These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Insurance rework: payout items instead of ISK

Author
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2015-11-30 04:10:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Idea: have base insurance give you a highly-discounted replacement ship available for a small amount of ISK instead of paying ISK to the player. This would cause insurance to be an ISK sink instead of an ISK faucet, and it would instead generate items (mineral value) to the economy.


Default, minimum level insurance would cover your ship, fit modules, and most types of cargo. Rigs, illegal goods, cosmetic items, and PLEX would not be covered. You can also only receive replacements for the stuff that was destroyed in the ship destruction. The replacement goods and ships would always be tech 1, meta 0. This means that if you lose your Sleipnir Command Ship fitted with a Pithi B-Type Large Shield Booster and a Federation Navy Stasis Webifier, provided both of those modules are destroyed in the wreck, you will be able to purchase a replacement Hurricane with Large Shield Booster I and Stasis Webifier I at around 60% of market value. At higher levels of insurance, the discount would be stronger. With Platinum insurance, you would get the items free of charge.

This could allow you to more quickly recover from a loss and get back to what you were doing, whether it was running a mission, whelping ships for the glory of TEST, or hauling something you shouldn't be hauling through space you shouldn't be hauling it through.


Danika Princip wrote:
Direct replacements for said ships from the insurance system ensures that I would only be able to sell someone a T1 hull once, not every time they die.

Due to this point being made, I no longer support this proposal. I believe it would devastate the T1 ship industry.

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."

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2015-11-30 04:48:43 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Idea: have base insurance give you a highly-discounted replacement ship available for a small amount of ISK instead of paying ISK to the player. This would cause insurance to be an ISK sink instead of an ISK faucet, and it would instead generate items (mineral value) to the economy.


Default, minimum level insurance would cover your ship, fit modules, and most types of cargo. Rigs, illegal goods, cosmetic items, and PLEX would not be covered. You can also only receive replacements for the stuff that was destroyed in the ship destruction. The replacement goods and ships would always be tech 1, meta 0. This means that if you lose your Sleipnir Command Ship fitted with a Pithi B-Type Large Shield Booster and a Federation Navy Stasis Webifier, provided both of those modules are destroyed in the wreck, you will be able to purchase a replacement Hurricane with Large Shield Booster I and Stasis Webifier I at around 60% of market value. At higher levels of insurance, the discount would be stronger. With Platinum insurance, you would get the items free of charge.

This could allow you to more quickly recover from a loss and get back to what you were doing, whether it was running a mission, whelping ships for the glory of TEST, or hauling something you shouldn't be hauling through space you shouldn't be hauling it through.


Have you thought of the unintended consequences of this?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Ageanal Olerie
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2015-11-30 05:01:01 UTC

Not a bad idea.

Perhaps offer this option at a premium insurance price.

Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2015-11-30 05:01:32 UTC
Depends on where the replacements are coming from, doesn't it? If the insurance pays out using local market orders instead of magical hull/mod generation it would seem legit. But what would happen if there were no equivalent hulls or mods on the market for the area of influence the insurance agent is paying out for? Minerals + bpcs? A material faucet at a loss can sort of be a sink, I suppose.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#5 - 2015-11-30 06:26:17 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Idea: have base insurance give you a highly-discounted replacement ship available for a small amount of ISK instead of paying ISK to the player. This would cause insurance to be an ISK sink instead of an ISK faucet, and it would instead generate items (mineral value) to the economy.

As Zimmer pointed out... where is the replacement stuff coming from?

- If it is coming from existing market orders... it is still an ISK-faucet (provided the market order exists in the area). You have simply changed who is getting the money.

- If the ship is simply being generated out of thin air... you may be creating an ISK-sink, but are also creating a "supply-faucet" that is in direct competition with the ships and mods that players are creating and selling (because you are taking away the need for players to buy stuff from other players as long as they pay ISK into the system).
Moreover, it kinda defeats the point behind CCP's efforts to get people to locally source their goods and/or defend/haggle for logistics routes (because stuff is being created, not shipped... simply pay into the system and you essentially have an infinite amount of ships... you just have to have a steady supply of mods handy to refit). What?

Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
This could allow you to more quickly recover from a loss and get back to what you were doing, whether it was running a mission, whelping ships for the glory of TEST, or hauling something you shouldn't be hauling through space you shouldn't be hauling it through.

Question: Why should it be easy to recover from a loss?

