open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Insurance - does it need to go?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet
Yulai Federation
Posted - 2011.02.10 15:12:00 - [1]
 

I would like to hear some opinions here as to how a complete removal of insurance would impact Eve, both in terms of gameplay and the economy.

Personally, I think removing insurance would have the following effects (how positive or negative they are is open to debate of course):
  • Less reliance on capitals due to increased risk of deployment

  • General lower demand for ships and modules (hence lower prices for the same, as well as their components)


(I am sure there is much more, these are just some very obvious things from the top of my head)

The question I want to hear input on along with this is simple: would it be a good thing to remove insurance from Eve?

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.02.10 15:31:00 - [2]
 

Originally by: Horizonist


The question I want to hear input on along with this is simple: would it be a good thing to remove insurance from Eve?


No, because it would make people even more risk adverse than they already are. This would result is lowered amounts of PvP, fewer people making risky trips to low or nullsec, and a reduced demand for anything related to ships (modules, rigs, etc) since fewer would be lost.

It would also impact the ability of new players to get into PvP (they can't sustain the losses the way a presumably older player can), as well as their ability to more rapidly recover from PvE losses. Insurance may need looking at and tweaking, but it definaitely still has a purpose as a game mechanic.

Justine
Posted - 2011.02.11 12:14:00 - [3]
 

I could count on one hand the number of times I have insured a ship in six years of game play, it's too expensive.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.11 12:23:00 - [4]
 

No. Insurance is a combat enabler, and combat is what drives industry and production. Yes, it also acts as a faucet, but it's a minor one compared to the really big offenders, and those ones are not counter-balanced by the same creation of production opportunities which (should) balance out the ISK influx.

Miacacea
Posted - 2011.02.11 12:37:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Miacacea on 11/02/2011 13:09:06
my personal opinion insurance must be changed and not removed completely (now it not reflect real risk or insurance only small part of risk asset). it must reflect different aspect of gameplay also. not only 'blank' hull of ship must be insured, also it must be possible to ensure fit and independed module for player. insurance company can rely to kill-mail on loss of and of course must offer more flexible rates, for example if player isurance ship often and don't encounter any ship loss, rate for such pilot must be decreased.

If ccp doing insurance inside game then we must go more close to real life process... i even accept possibility to give human corporates offer insurace for ships and assets :) why not?

Gavjack Bunk
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.02.11 13:08:00 - [6]
 

Perhaps some sort of modifier for pilot performance is in order.

Insurance Base Price * Ratio based on ([value of?]Ships lost / Age in Days)

Something like that anyway.

Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
Posted - 2011.02.11 13:52:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Jagga Spikes on 11/02/2011 13:52:55
Originally by: Gavjack Bunk
Perhaps some sort of modifier for pilot performance is in order.

Insurance Base Price * Ratio based on ([value of?]Ships lost / Age in Days)

Something like that anyway.


insurance is there for people that lose ships. most mission runners don't insure their ships at all. most PVPers do. unless this ratio goes down for ships lost, it's useless.

Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
Posted - 2011.02.11 22:53:00 - [8]
 

It would drastically reduce pvp in eve. They already nerfed insurance. And after the nerf they found far fewer ships were destroyed in pvp.

Now it may be that this was not entirely due to the insurance as there was also very bad lag at the time too. But Economically speaking if the net cost of losing ships is higher people will be more risk averse. This risk aversion is already bad enough in eve.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.02.11 23:04:00 - [9]
 

All ships above t1 cruiser does not deserve insurance

The major 0.0 alliances already have ship replacement programs for fleet ops. Players should organize their own insurance systems.

Joe McAlt
Posted - 2011.02.12 01:30:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Joe McAlt on 12/02/2011 01:30:44
The only ones who really benefit from insurance are gankers. This makes their risk very low in comparison to those they Gank. Hulks being T2 ships for instance don't get a commensurate payout to their worth. T1 BS on the other hand are paid out handsomely.

At the very least, deny payouts to concord action as it is considered "illegal" in high sec

Ragnar256
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.02.12 01:47:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Ragnar256 on 12/02/2011 01:48:55
Edited by: Ragnar256 on 12/02/2011 01:48:36
Originally by: Joe McAlt
Edited by: Joe McAlt on 12/02/2011 01:30:44
The only ones who really benefit from insurance are gankers. This makes their risk very low in comparison to those they Gank. Hulks being T2 ships for instance don't get a commensurate payout to their worth. T1 BS on the other hand are paid out handsomely.

