open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: The Circle of Life
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (24)

Author Topic

Arboreal Feline
The Scope
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:53:00 - [121]
 

Question: Currently, it is in our best interests to destroy an insured ship when reaching the end of the insurance session, rather than re-insure the ship. With the changes to insurance payout, this would quickly become obsolete. Insuring ships more than once simply isn't cost effective. This is currently solved by insurance fraud, but after Tyrannis hits insurance fraud (hopefully) won't exist.

I propose two possible solutions to this:

1. Insurance extensions: after the initial premium is paid, and the first insurance period is about to come to a close, you can pay a smaller premium to continue your coverage. Essentially the initial outlay is the deposit, and the periodical payments are the premiums, much like RL insurance.

2. Drop the time limit on insurance coverages, aka. eternal coverage. This is a much less elegant solution, and comes with some problems of it's own which are readily apparent.

Obviously, number 1 is much more appealing. It would make people actually re-insure ships instead of destructing them for the payout at the end of the coverage, and still cost a modest sum of money periodically so as to not be a completely free ride.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:55:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: Lord Helghast
The loot table changes are welcome, but i worry of how much of a difference it will make if meta0 are replaced with meta1 isnt the refined loot the same in the end?


1) They aren't replacing the meta 0 with meta 1. They are replacing meta 0 with scrap and tags, neither are worth anything in mineral value. Scrap is too big to make it worth hauling and tags refine to virtually nothing.

2) meta 1-4 refine to a lot less minerals than their meta o version.


Originally by: Lord Helghast

I dont really see much impact from these changes though to the undervaluation of morphite and megacyte and zydrine really...


I do. Less mission loot means less high ends entering the market there. There is some info that only 30% of high ends were coming from 0.0 pre-Dominion, 10% from drone regions, and aybe 60% were from mission loot. If Dominion only doubled or trippled the high ends coming from 0.0 mining, then I could see a drastic drop in mission loot as pushing the high end prices right back up.




Originally by: Lord Helghast
is the drone poo change supposed to make that big of a difference


I think that is more the mid-grades. Mid-grades pouring from drone regions crushed the value of low-sec ores. Reduce the mid-grades from drone regions, but I'm not sure if they are increasing the highs or lows.

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:56:00 - [123]
 

Originally by: dischordia

I think a lot of people fail to see what EvE and other MMO's are ... They are games you play with OTHER PEOPLE not solo, therefore there _SHOULD_ always be people out there to work with. Be it mining ops, Pvp, Mission running, industry, exploration etc etc the list goes on.

So if you have to work as a team to get your stuff from the source to the end, well then do it, you have a team who work in highsec to get the easy stuff and then a team in low/null sec getting other things you need and you all work for the greater good. But alas people just want to sit and afk most of the time.


You don't understand. Of course people in 0.0 now do their teamwork and live there, make a lot of money with high end minerals, with highend moons, with complex and ratting and so on, so they are happy and rich (thanks dominion).
But there is not point in producing stuff in 0.0, and I think it should be better to have more industry in 0.0, that is make it profitable, that is increase somewhat the availability of lowend minerals without forcing people to mine it, because it is stupid to mine veldspar when you can mine arkonor.

Blackhorizon
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:57:00 - [124]
 

Overall, an excellent dev blog.

However, I don't think the insurance nerf goes far enough wrt fine tuning for different ship classes. Eve is far too battleship and battlecruiser centric, and a payout of close to parity will only make it worse.

Arra Lith
HUSARIA
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:58:00 - [125]
 

Another change that will sooner or later kill EVE - this time it will kill EVE economy.

