Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Yes. It's a game mechanic that is meant to encourage ship loss, not a business. Real-world comparisons are irrelevant.

True.... But this mechanic also doesn't deal with isk inflation very well either...... Something that CCP is trying to find ways to combat. Not for or against your argument as you have a valid point. Just curious about the conflicting mechanics.

If Concorded then you should not get insurance payout. Or better yet the insurance payout goes to the victim.

Wait you're saying there is more isk capital invested in bounties than in insurance? Um... I may be wrong but i think not.

It would be nice to have a GM give us some stats on that...........

*shouts up at the General Discussion thread where all the GMs/Devs are in hopes of getting a response from a developer in the "Features and Ideas"*................

Not invested, no — injected. Every day, closer to 1 trillion ISK is injected through bounties. Each day, about 100bn ISK is injected through insurance (which only gives rise to a ~60bn net injection since you have to sink ISK for the higher payouts). Cutting bounties by 10 percent would have the same — or even a much larger — effect than completely removing all kinds of insurance, and would be spread out over a much larger number of players, making it hurt a whole lot less.
Ok.

A few ideas:

- An increase in future insurance premiums if CONCORD appears on the killmail. Maybe 1% premium for every occurrence within the previous 30 days.

- Lower security status = higher premiums if below zero (up to a 10% penalty for being -10).

- Allow players to re-insure their ship for 10% of the insurance premium during the last 30 days of their current insurance contract, thus extending the insurance contract by another 90 days for minimal ISK. Or have the insurance premium auto-bill every 30 days with the renewal fee only being 5% of the original premium.

- 10% or 20% decrease in payout if CONCORD appears on the loss-mail.

lol. no it's not because i lost a mackinaw, or any ship. And yes in that case ratting is a much more important inflation cause than insurance.

THAT's a great idea!

1. If you have a lot of insured ships, and you do not lose them for a long time, your standings with insurance company should go up like

standing_increase = (time_passed^2) * k.

2. If you lose your ship, the loss of the standing with the insurance company should be inversely proportional to the time during which he was insured.
3. Standing with insurance company must be linked with concord standing, may be insurance company is in the concord faction.

Sorry but I don't agree with your point of view. IMO the fact that a trader has to pay the same amount for insuring his ship that a pirate who abuses the insurance system is ridiculous. The game mechanics seem already broken to me. Being a pirate must have consequences (and rewards too of course) and any and all workarounds should be fixed (ie using faster ships to avoid concord, or spawning concord in another location to get more time, automatically deducting insurance from the ship cost...)
I understand that I'm a newbie and started playing very recently but this has it's benefits too, I'm offering a fresh point of view.

[/quote]

EvE insurance has very little to do with real-world insurance.

1.) How many insurance companies insure tanks deployed into a combat zone? Most of the ships in eve are combat ships, and their primary use involves deliberate combat. This negates most RL parallels.

2.) What is the point of EvE insurance? The point of insurance in EvE is to MINIMIZE the risks you take while engaging in dangerous activities. EvE as a game, is very much centered around risk taking. The whole point of insurance is to encourage people to take risks with their ships. Insurance is just an incentive to encourage players to take their ship into dangerous situations. As a whole, this is very much working as intended. By changing the insurance payout, your really trying to regulate what is an acceptable dangerous situation.

3.) So what is it you are really asking for? You are asking for stronger consequences to aggression in Hi-Sec. The current consequences, which are a loss of the aggressors ship, killrights on the aggressor, and a security hit to the aggressor, or not strong enough to deter suicide ganks. You want to increase the consequences enough to deter most of these ganks....

-- Given the game provides many options on ships to fly, loadouts, and fleet assist tools, doesn't the empire-bear already have tons of options to keep their ship alive? Why can't they mine in 1.0 systems, transport valuables in BS's, and avoid flying blinged out mission ships? Why is further protection necessary?

-- Imagine this change reduced 90% of all hi-sec suicide ganks... How much risk does this remove to empire residence. And given this is a risk vs reward game, how should the empire rewards be proportionally reduced? If you remove the majority of risks to empire residents, then don't they deserve reduced bounites, poor mining, autopilots that warp to 50 km, and all-around lower profits to accompany their safety?

[/quote]

That's true, the Insurance should simply be removed.

Instead, each corpo should have a system of ship replacement.
You wouuld pay a monthly fee to access this service.
Each time you lose a ship you could buy another of the same category with Loyalty Points depending of the afliation of your corpo.