These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Remove default insurance
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#1 - 2012-07-04 03:00:47 UTC
First, I searched, but didn't find a topic quite like this (most of them are about removing insurance, period), so I apologize if this is a repost.

Short and sweet:

I propose the removal of default (40% payout, no purchased plan) insurance for all ships except T1 frigates, destroyers, cruisers, and battlecruisers. This insurance is in place to assure that no single loss is catastrophic and leaves a player with no money, something that should only be a concern for younger players in these smaller ship classes. Additionally, the idea of an insurance payout without purchase of an actual insurance plan is absurd.

I'm proposing a limited removal of default insurance because this should be far less controversial than more sweeping changes to the insurance system. We all understand that it is a problematic ISK faucet, but the more significant changes that have been proposed resulted in much wailing and gnashing of teeth--I feel that this is a step in the right direction that pretty much everyone can agree with.

I'll edit the OP or reply as necessary.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#2 - 2012-07-04 13:53:31 UTC
So basically remove the default insurance for battleships. Because calling T2/T3 insurance an "isk faucet" when you get the T1 value of the ship HAS to be a joke.

Why not just say no insurance on capitals at all?

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#3 - 2012-07-04 18:33:32 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
So basically remove the default insurance for battleships. Because calling T2/T3 insurance an "isk faucet" when you get the T1 value of the ship HAS to be a joke.

Why not just say no insurance on capitals at all?
Battleships and capitals, throw in T2s and T3s because why not.

I'd agree with the removal of insurance on capitals period, but the entire point of this proposal is to be a smaller step that garners more significant support.
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#4 - 2012-07-04 21:12:00 UTC
Why? Ever since the change in the insurance formula insurance isn't a big ISK faucet at all. And the default insurance has never been an issue to begin with. You say "we all understand that it is a problematic ISK faucet", but as far as I can see, it really isn't at all. Please provide substantial proof that there is indeed an issue, otherwise it's just your opinion, not actual fact.

Unless you can actually show that there is an actual issue (not just that you feel it should change), the answer is flat out "no, not supported".
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#5 - 2012-07-05 00:12:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternal Error
mxzf wrote:
Why? Ever since the change in the insurance formula insurance isn't a big ISK faucet at all. And the default insurance has never been an issue to begin with. You say "we all understand that it is a problematic ISK faucet", but as far as I can see, it really isn't at all. Please provide substantial proof that there is indeed an issue, otherwise it's just your opinion, not actual fact.

Unless you can actually show that there is an actual issue (not just that you feel it should change), the answer is flat out "no, not supported".

http://blog.beyondreality.se/ISK-faucets-sinks

Found in thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1411898

It's one of the smaller faucets (especially when you consider how limited my proposal is), but it isn't trivial. Inflation is obviously an issue, so why not nickel and dime it to death with simple solutions that make sense?
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#6 - 2012-07-05 01:09:52 UTC
Actually, that chart doesn't really show much of an issue at all. Those numbers show 58B generated via Insurance (125B paid out minus 67B spent insuring ships), which is actually down 11B from the 68.9B generated in 2010 shown on that page.

In the grand scheme of things, that 58B generated really isn't much at all. And then when you think about whose hands that money is actually going through, it can even be considered a good thing. That insurance money is going to people who go out there and fight and lose ships. Those people are more likely to put the money straight back into the economy by buying another ship to fight in. Yes, it is generating a bit of ISK into the economy, but that ISK has a high velocity, which is a very good thing.

However, you talk about only removing the default insurance from BS+ ships. So, this would reduce the insurance payouts of pilots of BS and capital ships who lose their ship without bothering to insure them at all. The only time when a BS or capital is in any real danger is when it is used in PvP, and any sensible pilot is going to insure their expensive ship if they are going into a fight.

