These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Revamp Ship Insurance - so it is useable.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#21 - 2013-11-24 05:55:04 UTC
Insurance works fine for T1, I'm not sure why T2 and faction ship payouts are so low but I assume it's because it can be exploited.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#22 - 2013-11-24 05:58:42 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Fewell wrote:
If i remember it correctly, the current insurance numbers are the result of an early attempt to discourage suicide ganking. Since you no longer get insurance at all if concord gets you I don't see why we can't go back to what we had.

Incorrect. The current insurance is based just below market mineral value... so industrialists don't build ships, insure them, then self-destruct for profit (because that's what people did when market mineral prices went high enough or market ship prices went low enough).

No insurance for suicide ganking came around the same time... and yet despite what proponents argued, it didn't work.


As for T2, Faction, and T3 insurance... was never meant to be anymore more than a pittance. You pay for those extra edges you gain.

How did you Veterans start?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#23 - 2013-11-24 06:07:29 UTC
Fourteen Maken wrote:
Insurance works fine for T1, I'm not sure why T2 and faction ship payouts are so low but I assume it's because it can be exploited.


CCP want to make the loss of T2 and faction to hurt. It is intended.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#24 - 2013-11-24 08:54:39 UTC
Insurance fees and payouts should definitely be tied to market values. For the life of me I can't understand why they are not.
Gigan Amilupar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2013-11-24 08:57:42 UTC
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Insurance fees and payouts should definitely be tied to market values. For the life of me I can't understand why they are not.


Scroll up two posts. That's why.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#26 - 2013-11-24 09:43:55 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
You are confusing the real-world insurance policies and the in-game insurance mechanic. Beyond the name, these two have very little in common. If you want to introduce the former into the game, give a compelling reason why.you are free to do so yourself.


Fixed.


Kara Trix wrote:
The compelling reason is simple.

Twisted Players would have more fun! There is currently too wide a variance in player wealth and gangs rule as a result. Insurance is just another variable in risk taking.


There's already a version of EVE that has a similar cushion from loss. What's SISI's average PCU again?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2013-11-24 10:12:11 UTC
I'd like to see insurance charge less and less for the same payout the less often you end up collecting on it. Then you could start gambling it on ships you don't expect to lose, and still come out ahead with it. On the other hand, if collecting on it too often caused it to cost more, it would decrease the profit margin for those who are making a lot on it. With a system like that, the net payout will actually be less in comparison to the amount paid in when averaged across all players, thus decreasing its ISK faucet impact on the economy.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Gigan Amilupar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2013-11-24 10:18:02 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I'd like to see insurance charge less and less for the same payout the less often you end up collecting on it. Then you could start gambling it on ships you don't expect to lose, and still come out ahead with it. On the other hand, if collecting on it too often caused it to cost more, it would decrease the profit margin for those who are making a lot on it. With a system like that, the net payout will actually be less in comparison to the amount paid in when averaged across all players, thus decreasing its ISK faucet impact on the economy.


Wouldn't this just promote risk-adverse behavior and punish PvPers?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2013-11-25 05:41:03 UTC
It most certainly would.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#30 - 2013-11-27 17:28:11 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
Kara Trix wrote:
It's pretty much in the state of removal now anyway. I don't know of any one who uses it now.

Now you do. I buy platinum insurance for everything I fly as soon as I assemble the ship.

CCP is literally giving you free money. Why would you ever not use it?

Undocking uninsured is like undocking without ammo.

Pretty much everybody who gets into any sort of regular combat will tell you the same. The only exception would be people so filthy rich that the extra 20-50M ISK is not worth the two clicks to them.


T2s past destroyer size don't insure for jack-**** compared to their market value, though.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#31 - 2013-11-27 17:31:06 UTC
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I'd like to see insurance charge less and less for the same payout the less often you end up collecting on it. Then you could start gambling it on ships you don't expect to lose, and still come out ahead with it. On the other hand, if collecting on it too often caused it to cost more, it would decrease the profit margin for those who are making a lot on it. With a system like that, the net payout will actually be less in comparison to the amount paid in when averaged across all players, thus decreasing its ISK faucet impact on the economy.


Wouldn't this just promote risk-adverse behavior and punish PvPers?


Like REAL insurance? Gee, I Wonder what economics class you went to.

Besides, PvP is already ingrained in 95% of the daily activities of EVE. This only affects suicide gankers (and the victims of said gankers) along with people who waste a f***ton to T1s (Faction warfare).
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#32 - 2013-11-27 17:31:23 UTC
Scuzzy Logic wrote:
T2s past destroyer size don't insure for jack-**** compared to their market value, though.

If you're flying TII ships, it is expected that you no longer need handholding from NPCs to replace your ships.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#33 - 2013-11-27 18:07:48 UTC
Quote:
Besides, PvP is already ingrained in 95% of the daily activities of EVE. This only affects suicide gankers (and the victims of said gankers) along with people who waste a f***ton to T1s (Faction warfare).


- Insurance does't affect suicide gankers... seeing as how they currently do not receive insurance for their actions (seriously... this happened YEARS ago... why do people still think you get insurance for suicide ganking your ship?).

- Why would increasing risk adversity (by attaching survival rates to insurance payments/payouts) be a good thing for PvP? The first two years I was in Faction Warfare it was a godsend (becauseI died... a lot... and really enjoyed roaming "suicide" fleets). And many of the newbies I see that are genuinely interested in PvP but have trouble with cashflow find insurance as awesome as I did.

How did you Veterans start?
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
#34 - 2013-11-27 18:31:41 UTC
Scuzzy Logic wrote:

Besides, PvP is already ingrained in 95% of the daily activities of EVE. This only affects suicide gankers (and the victims of said gankers) along with people who waste a f***ton to T1s (Faction warfare).


If you look up the EvE census you will see that ~80% of all characters operate in high sec.

Insurance should take you kill / loss into account, If I rarely loos ships, my insurance should be cheaper, If I loose one a week it should be higher.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2013-11-27 19:05:02 UTC
Just remove insurance.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#36 - 2013-11-27 19:45:03 UTC
Everything should be insurable, with different premiums based on rarity (T2, Faction, T3). They should also fluctuate on a regular basis based on the number of ships lost for each type. That means for certain ships like Catalysts and Tornados, insurance would be cost prohibitive.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Saidi Enfida
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2013-12-14 16:07:17 UTC
to contribute something for exampel i have my helios a t2 ship i insured it with platinum so basically 100% but there a really anoying catch there is an extra variable witch multiplies the payout with an sertan factor . The higher the tec lvl is or biger the ship the less you get out. Now i got ganked my helios was destroyed and my 24 Million i put into building this ship got flushed in the toilet and my insurance just paid me 2 million out from a platinum insurance! thats lower than 1% the insurance is getting pretty worthless and it all says to prevent from insurance fraud. it would be nice to cover basically 50% of the ships worth the real 50% so i get back 12 Million and not just pretty worthless 2 Million
Previous page12