At the very least, deny payouts to concord action as it is considered "illegal" in high sec
Whose fault is it for flying a Hulk and not paying any attention to their surroundings? Flying a Hulk in a heavily populated system (or any system) and going afk is like putting a target on your back.

As for the insurance, would you rather have a gang of 100+ Ibis's gank you. They are absolutely free, unlike insurance, and can be deceptively deadly with high skill levels.


Joe McAlt
Posted - 2011.02.12 06:55:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Ragnar256
Edited by: Ragnar256 on 12/02/2011 01:48:55
Edited by: Ragnar256 on 12/02/2011 01:48:36
Originally by: Joe McAlt
Edited by: Joe McAlt on 12/02/2011 01:30:44
The only ones who really benefit from insurance are gankers. This makes their risk very low in comparison to those they Gank. Hulks being T2 ships for instance don't get a commensurate payout to their worth. T1 BS on the other hand are paid out handsomely.

At the very least, deny payouts to concord action as it is considered "illegal" in high sec
Whose fault is it for flying a Hulk and not paying any attention to their surroundings? Flying a Hulk in a heavily populated system (or any system) and going afk is like putting a target on your back.

As for the insurance, would you rather have a gang of 100+ Ibis's gank you. They are absolutely free, unlike insurance, and can be deceptively deadly with high skill levels.




So risk/reward only matters if its the other guy who has the risk?

And yes, I'd rather be ganked by 800 ibis's. At least I could laugh about that.

You wannna gank? No problem, I support your right to. I just don't think CCP should be paying you for it.

Woodman57
Posted - 2011.02.16 10:16:00 - [13]
 

I've been hearing how insurance is an isk faucet since I started playing but have yet to see the numbers supporting that. Are there published numbers that show the amount paid out for 'claims' versus the amout paid in for policies?

I do like the idea of higher rates for bad drivers.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.16 11:23:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Woodman57
I've been hearing how insurance is an isk faucet since I started playing but have yet to see the numbers supporting that. Are there published numbers that show the amount paid out for 'claims' versus the amout paid in for policies?
For one, it's pretty obvious that it's a faucet, or it wouldn't be used: amount you pay to insure your ship < amount you get when it's destroyed → net increase of cash. If that weren't true, people would stop insuring their ships.

If you want some numbers, there's always this day slice: 43bn sunk, 111bn paid out — net faucet of 68bn. For that one day…
Quote:
I do like the idea of higher rates for bad drivers.
Then it wouldn't serve its primary function: to make people get blown up more often.

Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.16 11:40:00 - [15]
 

Personally I would quite happily see an end to insurance - don't fly what you can't afford to lose.

As for the risk aversion thing, the issue I see is that the work to acquire PvP ships (whether buying on the market or building yourself, or whatever) is usually not fun in itself. PI (yawn), Mining (meh), POS operation, Trade (calculation and tracking effort), Missions/Anoms/Plex (alright) are work more than they are fun.

People are averse to losing something that took them a lot of effort to get. Make that effort more fun and people will be more inclined to let it go. Of course, people could just fly around in ships that don't take them huge amounts of effort to acquire... again, don't fly what you can't afford to lose.

So, in closing... DON'T FLY WHAT YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE!

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.16 11:45:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Imigo Montoya
Personally I would quite happily see an end to insurance - don't fly what you can't afford to lose.
And that's why insurance has to stay: so people can afford to lose more stuff.

Woodman57
Posted - 2011.02.16 21:09:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Woodman57
I've been hearing how insurance is an isk faucet since I started playing but have yet to see the numbers supporting that. Are there published numbers that show the amount paid out for 'claims' versus the amout paid in for policies?
For one, it's pretty obvious that it's a faucet, or it wouldn't be used: amount you pay to insure your ship < amount you get when it's destroyed → net increase of cash. If that weren't true, people would stop insuring their ships.

If you want some numbers, there's always this day slice: 43bn sunk, 111bn paid out — net faucet of 68bn. For that one day…
Quote:
I do like the idea of higher rates for bad drivers.
Then it wouldn't serve its primary function: to make people get blown up more often.


Thanks for providing that, it does seem like a faucet, I wish they would provide details for a month or quarter though.

Sheledra
Posted - 2011.02.17 03:57:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Sheledra on 17/02/2011 03:59:58
The amount of money you can get by scragging a ship you made provides an important lower limit to the price of minerals.

