These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

↯↯↯ Insurance And YOU , a REALISTIC approach ↯↯↯ (A Proposal to CCP)

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kira Vanachura
Green Visstick High
#21 - 2013-01-07 14:13:25 UTC
In general I have the opinion that CCP should not let NPCs do what players can do just as well, or even better. Insurance is a good example. Players already have their own insurance systems implemented in the form of ship replacement programs.

The current system has a few major drawbacks. A first problem is that the insurance payout is created out of thin air. There is no mechanism to balance insurance payments with the payouts, thus leading to a system where insurance is mostly used by people who take irresponsible risks (Pvp-ers). While the people who need it the most (newer players) find it too expensive to use.
Still insurance is a net-isk faucet that accellerates inflation in times of war.

I do like the idea of player-run insurance companies. The way I see it a company could select:
- where to cover (system security)
- how much to cover (%, maximum coverage per case or client)
- what to cover (ship, fitting)
- cost (% of insured value or max payout), but insurance like SRPs can also be funded by other sources

Corporations could then decide who they want as customers (corporation members, standing based, public).
Istvann
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2013-01-07 20:02:04 UTC
Personally I find calculating the payout based on the ships use complicated. I would prefer, instead, that the payout be based on what the value is of the hull and all installed mods at the time. When it comes time to renew, it is recalculated again based on installed mods.

Now on the flipside I can see how this could be abused. Prior to insuring a ship you could load up on all the most expensive mods you can, insure it, then throw on cheap mods again.

Not sure there is a good solution to the insurance thing.

I have thought about a player run insurance company, but I can see so many ways it would be abused. I hadn't thought of a good way to do it yet.
Alex Grison
Grison Universal
#23 - 2013-01-07 21:12:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Alex Grison
Ivy Romanova wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
"state the purpose of a vessel"

Six words, clearly indicating that you haven't really thought this completely through.


as in , what you'll be using your ship for .
Apparently , the risk between Mission Running , Ratting and Pvping in a Raven will be very different.


1) If you steal something in a mining ship for mining, is that pvp?

2) if you defend yourself in a mining ship is that pvp?
2b) What if you go "Mining" in losec with a mining ship. But your intention is really to get yourself attacked so that you can return fire. Is this a mining loss? after all you were going into losec with the intention of mining, in your mining ship.

3) if yes to #2 What if you arrange for your friend to attack you so that you can "defend" yourself in your mining ship for mining. is that pvp? How would the insurance company find out about this clear case of insurance fraud.

4) if I have a battlecruiser for pvp. and I put on mining lasers with 1 gun, go into low/null and start mining, then attack another miner with the gun, and get blown up. Is that a mining death or a pvp death?

5) if I have a battlecruiser for mining and I "aggressively secure" the asteroid belt, is that a mining activity or a pvp activity?

6) can I intend to use any ship for any activity?



As you can see. Your system will simply not work. EVE can not recognize plausible deniability. unless you are suggesting that in a plausible deniability case there should be a trial and lawsuit ( as there would be in in real life )

yes
Mag's
Azn Empire
#24 - 2013-01-08 00:24:46 UTC
Insurance in Eve is nothing like RL, for one good reason. Eve's version is designed to facilitate combat.

Your changes are far too complicated and breaks the role it was designed for.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Ivy Romanova
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#25 - 2013-01-08 02:58:27 UTC
Alex Grison wrote:
Ivy Romanova wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
"state the purpose of a vessel"

Six words, clearly indicating that you haven't really thought this completely through.


as in , what you'll be using your ship for .
Apparently , the risk between Mission Running , Ratting and Pvping in a Raven will be very different.


1) If you steal something in a mining ship for mining, is that pvp?

2) if you defend yourself in a mining ship is that pvp?
2b) What if you go "Mining" in losec with a mining ship. But your intention is really to get yourself attacked so that you can return fire. Is this a mining loss? after all you were going into losec with the intention of mining, in your mining ship.

3) if yes to #2 What if you arrange for your friend to attack you so that you can "defend" yourself in your mining ship for mining. is that pvp? How would the insurance company find out about this clear case of insurance fraud.

4) if I have a battlecruiser for pvp. and I put on mining lasers with 1 gun, go into low/null and start mining, then attack another miner with the gun, and get blown up. Is that a mining death or a pvp death?

5) if I have a battlecruiser for mining and I "aggressively secure" the asteroid belt, is that a mining activity or a pvp activity?

6) can I intend to use any ship for any activity?