Dynamically calculates payouts gives huge possibility for speculants to kill market and earn nice profit - imagine scenario:

1. Group of speculant players agree to work with each other for huge profits. They need to have some ISK on wallets.
2. First they buy all ships possible and insure them. They also buy all minerals available - and build ships from them, also insuring. Goal is to move minerals price as high as possible before insurance recalculations (with is 1 - 3 months = less than insurance cycle)
3. At recalculations day minerals price skyrocketed since last change - so insurance payouts from old contracts are like 2-5x higher. Players blow previously insured ships to collect their money.
4. At this time speculants can do 2 things:
- play to lower minerals price (just stopping buying massive amounts of them will do all the trick actually - with demand lowered 100x price will fall FAST) - they can play with T2 insurance ships now for example.
- continue to rise minerals (but that way can be risky, cause at this stage half of eve will be miners already - and with high minerals price they can no longer be able to increase minerals price 5x higher)
as low as possible - they buy tritanium from each other to move down average price to like 1 isk per trit.

And if you think there are no people with so many ISK on wallet to be able to do it - I can tell there are wallets with thousand of billions on account... should be enough for keeping minerals price high enough even for year.


In conclusion:
CCP if you dont want to kill economics keep insurance contracts fixed for whole time they last. Ie if player bought platinum insurance on 01/01 for 3m and SCC agreed to pay 10m then no matter when ship gets killed (well before 01/04) player will get this 10m. If recalculations happened mid time - it will affect only new contracts.

This way only uninsured ships can get affected by speculants - as its not possible to track at what price ship X was built. But without insurance they will need to make prices 3x higher just to break even - much less likely to happen.

Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:59:00 - [126]
 

Originally by: Camios
Originally by: dischordia

I think a lot of people fail to see what EvE and other MMO's are ... They are games you play with OTHER PEOPLE not solo, therefore there _SHOULD_ always be people out there to work with. Be it mining ops, Pvp, Mission running, industry, exploration etc etc the list goes on.

So if you have to work as a team to get your stuff from the source to the end, well then do it, you have a team who work in highsec to get the easy stuff and then a team in low/null sec getting other things you need and you all work for the greater good. But alas people just want to sit and afk most of the time.


You don't understand. Of course people in 0.0 now do their teamwork and live there, make a lot of money with high end minerals, with highend moons, with complex and ratting and so on, so they are happy and rich (thanks dominion).
But there is not point in producing stuff in 0.0, and I think it should be better to have more industry in 0.0, that is make it profitable, that is increase somewhat the availability of lowend minerals without forcing people to mine it, because it is stupid to mine veldspar when you can mine arkonor.


You don't have to mine veldspar if you don't want to. Getting trit to 0.0 is as easy as compressing some minerals (either raw or via rorqual or bang out a load of passive targetters or whatever the cool kids are using these days) loading it into a JF and Robert is your mother's brother.

Draco Argen
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:04:00 - [127]
 

Edited by: Draco Argen on 30/03/2010 17:06:37
Loot tables
I think there are Many more factors that effect this. Including how hard it is to sell rather than refine 200 mods you stockpiled.
However the suggested changes will probably work, bit nerve wracking this one.
I gain a lot of isk hauling and selling Looted mods to good markets. T1 mods are best because they stack :P

Insurance:
I think this works. Market averages, exactly what makes sense. Ship based biases, yeah.

CCP can you lay out a table of your suggested %s for all ships or groups. You covered some in the blog. Then we can critique more effectively.

* Cruisers and frigs 100%: Yes good, good for newbs, and older players will be increasing their losses by fitting T2 mods. Mods imo create enough "loss" from these kind of deaths. (Still massive high sec gank issue here, but otherwise ok)
* Inties, tacklers, ewar, logistics, all high frequency loss ships, better T2 insurance would be GREAT. My inties are like coke for me, addictive, expensive and gives you a real rush.
* T3 getting 100% on the hull sounds far better. 2 corpies have quit Eve after a T3 loss.
* What about Carriers and dreads? What % are they planned for

Jump Freighters?
What would you class Jump freighters as? Please consider 60% market. I always felt it unfair that a Carrier cost 1/4 the price and got T1 insurance. Jump Freighters are a massive investment, massive risk and a massive target. Also hardly a p0wning ship either. There fat modless whales. The "pain" in their loss is likely to be felt in the cargo alone. Since the Carrier cargo nerf (fuel bays) JFs are far more important and will be under higher use.