On a more personal note I only make about 1-3 million isk per week (I won't have the standings or skills to do more profitable missions for several months.) So even with the insurance I can only afford to loose one ship a week. Get rid of it and I would have to go full carebear just to be able to continue.

Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2011.02.17 04:35:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Woodman57
If you want some numbers, there's always this day slice: 43bn sunk, 111bn paid out — net faucet of 68bn. For that one day…


Err, I don't think thats an accurate picture. 43 billion paid for insurance on a monday and payout could be any day between Tuesday - sunday...of course there will be more paid out on the same day as insurane is paid when you can still loose a ship any other day of the week. What you need is a larger window of insurance bought and paid out, it should average out better in the long run as most ships do not blow up within the same 24 hours as it being insured Rolling Eyes. Or if the Tyranis insurance nerf is not working, CCP better get to looking at that and at least apply a 11% transaction fee thats non refundable Rolling Eyes

Jaik7
Posted - 2011.02.17 05:13:00 - [20]
 

insurance is abused by gankers in order to make a profit on targets they really shoulndt be able to with.

a very reasonable method of solving this would be to have no insurance paid to pilots who lose their ships in police action. or they could hike rates for people who have lost ships in police action, making there be less payout and more cost.

that way, gankers would need to choose targets more wisely instead of just killing the first thing with a datacore in it.

no support for removing insurance alltogether, support for module insurance.

Jennifer Emmagan
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.02.17 05:41:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Jennifer Emmagan on 17/02/2011 05:43:29
It's my opinion insurance as a concept is fine, but it needs some fine tuning in EVE. Insurance is needed because as a rookie with very little ISK you pretty much live off insurance. Yeah, only fly what you can afford to lose applies, but because of insurance you can afford to fly bigger things because all you need to buy are modules and another round of insurance vs an having to pay for and fit an entire ship. It also makes PVP viable when flying T1 ships (T2 and faction ships don't insure for their full values).

Lower prices are not good for the economy. I don't know if you know this but it already costs more to make a lot of modules than the modules are worth. Between people thinking the minerals they mine themselves are free and rats dropping modules like candy, T1 industry is already quite useless. A lot of ships are like that too. Ships and modules getting lost do make the economy thrive. If everyone suddenly stopped losing stuff the economy would go to hell.

The biggest changes I'd make are:

- No more reimbursement for ships destroyed by CONCORD. If you wreck your car while committing a crime IRL your insurance company specifically states they will not pay out.
- No more reimbursement for ships that have been self destructed. If you damage your own car intentionally your insurance company does not pay you for it.
- People wrecking their cars and making claims all the time pay higher premiums. Why isn't EVE like that?

What insurance company in their right mind would pay out for such actions? Yeah it makes ganking cost more ISK, I have no problems with ganking (for profit or revenge), I do it myself sometimes, but if you want to gank someone you should have to pay for the ship you are using. Nothing is going to stop you from ganking, it'll just cost you more. It would deter people from randomly ganking people for kicks, it'd also increase the amount of stuff someone has to be carrying to make ganking worth it and it won't stop people at all from making revenge ganks. Anyone ganking likely has access to easy ISK anyway, so what's it really going to hurt? It'll just plug one more hole adding new ISK to the economy.

Woodman2
Posted - 2011.02.17 07:25:00 - [22]
 

My ship is burning, shields and armor are gone, the enemy is into my hull big time, but I still have hope that if I can just make it a few more meters, I'll break the scram and warp away. But then, while I'm still alive and kicking, (barely), I see that ******* pend insurance mail come into my in box.
Can't they delay that just a few seconds until we are actually dead?

Kalia Masaer
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Posted - 2011.02.17 07:49:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Kalia Masaer on 17/02/2011 07:50:48
The changes to insurance did slow down pvp for a time but it is recovering as people get used to it. If you removed insurance people would slowly forget it was even there, it would just have a major impact at the start.

Step one though for insurance is no ship other than maybe T1 frigates and Cruisers should pay out any insurance if it was not purchased, help out the new people without benefiting the older people much.

Step two no ship damaged by concord or station/gate gun should be reimbursed.

Step three there should be a cumulative penalty to your insurance cost for every ship you collected insurance on in the last 30 days, something like 5% which would mean the insurance on the 15th ship you lost in 30 days would pay out less than it cost.

