These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Self-destructing your ship should not give you insurance money

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Pharon Reichter
R.I.P. Legion
Fanatic Legion.
#81 - 2012-07-26 13:44:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Pharon Reichter
Look , for most parts insurance is ok'ish as it is. So it is self destruct.

Giving insurance on self destruct does make little sense whatsoever. It's just another loophole waiting for another flawed mechanic to for and create an exploit.

few points:

- if you self destruct in combat it means that YOU care more about km-s than insurance ( km's are now generated anyway )
- if you self destruct some modules / loot still remain - so it's the same deal as being killed nothing gained for you except a malformed km instead of a full one.

ofc there is one aspect of the game where it really matters - other players keeping you hostage. if you have your ship webbed , nossed and scrambled and you have no power to fight back you are as good as dead. But trolls could just keep you like this indefinitely where you could not even regain insurance isk ( since if you SD you dont get insurance. ) So as far as now you have that option.

So yeah - hard to solve that one.

And for all the trolls out there: insurance is one of those things that helps players be less risk adverse and PVP more. stop being dumb and suggest changes that would mean less pvp.

Later-edit : and no getting stuck in a wh with a ship that you cannot take back insurance ISK is a veeeeeeeery bad example. you just need to warp to some sleepers and they will take care of your ship. ASAP ;)
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2012-07-26 14:20:01 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Mocam wrote:
So... CCP sets up a full lossmail board for all pilots -- showing how many losses to NPC's as well as to players?

You'd need to know how many ships are being lost and to what type of attacks for players to provide insurance and "trust" isn't all that hot a gig for most EVE players.

I think the shock-value of seeing all those NPC losses would be funny. Gankers no longer hiding their failures, the mass amount of mission and plex runner losses... Yeah, having that published would be a bit funny and data-mining it would probably show a radically different view of how "safe" PvE is vs PvP.

Killed by a Guristas station torp, opps~


I asked Kelduum once about uni losses on missions -- he snickered and stated it was ... not trivial - with Recon 3 being readily on his tongue.

A new board setup by a nullsec crew had all losses showing a while back. I looked at it and was rather surprised to see a very healthy portion of ship losses to rats and in complexes -- from these more hardened style of players.

I seriously wouldn't be overly surprised to find that around 1/3rd of all ship losses in EVE were from NPCs.

As for Tipia's statement above yours - isk is already a "fiat currency" - moot point there.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#83 - 2012-07-26 14:23:38 UTC
Dusenman wrote:
Xorv wrote:
Another +1 for removing Insurance entirely, but especially in the case of Self Destruct.

Further more regarding Self Destruct, make it a means for people to potentially capture ships.

* As soon as you activate SD, your pod is ejected from the ship.
* Hacking Mod can be used to shut off a SD timer and pass ownership to the Hacker.





It would make hacking even more useful. Interesting idea to say the least.

I like this idea, actually.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#84 - 2012-07-26 15:51:18 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:

It would also suck to get stuck in a wormhole system with no probes and no friends. You should always have the option of putting a gun to your head.

That can be seen as "You should always be able to SD your pod". It does not mean you should be able to SD your ship. We could just replace the self-destruct menu item with "Commit suicide".

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Dusenman
Sensible People
Sigma Grindset
#85 - 2012-07-26 15:57:53 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:

It would also suck to get stuck in a wormhole system with no probes and no friends. You should always have the option of putting a gun to your head.

That can be seen as "You should always be able to SD your pod". It does not mean you should be able to SD your ship. We could just replace the self-destruct menu item with "Commit suicide".



As funny as that is, lets not put that into the game.

GM Homonoia: In other words; feel free to use the tactic, but don't be an utter and total ***.

CCP Tallest_: _And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
Spurty
#86 - 2012-07-26 16:14:46 UTC
The only reason I can see insurance being 'bad' is because:

- relatively small amount of isk goes to NPC
- relatively bigger amount of isk is magicked into existence by NPCs

Remove the NPC part of this and make it a profession in EVE of alliances/corps.

- X isk is given to alliance/corp for insurance
- Y isk is handed back on destruction of ship
- People in NPC corps have a real incentive to GTFO (Only insure up to cruiser hull)

Where X < Y

SUM OF THIS CHANGE:

- Corps and Alliances are where you want to be, NPC corps can only insure up to T1 cruiser
- People doing 'Reimbursements' for alliance have less headaches and paper work to do
- Far far far less magicking of ISK into the system

Now, things get really exciting when insurance money isn't there for payouts Shocked

This is all part of the game already though - who holds the tech moon money?