High Sec suicide
Just void the insurance if CONCORD kill you. Simple. PLEASE consider this.

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2010.03.30 17:04:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Arboreal Feline
Question: Currently, it is in our best interests to destroy an insured ship when reaching the end of the insurance session, rather than re-insure the ship. With the changes to insurance payout, this would quickly become obsolete. Insuring ships more than once simply isn't cost effective. This is currently solved by insurance fraud, but after Tyrannis hits insurance fraud (hopefully) won't exist.

I propose two possible solutions to this:

1. Insurance extensions: after the initial premium is paid, and the first insurance period is about to come to a close, you can pay a smaller premium to continue your coverage. Essentially the initial outlay is the deposit, and the periodical payments are the premiums, much like RL insurance.

2. Drop the time limit on insurance coverages, aka. eternal coverage. This is a much less elegant solution, and comes with some problems of it's own which are readily apparent.

Obviously, number 1 is much more appealing. It would make people actually re-insure ships instead of destructing them for the payout at the end of the coverage, and still cost a modest sum of money periodically so as to not be a completely free ride.


On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships.

In this case you would then only get a single payout per ship always on death with caveats in the future which might affect this like concordokken for example and never need to insure the ship.

To give you some data: 75% of ships that were insured were platinum. Most ships were not insured with only battlecruisers, battleships and dreadnoughts being the most insured groups as a % of the total for each group.


Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:05:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Camios
...
But there is not point in producing stuff in 0.0, and I think it should be better to have more industry in 0.0, that is make it profitable, that is increase somewhat the availability of lowend minerals without forcing people to mine it, because it is stupid to mine veldspar when you can mine arkonor.


of course, common veldspar isn't of interest. but if 0.0 would have high-density veldspar (on the scale of 500% of common veldspar), people would mine it.

Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar
Ma'adim Logistics
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:07:00 - [130]
 

Doubt this will "fix" the problem.

Firstly, what is the real problem CCP wants to fix?

Is it that mining isn't the primary source of minerals?
Is it that mining pays too much?

Insurance is being reduced and being made "marked to market" will drive mineral prices down with it unless the minerals produced goes down even more.

None of us have the exact numbers (my guess is that CCP has them or should be able to get them with some datamining).
But the only way this won't seriously kill mining is if the mineral "faucet" that is missioning actually gets reduced by more than the relative reduction in insurance and that the rest of the mineral production is smaller than the demand for ships.

Personally I would have started with removing the minerals completely from missionrunners (reducing their income a bit isn't a bad thing). Then check if that is enough to push the mineral market up above the insurance floor.
Doing both at the same time risks killing mining as a non-macro profession as profits will go down significantly.

Also reducing insurance for supercaps is probably a bad idea. It will put them in harms way less and supercaps is one of the few really large mineral sinks there are so less supercap (and capital for that matter since you didn't mention them) kills will drive the need for minerals down which in turn will drive mineral costs down and insurance down even further again adversely affecting non-macro mining the most.

So what is the intention for relative earning potential for miners compared to other pve sources?
Should for example 0.0 mining of ABC ores pay the same as a lvl4 in high sec per hour?

Will hauler spawn mechanics and loot change as well?




Ashina Sito
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:07:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Camios
Edited by: Camios on 30/03/2010 16:31:02
I am a bit concerned about lowend minerals abundance in 0.0.
Usually miners go for ABC because it's not worth to mine veldspar in 0.0, unless you sell tritanium at 7.00 isk per piece or so.

So usually in 0.0 tritanium is obtained from reprocessing loot.

Now if there will not be any compensation for this producing stuff in 0.0 would become even more difficult, while

I mean, it is quite strange that there is hunger for trianium in the richest region of EVE, I think that 0.0 should be self sufficient for low end minerals.
Now for many people the tritanium/pyerite supply is a problem.

Maybe we need more hauler spawns? or maybe bigger veldspar roids? it's quite strange that the biggest veldspar roids contain just 15k m^3 of veldspar while a crokite roid in a grav site is 160k m3.


