open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked A Better solution to Suicide Ganking/Insurance Issue
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

d3vo
Posted - 2009.12.26 22:38:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: d3vo on 27/12/2009 05:04:30
Increase the insurance payback to all types of ships covering:
- the cost of the ship
- the cost to insure the ship
- EXCLUDING the modules/rigs/drones/cargo/etc

Result:
Players will be MORE willing to PVP because they will not lose as much (as now).
This will reduce the risk in PVP, (unless your flying a billion isk fit on a cheap ship) hence increasing PVP activity.
More PVP activity will the increase the loss of ships (including ships that are "ganked"). Because insurance provides coverage for the ship loss, the player is able to buy the same ship again (not including the modules). Then the increase in ship demand results in increase of the manufacturing materials demand. Etc, etc.

Isn't this a good idea?

P.S. I am not trolling, I am being quite literal here...
If you disagree, please share why.

Mrs Thaiberian
Posted - 2009.12.26 22:52:00 - [2]
 

wait.. I have an even better idea let's make Eve "Call off Duty in Space"

when you lose a ship you respawn again (after 2min.) with a new shiny BS ready to pew pew.


Abrazzar
Posted - 2009.12.26 22:55:00 - [3]
 

Or you rework the whole damn industry so that ships sell for a lot more than insurance payout again. And minerals are worth something again. And being a non-combatant becomes an actual occupation and not a slavery job for alts.

d3vo
Posted - 2009.12.26 22:56:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: d3vo on 26/12/2009 22:59:01
Originally by: Mrs Thaiberian
wait.. I have an even better idea let's make Eve "Call off Duty in Space"

when you lose a ship you respawn again (after 2min.) with a new shiny BS ready to pew pew.




I do agree with the fact that "when you lose a ship you respawn again (after 2min.) with a new shiny BS ready to pew pew" is lame. However, the insurance policy should cover the ship ONLY and not it's modules.

Originally by: Abrazzar
Or you rework the whole damn industry so that ships sell for a lot more than insurance payout again. And minerals are worth something again. And being a non-combatant becomes an actual occupation and not a slavery job for alts.


I believe increase "ship loss" resulting in the increase of "ship demand" will result in the increase of "mineral demand"...amirite? Yes, mining should be an occupation and not a slavery job.

Drifter Spaceblade
Caldari
Posted - 2009.12.26 23:03:00 - [5]
 

-Make high sec rats more lethal than an annoyance to brush off
-Create algorithm where insurance is a % paid of whatever the player paid for it
-Transfer valuable minerals to low/null sec
-NO insurance given if you're Concorded
-Make T2 ships insurable so it's worth it. T2 takes more minerals to build, and if they're insured there's more chance they'll be used in PVP, which creates a heck of a lot more demand.

ect...

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
Posted - 2009.12.26 23:46:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Mrs Thaiberian
wait.. I have an even better idea let's make Eve "Call off Duty in Space"

when you lose a ship you respawn again (after 2min.) with a new shiny BS ready to pew pew.




What do you mean?

As it is now, you respawn instantly (if podded) in a nice cosy station with enough new ISK in your wallet to replace the ship you just lost.

Pretty harsh stuff.

Pretty cold and heartless.

Pretty effective consequences for your actions.

Yep... someone told me EVE was all of the above three statements. What a joke. HTFU EVE, Make this a real game. Not Hello Kitty Goes to Space.

Mr Epeen Cool

Platoon Sergeant
Posted - 2009.12.27 03:14:00 - [7]
 

So the increase in ship demand leads to an increase of material demand, raising production costs and bringing the whole situation full circle (but with better insurance paying for more expensive ships).

Furthermore, in the mean time this would just benefit insurance fraud and suicide gankers that see their loss per ship drop from ~5mil to next to nothing (if not a net gain).

d3vo
Posted - 2009.12.27 03:50:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Platoon Sergeant
Furthermore, in the mean time this would just benefit insurance fraud and suicide gankers that see their loss per ship drop from ~5mil to next to nothing (if not a net gain).



Insurance policy should never bring a net grain, but rather minimal loss.

Originally by: Drifter Spaceblade
-NO insurance given if you're Concorded

IIRC, the isk we pay for insurance doesn't go anywhere...especially not Concord. So it wouldn't make sense if our insurance company (that doesn't exist) would make an exception if the ship was Concorded.
Think of insurance as more of a private negotiation between the player and the insurance company (which against is imaginary).