Ironically removing insurance would probably increase the amount of super capitals brought to fights as they are less likely to be lost, and since they can't be insured their liability would decrease in a galaxy without insurance.

bumbblebee
Posted - 2011.02.17 08:44:00 - [24]
 

ok so about insurance! it's a great thing to have if it's not Half as*ed what im saying is why have only low end items insurable? it seems to me that it would be way more enjoyable of a game if ccp allowed faction items and ships to have insurance what good is having a nightmare loaded with faction gear if all you can really do with any of it is missions?? no one in thier right mind is willing to blow 4 bil in pvp!! so most of faction items cant even be used for thier intended purpose and that blows really. i played a beta called pirate galaxy which btw doesnt compare to EVE but does have EVE beat in one respect and thats the fact that players in that game do not have to buy insurence for any thing!! meaning that lots more players were and are out there PVP'ing and having a blast! so please consider allowing everything to be insurable ! and also it would be great if ccp allowed for faction drops in reagular missions "even if rarely" it would be a great diversion and also something for all mission runners to look forward to because right now they dont have that something. and it gets old doing the same ol and no carrot at the end you know? other than a few mil and a bunch of truely worthless oddments thrown our way. and also how about a loyalty program ?!!! how about the peeps that have been playting eve-online for years? i myslef have been playing for 5 years now and it would be nice if ccp you know kicked down something really cool for all that time money and effort invested in your game. and really would it cost you all that much to show customer appreciation? this forum entry will most likely never bee read or replied to but in the event you do read it take it to heart im not the only one thinking like this by a very long shot!! thanks

Di Mulle
Posted - 2011.02.17 08:58:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Di Mulle on 17/02/2011 08:58:39
Originally by: Aqriue
Or if the Tyranis insurance nerf is not working, CCP better get to looking at that and at least apply a 11% transaction fee thats non refundable Rolling Eyes


You assume that "Tyranis insurance nerf" was intended as insurance nerf as a whole, which was not. It was a correction due to the changed manufacturing costs.

Di Mulle
Posted - 2011.02.17 09:01:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Jennifer Emmagan

- People wrecking their cars and making claims all the time pay higher premiums. Why isn't EVE like that?

What insurance company in their right mind would pay out for such actions?


You are making a pretty common mistake here, that EVE insurance=RL insurance, which is in no way correct.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.02.17 13:03:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 17/02/2011 13:06:28
Originally by: Jennifer Emmagan
- No more reimbursement for ships destroyed by CONCORD. If you wreck your car while committing a crime IRL your insurance company specifically states they will not pay out.
- No more reimbursement for ships that have been self destructed. If you damage your own car intentionally your insurance company does not pay you for it.
- People wrecking their cars and making claims all the time pay higher premiums. Why isn't EVE like that?
…because insurance is a game-mechanic that is meant to promote ships blowing up, not a business. Any argument based on "IRL" automatically fails for this very reason.

For the same reason, any kind of notion that you should pay less if you lose few ships or pay more if you lose a lot of them is completely out of touch with what insurance is meant to do. If anything, it should be the other way around: if you lose few ships, your insurance cost should go up because you're not being a productive member of the game universe, and if you lose tons of ships, the cost for insurance should go down because you're doing everyone a favour.

Insurance in EVE has one purpose: to make people blow each others (and their own) stuff up. That is all. The only viable reason to fiddle with insurance to make it pay out less is if you want to see fewer ships blow up, and you'd have to come up with a insanely good reason for why that would be desirable.

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Amarr
Posted - 2011.02.17 14:44:00 - [28]
 

Being paid for destroying your ship or breaking law is as broken as a game mechanic can be, and so it should be removed.

Jake Nistrum
Caldari
Warp Ghost's
Posted - 2011.02.17 16:27:00 - [29]
 

Well, insurance should stay in game. Pay-outs of insurace although should not be applied to those ships that were destroyed by concord for commiting criminal acts. Like for instance hulkageddon. Suicide gankers ships should not get insutance payouts. This will in turn increase empire fighting risk managment.

Would you expect an insurance payout if in RL the police seized your car and crush it as you were comiting comitting criminal acts with it? Insurace would be invalid in that case. It should be the same in eve.

Also insurance should only be applied to ships that are destroyed in Empire space. Null sec the insurace should be invalid. this will go along with 'Horizonist' comment.

StrykerR1
Posted - 2011.02.17 17:32:00 - [30]
 

isurance pay outs should be equal to price of ship on top of the other great ideas

example and do no quote my exact number but gives a rough idea

vindicator 900 mil
fitting etc 100mil
getting poddes by a vexor priceless



insurance pay out 110 mil

seriously though insurance should pay out what market value is at that time not what it was in 1950 when milk was 5 cents a gallon


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