EDIT: I hope that lowsec mining will become a bit more valuable. You could for example make so that nocxium can be found only in lowsec minerals. Since you don't need extremely large amount of it it can be ferried around with no problem.




From the Blog...

Quote:
The initial changes will introduce higher amounts of low end minerals such as tritanium, pyerite or mexallon to low sec or certain null sec ores ensuring you can make it worth the effort to mine these as a viable alternative instead of purely mining the ABC asteroids constantly. Here we are following the same principles of better balancing the supply to the demand rate ratio.


So some of those ores in 0.0 will have low end mins added to them to provide a bit of a crutch for you.

If this adds to the logistics that alliances have in 0.0 so what? It is still easy to handle. I do it my self but on a smaller scale.

Personally I would like to see alliances mining Veld in 0.0 because the logistical hassle of moving that much trit from Empire is not worth it. Alliance/Corp mandatory mining ops. Nothing wrong with that.


As to the Blog itself I see nothing but good. Ok, not to excited about seeing more scrap metal in the loot table but I guess it is the price you have to pay to get rid of Tech 0 loot.

dischordia
Gallente
Knights Of Anarchy
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:07:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Camios

You don't understand. Of course people in 0.0 now do their teamwork and live there, make a lot of money with high end minerals, with highend moons, with complex and ratting and so on, so they are happy and rich (thanks dominion).
But there is not point in producing stuff in 0.0, and I think it should be better to have more industry in 0.0, that is make it profitable, that is increase somewhat the availability of lowend minerals without forcing people to mine it, because it is stupid to mine veldspar when you can mine arkonor.


Oh I do understand it but 99.9% of everything made in eve requires Trit and that needs to come from somewhere, so what if you need to mine some trit for a day to make your stuff in 0.0? yes i understand that it may not be up to the profit per hour of the nice stuff in 0.0 but who cares? as if you make the profit in the end.

Lika Mal
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:08:00 - [133]
 

Why not base insurance/ insurance primiums also on probability of the pilot losing his ship. AKA if the pilot in previous insure period has a a bad kill/loss ratio than the cost to insure his/her ship should be more.

Since in the real world car insurance work similar.

Abrazzar
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:09:00 - [134]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships.

In this case you would then only get a single payout per ship always on death with caveats in the future which might affect this like concordokken for example and never need to insure the ship.

To give you some data: 75% of ships that were insured were platinum. Most ships were not insured with only battlecruisers, battleships and dreadnoughts being the most insured groups as a % of the total for each group.

While this may make things a bit more convenient and simple for many, it would also remove an ISK sink that would need replacement. Actually, we could use some more ISK sinks as is, I think.

Dav Varan
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:10:00 - [135]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Arboreal Feline
Question: Currently, it is in our best interests to destroy an insured ship when reaching the end of the insurance session, rather than re-insure the ship. With the changes to insurance payout, this would quickly become obsolete. Insuring ships more than once simply isn't cost effective. This is currently solved by insurance fraud, but after Tyrannis hits insurance fraud (hopefully) won't exist.

I propose two possible solutions to this:

1. Insurance extensions: after the initial premium is paid, and the first insurance period is about to come to a close, you can pay a smaller premium to continue your coverage. Essentially the initial outlay is the deposit, and the periodical payments are the premiums, much like RL insurance.

2. Drop the time limit on insurance coverages, aka. eternal coverage. This is a much less elegant solution, and comes with some problems of it's own which are readily apparent.

Obviously, number 1 is much more appealing. It would make people actually re-insure ships instead of destructing them for the payout at the end of the coverage, and still cost a modest sum of money periodically so as to not be a completely free ride.


On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships.

In this case you would then only get a single payout per ship always on death with caveats in the future which might affect this like concordokken for example and never need to insure the ship.

To give you some data: 75% of ships that were insured were platinum. Most ships were not insured with only battlecruisers, battleships and dreadnoughts being the most insured groups as a % of the total for each group.





Last count I had 40 ships in my hangar.
Insuring all of them would cost a fortune, not knowing which one gets blown up next is a real pain.