I know, I know... think of the newbies and all that jazz... but your idea kinda guts a core premise of EVE; loss hurts. Be it in terms of money or time.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#6 - 2015-11-30 07:00:59 UTC
Insurance as a concept became outdated when clone costs went away. It no longer needs to exist.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Iain Cariaba
#7 - 2015-11-30 07:31:26 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Insurance as a concept became outdated when clone costs went away. It no longer needs to exist.

Considering capital ships are about the only thing that gives a decent payout on insurance, I agree. Nothing else is really worth insuring.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#8 - 2015-11-30 07:43:09 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Insurance as a concept became outdated when clone costs went away. It no longer needs to exist.

Considering capital ships are about the only thing that gives a decent payout on insurance, I agree. Nothing else is really worth insuring.


Especially considering that, in many cases, it is more cost effective to self destruct a Dreadnaught and then buy a new one at your destination with the insurance money instead of actually flying there?

Yeah, that needs to go.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#9 - 2015-11-30 07:48:07 UTC
Then lets just decrease insurance on capitals?

Insurance and clone costs are not connected at all. Insurance is related to losing your ship, clone costs are related to losing your pod. The two are not linked directly.
So clone costs being removed is not a good reason to remove insurance. It still hurts just as much as it always has losing a ship.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#10 - 2015-11-30 07:52:05 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Then lets just decrease insurance on capitals?


Dead serious here, what justifies it's existence at all anymore? The original intent was to help offset clone costs after you died(because the expectation was that losing your ship would result in being podded), and clone costs don't exist anymore.

With less isk injected, there's less inflation and prices go down, relative value remains mostly the same. Heck, taking away the isk sink of clone costs alone merits the removal of insurance as an isk faucet, just for balance purposes.

It really serves little purpose anymore.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Anthar Thebess
#11 - 2015-11-30 09:15:56 UTC
People build ships to die.
Lets keep it this way.

Insurance simply must go away in current form.
Instead of this we need new new civilian ships offered as a replacement.

Scaling from current frigate ( noobship ) to a battle-cruiser.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2015-11-30 09:55:08 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Insurance as a concept became outdated when clone costs went away. It no longer needs to exist.

Considering capital ships are about the only thing that gives a decent payout on insurance, I agree. Nothing else is really worth insuring.



T1 battleships are currently excellent for insurance. So much so they are essentially free to fly, which is fantastic for up and coming FCs where odds of a welp are significant. I believe a domi pays out around the 200m mark.

I've not looked at BCs lately but last I did they were close too.

I like insurance, it's a good way to soften the blow for people in T1 stuff.

I would remove the payout for no insurance, however. That's a bit...needless.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#13 - 2015-11-30 13:57:47 UTC
I think insurance needs to be reworked to run off your previous losses
but to OP
-1

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2015-11-30 14:09:17 UTC
Zimmer Jones wrote:
Depends on where the replacements are coming from, doesn't it? If the insurance pays out using local market orders instead of magical hull/mod generation it would seem legit. But what would happen if there were no equivalent hulls or mods on the market for the area of influence the insurance agent is paying out for? Minerals + bpcs? A material faucet at a loss can sort of be a sink, I suppose.

That's the idea, it's a mineral faucet instead of an ISK faucet. I think the EVE economy can handle mineral faucets much more easily than ISK faucets.



ShahFluffers wrote:
- If the ship is simply being generated out of thin air... you may be creating an ISK-sink, but are also creating a "supply-faucet" that is in direct competition with the ships and mods that players are creating and selling (because you are taking away the need for players to buy stuff from other players as long as they pay ISK into the system).
Moreover, it kinda defeats the point behind CCP's efforts to get people to locally source their goods and/or defend/haggle for logistics routes (because stuff is being created, not shipped... simply pay into the system and you essentially have an infinite amount of ships... you just have to have a steady supply of mods handy to refit). What?

That's complete nonsense. You can't save ISK by shooting your own ships down to collect stuff on insurance that you destroyed in the wreck and have to pay ISK to replace.

Perhaps I did forget to mention that you must collect your ship either at the site of loss or a nearby station that has an insurance feature. But even if you could use it to transport your goods across space, it would still be rather un-economical and only works for transferring tech 1 goods anyway.

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."

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#15 - 2015-11-30 15:17:59 UTC
Getting rid of free default insurance is the first step. If you want insurance - you need to pay for it. Currently the game is giving you free isk for being bad at eve. It makes no sense. Never did.

A way insurance might work:

100 mill megathron (made up number with more made up numbers to follow - focus on the concept not the nubers)

30 days worth of insurance costs 30 mil and you get an 80 mil payout on your 30 mil investment. For the new 100 mil ship you paid 100 (ship) + 30 mil (insurance) to get 80 mil back. For the first month, losing the megathron is a 50 mil net loss. Not great or free, but you paid some isk to soften the blow.