I highly doubt that there are more than a half-dozen un-insured BS+ ships lost on the average day in Eve, so your whole proposal would probably amount to removing about 1-1.5B in ISK generated per day. Not really worth the developer time to change it. A real-world analogy would probably be something like taking a rock away from a kid and claiming you're de-weaponizing a country. Yes, there is one less 'weapon', but it really isn't a factor at all.
Nhi'Khuna
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2012-07-05 07:45:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Nhi'Khuna
Also, calling it an ISK faucet in the same way as other ones isn't quite honest. This is because like was said, there are costs to place insurance on ships beyond the standard 40% (costs on insurance >40% is included in that graph btw), and the financial cost to generate a ship is spent in another "faucet" minerals and such that are always being generated. You're removing those minerals and such in exchange for a lesser amount of ISK (especially when talking about T2/T3 hulls, which give T1 payouts), therefore mitigating the economic impact of these particular ISK "faucets".
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#8 - 2012-07-06 18:59:03 UTC
Nhi'Khuna wrote:
Also, calling it an ISK faucet in the same way as other ones isn't quite honest. This is because like was said, there are costs to place insurance on ships beyond the standard 40% (costs on insurance >40% is included in that graph btw), and the financial cost to generate a ship is spent in another "faucet" minerals and such that are always being generated. You're removing those minerals and such in exchange for a lesser amount of ISK (especially when talking about T2/T3 hulls, which give T1 payouts), therefore mitigating the economic impact of these particular ISK "faucets".

Costs are a sink, which is why I'm proposing only the removal of DEFAULT insurance. Also, ships blowing up removes no ISK from the economy.
Nhi'Khuna
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2012-07-06 19:10:57 UTC
Eternal Error wrote:
Costs are a sink, which is why I'm proposing only the removal of DEFAULT insurance. Also, ships blowing up removes no ISK from the economy.


No, I agree no ISK is removed from the economy, but it is a matter of one created currency being created and exchanged for another with minerals. Minerals are a currency used in the creation of ships, and then exchanged for ISK via the market. Just because it doesn't show up in your wallet doesn't mean it isn't a currency. And with the way default insurance works, the loss of one currency greatly outweighs the creation of the other in terms of relative value. And yes, minerals don't "create" ISK, but that's also not what I'm saying either.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#10 - 2012-07-06 21:17:46 UTC
No.

if you want CCP to remove isk from the game ask them to increase market trading taxes and get rid of those trading skill scam.

This single fix would make Eve economy get rid of trillions every day instead of being the most powerful isk piñata of all new Eden.

brb
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2012-07-07 07:31:37 UTC
What if instead of isk, the insurance payout was a coupon for a ship of the same type with reduced material cost? If you had to pay ISK to raise the insurance level, insurance would become a giant ISK sink instead of a giant ISK faucet.

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."
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-07-07 17:17:50 UTC
mxzf wrote:
I highly doubt that there are more than a half-dozen un-insured BS+ ships lost on the average day in Eve

Considering insurance costs you the same amount if you don't collect as you get if you do collect, it isn't worth purchasing unless you've got above a 50% chance of losing the ship within 12 weeks. Even with my horrible killboard history, I still tend to keep my ships intact, especially the big ones. I fly safely and therefore I usually feel insurance is a waste of money. So when I DO lose a ship, it's generally uninsured.

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."
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#13 - 2012-07-07 18:59:55 UTC
I'm on the fence with this. At this point int he game I don't care about insurance. Even if I lose a ship, I can afford to replace it.

However when I lost my first cruiser, it hurt a little financially. I could replace it, but not comfortably. The insurance helped.
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
#14 - 2012-07-08 00:56:12 UTC
I agree with this Idea, you should only get insurance IF you paid for the insurance plan.

If you didn't buy an insurance plan you should not receive any money whatsoever.
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#15 - 2012-07-08 01:00:04 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
I'm on the fence with this. At this point int he game I don't care about insurance. Even if I lose a ship, I can afford to replace it.

However when I lost my first cruiser, it hurt a little financially. I could replace it, but not comfortably. The insurance helped.

You should re-read my proposal. I don't want to change anything for cruisers.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#16 - 2012-07-08 03:24:17 UTC
Eternal Error wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
I'm on the fence with this. At this point int he game I don't care about insurance. Even if I lose a ship, I can afford to replace it.

However when I lost my first cruiser, it hurt a little financially. I could replace it, but not comfortably. The insurance helped.

You should re-read my proposal. I don't want to change anything for cruisers.

Thats fair, I wasn't paying enough attention there.

Though I'm an oddball in that I didn't even train for a BS until a year. So I knew how not to lose a ship. A BS loss for a 1 month old hurts (unless funded by someone).