Therefore most of my ships are uninsured unless I intend to go out in a blaze of Gallente slaughtering glory ( no offence ).

Having T1 ship payout set at 70% max with no premiums would be a big boon.


Thrasymachus TheSophist
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:11:00 - [136]
 

This will be interesting. I like that the big ships just got more expensive - keeping combat amongst BS and smaller viable.

I doubt the supply-side adjustments will be enough to maintain current mineral prices - thus mineral values, ship values, and insurance payments are all likely to drop, probably dramatically, before reaching a new equilibrium that will be decidedly lower.

Supply for ships will shrink given that they will no longer be a source of ISK (via self-destruction). I don't think the price drop will cause any increase in demand, as people's desire for ships is relatively static - you need to have one, and you pay whatever you must to get it.

Excuse me while I go liquidate my mineral stocks.

Draco Argen
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:11:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Arboreal Feline
Question: Currently, it is in our best interests to destroy an insured ship when reaching the end of the insurance session, rather than re-insure the ship. With the changes to insurance payout, this would quickly become obsolete. Insuring ships more than once simply isn't cost effective. This is currently solved by insurance fraud, but after Tyrannis hits insurance fraud (hopefully) won't exist.

I propose two possible solutions to this:

1. Insurance extensions: after the initial premium is paid, and the first insurance period is about to come to a close, you can pay a smaller premium to continue your coverage. Essentially the initial outlay is the deposit, and the periodical payments are the premiums, much like RL insurance.

2. Drop the time limit on insurance coverages, aka. eternal coverage. This is a much less elegant solution, and comes with some problems of it's own which are readily apparent.

Obviously, number 1 is much more appealing. It would make people actually re-insure ships instead of destructing them for the payout at the end of the coverage, and still cost a modest sum of money periodically so as to not be a completely free ride.


On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships.

In this case you would then only get a single payout per ship always on death with caveats in the future which might affect this like concordokken for example and never need to insure the ship.

To give you some data: 75% of ships that were insured were platinum. Most ships were not insured with only battlecruisers, battleships and dreadnoughts being the most insured groups as a % of the total for each group.




Hold on, are you suggesting Removing different levels of insurance, ie only premium insurance. Or Automatically insuring ships with no user initiation?

el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:11:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships.
Since you asked, I say remove NPC insurance entirely (or maybe after 6 months or something for noobs). This opens a quasi-profession for some corps, adds a new level of market-type PVP to the game, and adds risk to a game that capitalizes on it.

I am very aware that this suggestion ****es-off the capitals-online blob crew. Meh.

teji
Ars ex Discordia
Here Be Dragons
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:15:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships.


If we keep the same amount of insurance payout adjusted for no premium cost that would be incredibly awesome to not have to worry about insurance expiring and needing to self destruct my ships and buy new ones.

Callin Vandyx
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:15:00 - [140]
 

I think the insurance changes, while a good start, rather miss the point.

Calling this "insurance" at all is a misnomer. A real insurance market (such as in the USA, the unemployment insurance market, or all over the world, the life insurance market) varies its rates depending on an actuarial estimate of the likelihood of loss.

Hence, each character (or account? or corp? or combination thereof) should be given an "experience rating," based upon the likelihood of that character's losing a particular kind of ship within the insurance window (currently 12 weeks).

Additionally, statistics overall should be kept, in a variety of ways: universally, by region, by security, etc.

Then, the base insurance payout (which is what's being changed here) should be modified on an individual purchaser's basis. If you just got into a ship and have never lost it, your rates will largely mimic the overall rate. If you have flown your Raven for an insurance period and never lost it, the next time your insurance cost is lower. If you fly your Rifter and it keeps getting destroyed, eventually your insurance cost will be 100% of the payout. The insurance window could be lowered from 12 weeks to something shorter to allow building up an "experience rate" faster; auto-renewal of insurance could also be implemented similarly to the way corporation hangar renewals are handled.