As you can see. Your system will simply not work. EVE can not recognize plausible deniability. unless you are suggesting that in a plausible deniability case there should be a trial and lawsuit ( as there would be in in real life )


1)If you steal something , you have already broken a law . It voids your insurance automatically.
2)If you defend yourself , assuming you was fire upon first. The insurance will still be valid.
2b) Indeed it does. Same with contracts , and npc chaining and many other mechanics in EvE . If you can play it , good for you. I doubt you can kill something with a mining barge . (Just make sure you have the insurance set to low/null mining )
3) In the end , you will still lose more than you'll gain, since insurance only reimburse a maximum of 90% of the ship's mineral value. Which in almost 99% of the cases , is worth less than an actual ship.
4)Depends on your insurance. If you were mining when you were attacked. Its a mining related death. However ,if you were the only who attacked first. Its a pvp death and it'll void your miner insurance . However , your PvPer insurance will still hold.
5) Thats a pvp activity .
6) EvE doesn't discourage stupidity , its a sandbox , which means you can do whatever you want with the playing blocks , but ultimately you'll be the one who need to face the consequences.

As you can see. You haven't thought it very well through. As you have dismissed the fact that . EvE is a sandbox .
If you can play the rules ,same with scams , the mechanics will not punish you for it . The players will.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ＤＡＭＮ ＴＨＩＳ    SIGNATURE    ＩＳ ＦＡＮＣY ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Ivy Romanova
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#26 - 2013-01-08 03:00:28 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Insurance in Eve is nothing like RL, for one good reason. Eve's version is designed to facilitate combat.

Your changes are far too complicated and breaks the role it was designed for.


On the contrary , we are making the insurance policy more personalized and flexible.
It also encourage players to be responsible with their ships , instead of relying solely on insurance .

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ＤＡＭＮ ＴＨＩＳ    SIGNATURE    ＩＳ ＦＡＮＣY ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#27 - 2013-01-08 03:16:47 UTC
Ivy Romanova wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Insurance in Eve is nothing like RL, for one good reason. Eve's version is designed to facilitate combat.

Your changes are far too complicated and breaks the role it was designed for.

On the contrary , we are making the insurance policy more personalized and flexible.
It also encourage players to be responsible with their ships , instead of relying solely on insurance .
…in other words, you're making it far too complicated and break the role it was designed for.

Insurance is not a business — it's a game mechanic to take the edge of ship losses and to make people blow themselves up more often. What you're asking for is a non-mechanic that does the exact opposite. That is not a good replacement for what insurance is meant to do.

So really, the question is: why do you feel that insurance should not serve its intended purpose?
Ivy Romanova
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#28 - 2013-01-08 03:21:06 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ivy Romanova wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Insurance in Eve is nothing like RL, for one good reason. Eve's version is designed to facilitate combat.

Your changes are far too complicated and breaks the role it was designed for.

On the contrary , we are making the insurance policy more personalized and flexible.
It also encourage players to be responsible with their ships , instead of relying solely on insurance .
…in other words, you're making it far too complicated and break the role it was designed for.

Insurance is not a business — it's a game mechanic to take the edge of ship losses and to make people blow themselves up more often. What you're asking for is a non-mechanic that does the exact opposite. That is not a good replacement for what insurance is meant to do.

So really, the question is: why do you feel that insurance should not serve its intended purpose?


Insurance SHOULDN'T encourage people to blow themselves up.
Its suppose to be a compensation for your stupidity / luck , not a safety net that save you from yourselves.

Now what we are doing is not just deepening the game mechanics . we also kick the game back to reality of the true purpose of a insurance.
Compensation for unforeseeable and unpredictable events which has caused a lost of financial assets .
Not compensation for jumping off a cliff.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ＤＡＭＮ ＴＨＩＳ    SIGNATURE    ＩＳ ＦＡＮＣY ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Ivy Romanova
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-01-08 03:38:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Ivy Romanova
Tippia wrote:
Ivy Romanova wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Insurance in Eve is nothing like RL, for one good reason. Eve's version is designed to facilitate combat.

Your changes are far too complicated and breaks the role it was designed for.

On the contrary , we are making the insurance policy more personalized and flexible.
It also encourage players to be responsible with their ships , instead of relying solely on insurance .
…in other words, you're making it far too complicated and break the role it was designed for.

Insurance is not a business — it's a game mechanic to take the edge of ship losses and to make people blow themselves up more often. What you're asking for is a non-mechanic that does the exact opposite. That is not a good replacement for what insurance is meant to do.