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#87 - 2012-07-26 16:24:02 UTC
Dusenman wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:

It would also suck to get stuck in a wormhole system with no probes and no friends. You should always have the option of putting a gun to your head.

That can be seen as "You should always be able to SD your pod". It does not mean you should be able to SD your ship. We could just replace the self-destruct menu item with "Commit suicide".



As funny as that is, lets not put that into the game.

Er, ah, right. Oops. OK "Self destruct pod" would be the option, available both before or after ejecting.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Jim Luc
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#88 - 2012-07-26 17:34:22 UTC
Mocam wrote:
Jim Luc wrote:

Long-winded idea here.



The only way to do this would be with full disclosure of all losses. It also doesn't take into account the "here's a ship, go get it blown up" training missions.

So... CCP sets up a full lossmail board for all pilots -- showing how many losses to NPC's as well as to players?

You'd need to know how many ships are being lost and to what type of attacks for players to provide insurance and "trust" isn't all that hot a gig for most EVE players.

I think the shock-value of seeing all those NPC losses would be funny. Gankers no longer hiding their failures, the mass amount of mission and plex runner losses... Yeah, having that published would be a bit funny and data-mining it would probably show a radically different view of how "safe" PvE is vs PvP.



You have a point there. I was just trying to find a way for players to make their own insurance services.

Perhaps if there was a way for Concord to offer limited insurance services which use a pilot's "risk number" that is determined by many factors including pilot age, ISK-worth of their losses in a 3-month period, their sec standing, etc. Actually it would be uber cool if these insurance companies were offered by various factions within Eve. Cheaper premiums for Gallente pilots with high Gallente standing, not offered to pilots with negative Gallente standing. This way pirate factions can offer their own insurance to those with low-sec standings. Just a thought?

Anyways - the basic insurance offered by NPC corporations can use that predefined "risk number", but a system that's opened to the Eve general public can help them start their own insurance, which allows them to set premiums and what they choose to insure on whatever criteria they choose. The risk number can then be a general guide for that pilot. No details are sent about the damage done or what event caused the destruction. Just that the pilot paid the deductible, and received the payout which was saved in a Concord escrow that is provided by the private Eve corporation. This would allow Eve corporations to put up their own money as capital, and operate just like an insurance company should operate.

I would like to see this expanded so that private corporations can offer insurance on goods and shipping as well. Figuring out how to eliminate fraud would be a challenge, but I think that could be figured out without giving Eve pilots too much information.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#89 - 2012-07-26 20:15:36 UTC
Ariel Dawn wrote:
Self-destruct is fine.

The real problem is that people care far too much about killmails.

"Wow, I'm so impressed how you participated in killing a ship in EVE Online, now I want to sleep with you!" - said no one ever


I'll let a dev speak for me:

CCP Masterplan wrote:
Killmails are great. They serve as reminders of good fights (or dubious mistakes). They let you measure losses inflicted on your enemy in cold hard ISK. They also demonstrate some interesting choices in ship fitting, or cargo-movement attempts. If you're so inclined, they provide a way to track your kill/death ratio, and measure it against your peers.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Dusenman
Sensible People
Sigma Grindset
#90 - 2012-07-27 17:35:31 UTC
From https://t.co/EaNYwX67:

CCP Masterplan wrote:
For the Inferno 1.2 release, we've modified the self-destruct mechanics a little. These changes are now live on the Singularity test server. You can go and try them for yourself, and leave feedback in this thread.


Loot Drops
Ships that self-destruct will now drop loot in their wreck. This follows the regular chance-based loot-drop mechanics for items fitted to the ship and carried in the cargo hold.


Kill Reports
Ships that self-destruct whilst under aggression will now generate a regular kill-report. In order for this to happen, the ship must have been recently aggressed, and there must be at least one of the aggressors in space in the system at the time of death. The final-blow will be awarded to the eligible attacker who inflicted the most damage.

Self-destructs that do not involve player aggression will not generate a kill-report


By the way, you may have seen reports of the occasional self-destruct kill-report on Tranquility recently. These were caused by an unrelated defect, and were not intentional. Typically the items list of such mails is incomplete. I'm stating this in-advance, as no doubt someone would have asked about it.

GM Homonoia: In other words; feel free to use the tactic, but don't be an utter and total ***.

CCP Tallest_: _And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
#91 - 2012-07-27 19:57:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Parsee789
Dusenman wrote:
From https://t.co/EaNYwX67:

CCP Masterplan wrote:
For the Inferno 1.2 release, we've modified the self-destruct mechanics a little. These changes are now live on the Singularity test server. You can go and try them for yourself, and leave feedback in this thread.