This is how a real insurance market would work. Right now, the "insurance" EVE offers is uneconomical and unrealistic to the point that it breaks the suspension of disbelief.

Then, layer on top of this basic actuarial/experience rate system the perks that the government (CCP) likes to add: a premium discount that depends on the age of the avatar (or account) to help new players adjust; exclusions to the policy in certain cases (such as being destroyed by CONCORD or self destruction or corpmates?), and so forth.

I personally don't insure my ships unless I know I'm going to lose them. This is exactly the situation that real insurance seeks to avoid through a variety of means. In the USA, for example, the new (future) requirement that all persons buy health insurance seeks to balance this "self-selection" problem that healthy people would otherwise just not buy insurance - in effect forcing them to subsidize the healthcare of sick people - but also knowing that one day they will get older and sick and need others to subsidize them at that time.

So, all in all, I don't like the changes. That is in part because I am always happier with the devil I know, but also in part because the changes still don't go far enough or make enough sense.

Personally: I don't insure my ships, because my experience rate is darn near zero. But if I went into lowsec or nullsec with any regularlity, I definitely would, as my carebear ships would normally be killed 100% of the time, or at least, 100% of the time in any 12 week period.

Cheers,

Callin

Kalda Centauri
Gallente
Reckoning.
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:16:00 - [141]
 

Two quick questions on the Asteroid changes:

The way the blog was worded, it makes it sound like you will be adding tri, py, and mex to some of the 0.0/low sec ores. Will you also be increasing the amount of ore in the low end asteroids in low sec/0.0 as well (ie, bringing the quantity of veld in a veld asteroid up from 150k to something like 300k or higher)? And is there any plan to introduce new asteroids into low sec/0.0 that yield more of the high-sec minerals than the high sec ores do? (Super Veld! But with a less tacky name)

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:20:00 - [142]
 

Let me see if I follow all the changes.

Loot drops: Not an across the board reduction in all M0 loot. They identified certain items that contribute most of the minerals. My guess, this is stuff like the big turrets and maybe ABs, MWDs, armor plate? If I understand the blog, we should expect to see just as many ECM Bust modules, just a hecka-lot fewer 1400mm arty and mega lasers. Not really hurting the supply of mods used for invention.


Drone drops: I'd love to hear more on the remix. Fewer whats and more whats? Fewer mid-grades and more low-ends?


0.0: More low ends from 0.0 rocks? More info please. Are we still going to crush the mineral market with massive oversupply, just from 0.0 instead of mission drops?


Insurance change: I like it. No more unlimited mechanism of turning minerals into ISK. I do fear for the miners though. No floor. What will the macros do?

Douglas WildOak
The Executioners
Capital.Punishment
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:24:00 - [143]
 

If you can make no-user initiation insurance contracts a reality without detracting from the best part about this game (real loss upon death), I'm all for it. In other words, don't make death meaningless. Real losses must continue.

Oh, and long live the continuing/upcoming era of the BC!

Kenz Rider
J Club
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:25:00 - [144]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis


On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships.

In this case you would then only get a single payout per ship always on death with caveats in the future which might affect this like concordokken for example and never need to insure the ship.

To give you some data: 75% of ships that were insured were platinum. Most ships were not insured with only battlecruisers, battleships and dreadnoughts being the most insured groups as a % of the total for each group.




1) Leave the decision to insure.

Create 3 classes: base, middle (gold?) and platinum. How many people use third highest payout :)?

Extend insurance to 6 months.

2) T2 prices will find a new equilibrium with increased "insurance" (bad word for this game mechanic). It's hard to believe this would be lower. It could be 50% of the insurance rise or even 100%. Since the payment will increase with each rise in price, you have a continuous feedback model. These systems can be exhibit growth on the order of exp(x) - f(x), where f(x) denotes a function that somewhat limits growth but not completely. Be very cautious with implementation of this system especially since you are changing two things at once: raising the payout and creating a feedback mechanism.