31 to 60 days. 1st renewal period. You made it a month - you're not terrible at eve. You get a reward. The second month of insurance only costs 20 mil. You still get the 80% coverage, but at a reduced cost. If you maintain your insurance coverage for 6 months you get an additional 'good pilot' discount. The monthly renewal drops to 10 mil per month. If you keep your ship insured and not blown up for a year you get a "safe pilot" award painted on the hull (red marking, blue marking, yellow smiley face - whatever) AND you get 'free' 80% coverage on the hull for the rest of its existance.

Insurance discounts only apply to continuous coverage. If you let it lapse - you start over. If the ship swaps owners - you start over (no selling / trading / contracting) ships with insurance discounts.

You're insuring the hulls, not the modules.

You're insuring against loss which isn't the same as self destruction. Self destruct = no payout.

Insurance for 100 mil megathron - to get 80 mil payout.
monthly total isk for insurance:

1 - 30 mil
2 - 50 mil
3 - 70 mil
4 - 90 mil
5 - 110 mil
6 - 120 mil
12 - 170 mil
13 - 170 mil
9 years later - 170 mil

Skill in piloting gets rewarded. Being bad at eve gets nothing (no free insurance).
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2015-11-30 16:21:30 UTC
I feel the materials faucet at a loss based on insurance tier would be the only real route. The minerals would have to be based on 100% perfect skills for construction ( so no leftovers for maxed out manufacturers, possibly not supplying enough to cover wasted minerals).

Bpcs would not be included, that could affect markets and the availability of the reimbursed minerals would have to be accessable, which means npc pirate stations in null, effectively making them mineral trading hubs with possible cut-throat bpc prices from player supplied sources.

I can't see being reimbursed for anything but the hull though. With the expected losses from construction or broker fees even the 100% mineral returns wouldn't be quite enough to build that hull. Factor in the reprocessing of the mods, and it might be enough with some leftover.

Just stating stuff, ramifications I can't speculate too far into might include prices of salvage and looted mods from the dead hull added into the formula to determine how much of a sink it is vs transference, but the economic guys are sure to weigh in, and I could be completely wrong.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#17 - 2015-11-30 18:20:25 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Quote:
That's the idea, it's a mineral faucet instead of an ISK faucet. I think the EVE economy can handle mineral faucets much more easily than ISK faucets.


Uh... want to provide a citation for that? Because historically speaking, non-mining sources of minerals have caused some of the most enduring problems in the game and have required numerous changes to resolve. I'm not really seeing a compelling reason to turn around and re-break that.

Honestly that assertion is just... laughably incorrect.

Isk faucets yield inflation. Inflation needs to be controlled (though certainly not eliminated entirely). A little inflation is a good thing . Runaway inflation would be a bad thing. The impact of ISK faucets is also largely universal. All told, not that bad.

So, you want to replace an "isk faucet" based on the completely unsubstantiated belief that they're "harder to handle" (whatever the **** that means) with a system that magically generates manufactured goods out of thin air, gutting both resource harvesting and manufacturing demand as a consequence?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2015-11-30 18:23:06 UTC
I manufacture and sell ships.

Direct replacements for said ships from the insurance system ensures that I would only be able to sell someone a T1 hull once, not every time they die.

How is this good for the game, and why should industry be discouraged?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2015-12-01 02:37:37 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
I manufacture and sell ships.

Direct replacements for said ships from the insurance system ensures that I would only be able to sell someone a T1 hull once, not every time they die.

That's a good point, my suggestion would probably kill the T1 ship industry.

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."

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#20 - 2015-12-01 04:52:01 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Insurance as a concept became outdated when clone costs went away. It no longer needs to exist.

Considering capital ships are about the only thing that gives a decent payout on insurance, I agree. Nothing else is really worth insuring.



T1 battleships are currently excellent for insurance. So much so they are essentially free to fly, which is fantastic for up and coming FCs where odds of a welp are significant. I believe a domi pays out around the 200m mark.

I've not looked at BCs lately but last I did they were close too.

I like insurance, it's a good way to soften the blow for people in T1 stuff.

I would remove the payout for no insurance, however. That's a bit...needless.


Problem is no up and coming FC will be leading a BS fleet. Chances are he'll be leading a AF fleet or some other light stuff.

BS have been gimped as a fleet doctrine.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

12Next page