excluding concordokken and self destruct from payouts though.
- raises the bar for high-sec-gank and not every 50mil-content-hauler gets ****d
- self-destruct your mom caught ratting in a belt/plex; player can decide between insurance or embarrassment.

Lekegolo Khanid
Arbeitaholics Anonymous
Posted - 2009.12.23 07:07:00 - [58]

This "problem" will most likely sort it's self out but if action is needed then just say no insurance for self destruct, then they would have to pop the ships, I imagine some would team up with corp mates to pop each other but even so that would cut this down to about half of what it was previously.

Elite Qin
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.12.23 07:41:00 - [59]

Easier: we all go out and commit insurance fraud until there aren't any more ships to commit insurance fraud with. That way, everyone on the forums wins, and all the idiots that are selling their ships for such little money lose!

Posted - 2009.12.23 08:43:00 - [60]

Can't you do Idea 00 but give newbies exempt?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to

These forums are archived and read-only