3) Consider a 90% payout maximum on T1, I think the system would be more stable, though I can't prove it quantitatively in a limited amount of time.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:29:00 - [145]
 

Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Kerfira
The basic T1 loot from mission running should not be replaced by anything. Mission running is way too profitable as it is, and the loot is a relative minor part of the total rewards.

They said they are replacing them with scrap metal and more tags.

The reason I commented on it was that the blog could be read as if they were removing only SOME of the basic T1 loot:
Originally by: DevBlog
We identified a core set of loot tables which are responsible for contributing to the majority of the NPC loot sourced minerals and these are the first ones we want to adjust with Tyrannis, reducing the quantity of the Tech 0 items being dropped and substituting it with a variation of scrap metals or tags, for example.

Secondly, they don't say haw MUCH scrap metal and how many tags they're putting instead....

Mirei Jun
Right to Rule
THE UNTHINKABLES
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:30:00 - [146]
 

There is a great deal of speculation on the results of this change. However:

Absolutely no one can predict with pure accuracy what this will do. It simply affects too many aspects of Eve. I, as many do, support the intention, but close monitoring of the results is absolutely essential. This brings me to the second point.

Too often are changes and additions made to Eve only to be left by the wayside when the focus of our illustrious development team changes. This update is so far reaching it must be monitored and carefully adjusted diligently. You cannot declare this change "done" and push it to the back shelf while working on "the next big thing".

Economy is what drives Eve. This is the biggest change the game has seen yet -bigger then the speed changes, bigger then the entire graphics update, bigger then sovereignty. Please tread carefully.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:30:00 - [147]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether.



How about making it a daily DT thing? Getr rid of insurance offices in stations and make it available anywhere. When I assemble a ship I'm asked if I want it to have insurance, if I say yes, I'm charged 1 day's insurance. Then each down time, I'm charged one more day's insurance. Cancel the insurance anytime I want, or anytime I don't have the cash to pay my insurance. No payout at ALL if I say no to insurance. Instead of 30% all at once for 90 days, make it.. oh... .03% per day. Then make the max payout .7 of the ships mineral price. Seems like something that could run concurrent to the logic that respawns asteroids or resets missions other such "daily downtime" stuff.



I know, I know. Much bigger changes and this is supposed to be a minimal code thing to fit in the iteration.

Kenz Rider
J Club
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:31:00 - [148]
 

Originally by: Callin Vandyx
I think the insurance changes, while a good start, rather miss the point.

Calling this "insurance" at all is a misnomer. A real insurance market (such as in the USA, the unemployment insurance market, or all over the world, the life insurance market) varies its rates depending on an actuarial estimate of the likelihood of loss.


It's not insurance, but you miss the point it's not meant to be insurance. It's just a bad name for the game mechanic they have implemented. It should be called "free ship fund" or something catchy with that basic gist. The point is not to create insurance, it's to create a way to mitigate losses and encourage PvP.

Real insurance would be a very small market in EvE.

Daminma2
Perkone
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:34:00 - [149]
 

I personally would love the stupid insurance mechanic removed. Make base X-35% payout and be done with it.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:35:00 - [150]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships.

In this case you would then only get a single payout per ship always on death with caveats in the future which might affect this like concordokken for example and never need to insure the ship.

As for automatic insurance I'd say that is in conflict with a basic part of EVE's nature. Normally you and you alone are responsible for what happens because of your actions or inactions, including forgetting to pay insurance.
Without this the game would be less challenging and offer even less things that would cause emotion in players ("Arghhhh, I'm an idiot... I forgot to insure my ship before undocking!"... and the "lol, rofl" replies)...
Things that cause emotional response in players (whether positive or negative) are good!

Also....

You should keep the date when you do the recalculation and revaluation quiet, and with some random element in it. The numbers should of.c. be gathered over a period long enough that the system is difficult to manipulate, even if you got almost unlimited ISK.

TBH, this is actually the bit that worries me most about this. What you really SHOULD do is fix the insurance on the day the ship is insured! That way the system can't be manipulated.
As you already store the date the insurance was made on, you could do a lookup table holding payouts for insurance made at that time.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (24)

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