So really, the question is: why do you feel that insurance should not serve its intended purpose?


Now tell me , why do you think insurance should be responsible for loss caused by the insurer himself?

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ＤＡＭＮ ＴＨＩＳ    SIGNATURE    ＩＳ ＦＡＮＣY ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Griffin Omanid
Knights of the Zodiac
#30 - 2013-01-08 07:00:52 UTC
Come on it is to complicated.

I use insurances to secure in case of ship loose that I have left some money. For some cases like self destruct there surely need to be an adjustment that they won´t pay.

Also in Rl I need to have an Insurance (Germany) and pay money for it, and if I need a doctor or anyhing they god damn have to pay him, and I don´t care about any contracts.

Proposal T2 BS Class Juggernaut
Ivy Romanova
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#31 - 2013-01-08 07:23:11 UTC
Griffin Omanid wrote:
Come on it is to complicated.

I use insurances to secure in case of ship loose that I have left some money. For some cases like self destruct there surely need to be an adjustment that they won´t pay.

Also in Rl I need to have an Insurance (Germany) and pay money for it, and if I need a doctor or anyhing they god damn have to pay him, and I don´t care about any contracts.


its called realistic insurance based on the proper capitalistic principle that keeps EvE alive

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ＤＡＭＮ ＴＨＩＳ    SIGNATURE    ＩＳ ＦＡＮＣY ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Kira Vanachura
Green Visstick High
#32 - 2013-01-08 07:47:57 UTC
Eve is a harsh game and losses should have real meaning. Insurance to reduce the loss for PvP-ers simply doesn't make sense in this context. I don't think it was put in place to encourage pvp, but rather to prevent newer players from quitting when they lose their ship. A pvp-er that cannot afford to lose an expensive ship should be flying an interceptor. Payout on interceptors (tech II) is insignificant.
Alex Grison
Grison Universal
#33 - 2013-01-08 23:17:43 UTC
Ivy Romanova wrote:
Alex Grison wrote:
Ivy Romanova wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
"state the purpose of a vessel"

Six words, clearly indicating that you haven't really thought this completely through.


as in , what you'll be using your ship for .
Apparently , the risk between Mission Running , Ratting and Pvping in a Raven will be very different.


1) If you steal something in a mining ship for mining, is that pvp?

2) if you defend yourself in a mining ship is that pvp?
2b) What if you go "Mining" in losec with a mining ship. But your intention is really to get yourself attacked so that you can return fire. Is this a mining loss? after all you were going into losec with the intention of mining, in your mining ship.

3) if yes to #2 What if you arrange for your friend to attack you so that you can "defend" yourself in your mining ship for mining. is that pvp? How would the insurance company find out about this clear case of insurance fraud.

4) if I have a battlecruiser for pvp. and I put on mining lasers with 1 gun, go into low/null and start mining, then attack another miner with the gun, and get blown up. Is that a mining death or a pvp death?

5) if I have a battlecruiser for mining and I "aggressively secure" the asteroid belt, is that a mining activity or a pvp activity?

6) can I intend to use any ship for any activity?



As you can see. Your system will simply not work. EVE can not recognize plausible deniability. unless you are suggesting that in a plausible deniability case there should be a trial and lawsuit ( as there would be in in real life )


1)If you steal something , you have already broken a law . It voids your insurance automatically.
2)If you defend yourself , assuming you was fire upon first. The insurance will still be valid.
2b) Indeed it does. Same with contracts , and npc chaining and many other mechanics in EvE . If you can play it , good for you. I doubt you can kill something with a mining barge . (Just make sure you have the insurance set to low/null mining )
3) In the end , you will still lose more than you'll gain, since insurance only reimburse a maximum of 90% of the ship's mineral value. Which in almost 99% of the cases , is worth less than an actual ship.
4)Depends on your insurance. If you were mining when you were attacked. Its a mining related death. However ,if you were the only who attacked first. Its a pvp death and it'll void your miner insurance . However , your PvPer insurance will still hold.
5) Thats a pvp activity .
6) EvE doesn't discourage stupidity , its a sandbox , which means you can do whatever you want with the playing blocks , but ultimately you'll be the one who need to face the consequences.

As you can see. You haven't thought it very well through. As you have dismissed the fact that . EvE is a sandbox .
If you can play the rules ,same with scams , the mechanics will not punish you for it . The players will.


too bad this is never happening :(

yes
Previous page12