Khemul Zula
Amarr
Keisen Trade League
Posted - 2009.12.27 03:59:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: d3vo
Increase the insurance payback to all ships (coving the cost of the ship itself only).
Confused

So...keep the system the same (well for T1 atleast). Laughing

d3vo
Posted - 2009.12.27 04:19:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Khemul Zula
Originally by: d3vo
Increase the insurance payback to all ships (coving the cost of the ship itself only).
Confused

So...keep the system the same (well for T1 atleast). Laughing


I cannot make numbers exactly how it should be, but at least understand the concept I am trying to portray.
Buy a Zealot for 90 mill should be insurable to cover the ship only, excluding modules, rigs, etc. So that there is minimal loss to the ship but still a loss depending on the modules/rigs fitted.

Hamano Walker
Posted - 2009.12.27 04:34:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Hamano Walker on 27/12/2009 04:36:45
You could link the insurance to actual sale price. For example if you buy a ship for 1,000,000 isk then you can insure it at a cost of 300,000 isk for a 1,000,000 payout. Its a great idea on the surface. The problem is when my corpmate has 100,000,000. I put an Abribtrator up for 90,000,000 (or whatever allows him to buy it counting taxes and fees) in the market. He buys it, insures it for 27,000,000 and self destructs. He gets his 90,000,000 back. I give him 37mil off the top to bring him back to even then we split the 63mil profit. Trying to mark the insurance to any given price point, whether its the default value, the mean market value etc. just produces a new set of numbers to plug into the insurance equation.

Par'Gellen
Gallente
Neon Cranium
Posted - 2009.12.27 04:41:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Par''Gellen on 27/12/2009 04:49:36
Originally by: Mrs Thaiberian
wait.. I have an even better idea let's make Eve "Call off Duty in Space"

when you lose a ship you respawn again (after 2min.) with a new shiny BS ready to pew pew.


Yeah. Exactly what I was thinking. I have no desire to play what would amount to Quake in Space. to the OP, there are lots of first person shooters thataway ----->.

Edit: The only idea that makes sense to me with regards to insurance is to actually make it part of the sale price of the ship (optional of course). Kinda like asking if you want fries with that burger. That's the only way I know of to scale it to cover the cost of the ship whether it's a T3 Jovian Titan or T1 Minmatarr Frigate. Make it renewable each month (or whatever) and if the premium isn't paid on time then the contract is null and void. Contracts would play hell with the system but I've never liked the whole escrow/contract system anyway and think everything should be on the market to begin with.

Samantha Spacepilot
Posted - 2009.12.27 04:41:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Mrs Thaiberian
when you lose a ship you respawn again (after 2min.) with a new shiny BS ready to pew pew.

Two minutes seems a bit long to me, 30 seconds would be better.

But other than that an excellent idea Mrs Thaiberian.

d3vo
Posted - 2009.12.27 05:00:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: d3vo on 27/12/2009 05:00:36
Originally by: Hamano Walker
Edited by: Hamano Walker on 27/12/2009 04:36:45
You could link the insurance to actual sale price. For example if you buy a ship for 1,000,000 isk then you can insure it at a cost of 300,000 isk for a 1,000,000 payout. Its a great idea on the surface. The problem is when my corpmate has 100,000,000. I put an Abribtrator up for 90,000,000 (or whatever allows him to buy it counting taxes and fees) in the market. He buys it, insures it for 27,000,000 and self destructs. He gets his 90,000,000 back. I give him 37mil off the top to bring him back to even then we split the 63mil profit. Trying to mark the insurance to any given price point, whether its the default value, the mean market value etc. just produces a new set of numbers to plug into the insurance equation.

Good point. Maybe the insurance payout should be determined by the average universal values of the manufacturing cost of the ship.

Also I want to point out that the payout should refund the cost of "insuring" the ship.
For example:
You buy a Zealot for 90 million. To insure to the maximum costs 30 million, but they payout should be 120 million.

Merovee
Amarr
Gorthaur Legion
Of Mordor
Posted - 2009.12.27 05:18:00 - [15]
 

I think that the cost of insurance should reflect the number of times you had to use insurance and the level of risk should relate to the risk of the sec of the system the ship was destroyed in.

Eg. The number of days between ship pops will lower your premiums cost (basic + surcharge) Surcharge is 100% - 5% for every day your toon goes without collecting an insurance claim.

and subtract 5% from the payout per lower sec system rating your ship is popped in. (1.0 = -0% and 0.0 = -50%)

Have 3rd party insurance (player's) issued via a contract system to cover more riskier situations to make up the short fall in payouts. Have the players lost rate and insurance claim rate open to investors. This way investors can price out the insurance risk to fit each client.ugh



 

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