Loot Drops
Ships that self-destruct will now drop loot in their wreck. This follows the regular chance-based loot-drop mechanics for items fitted to the ship and carried in the cargo hold.


Kill Reports
Ships that self-destruct whilst under aggression will now generate a regular kill-report. In order for this to happen, the ship must have been recently aggressed, and there must be at least one of the aggressors in space in the system at the time of death. The final-blow will be awarded to the eligible attacker who inflicted the most damage.

Self-destructs that do not involve player aggression will not generate a kill-report


By the way, you may have seen reports of the occasional self-destruct kill-report on Tranquility recently. These were caused by an unrelated defect, and were not intentional. Typically the items list of such mails is incomplete. I'm stating this in-advance, as no doubt someone would have asked about it.



Not a change to insurance, but behold a change to self-destruct mechanics.

Now those who get themselves in deep trouble can no longer coward their way out.

All hail the Masterplan!
Dusenman
Sensible People
Sigma Grindset
#92 - 2012-07-27 20:01:50 UTC
Parsee789 wrote:
Dusenman wrote:
From https://t.co/EaNYwX67:

CCP Masterplan wrote:
For the Inferno 1.2 release, we've modified the self-destruct mechanics a little. These changes are now live on the Singularity test server. You can go and try them for yourself, and leave feedback in this thread.


Loot Drops
Ships that self-destruct will now drop loot in their wreck. This follows the regular chance-based loot-drop mechanics for items fitted to the ship and carried in the cargo hold.


Kill Reports
Ships that self-destruct whilst under aggression will now generate a regular kill-report. In order for this to happen, the ship must have been recently aggressed, and there must be at least one of the aggressors in space in the system at the time of death. The final-blow will be awarded to the eligible attacker who inflicted the most damage.

Self-destructs that do not involve player aggression will not generate a kill-report


By the way, you may have seen reports of the occasional self-destruct kill-report on Tranquility recently. These were caused by an unrelated defect, and were not intentional. Typically the items list of such mails is incomplete. I'm stating this in-advance, as no doubt someone would have asked about it.



Not a change to insurance, but behold at change to self-destruct mechanics.

Now those who get themselves in deep trouble can not longer coward their way out.

All hail the Masterplan!


Well in a since it is relative, seeing as how the self-destruct mechanics are being changes.

For example, a self-destructed ship will drop loot.

GM Homonoia: In other words; feel free to use the tactic, but don't be an utter and total ***.

CCP Tallest_: _And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
Jett0
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#93 - 2012-07-28 01:28:10 UTC
Dusenman wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:

It would also suck to get stuck in a wormhole system with no probes and no friends. You should always have the option of putting a gun to your head.

That can be seen as "You should always be able to SD your pod". It does not mean you should be able to SD your ship. We could just replace the self-destruct menu item with "Commit suicide".



As funny as that is, lets not put that into the game.


You're right. It should read "Skill yourself."

Insurance for self-destruction never made much sense to me either. Not sure what effect removing it would have overall, though.

Occasionally plays sober
Jack Tronic
borkedLabs
#94 - 2012-07-28 02:24:44 UTC
Parsee789 wrote:
Xercodo wrote:
What about WH caps?!

We lose all that money D:



If you live in a wormhole and worrying about a insurance payment from self-destructing capital, you are doing it wrong.


Wormholes are not only for living in. They can form vast chains of tens of systems from wspace to kspace and back. They are actiively used for travel as well as living in.
ACE McFACE
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2012-07-28 05:14:31 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Shantetha wrote:
I was thinking something similar Chribba, but not quite the same. Lowsec, Null, and wormholes are suppose to be dark harsh places, empire not as much but still dark and harsh.

So ya can loose your ship in Highsec and get a refund. Lowsec you risked and lost and the insurance company is penalizing the pay out for that extra risk. Nullsec you have a corp and alliance and the insurance company isn't going to risk any money out there in the wilds.

So the actual figures might come out something like this.

  1. Highsec hull reimbursement at current insurance prices.
  2. Lowsec 50% of hull reimbursement at current insurance prices
  3. Nullsec/WH 0% of hull reimbursement at current insurance prices.
  4. no insurance on SD irrespective of location in space.


yeah let's further punish people for living in nullsec

how about removing all profitable PvE from hisec first

Implying null is punishment

Now, more than ever, we need a dislike button.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#96 - 2012-07-28 05:23:07 UTC
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:
Can I get some of these insurence agents in my indy corp? These guys go into nul, wormhiles, wherever just to verify a ship blew up, and yet we never see them. Their skills must be amazing. So must be their cloaky t3 ships. How else could they do their job?

In other words, the assumption that spaceship insurance works in a manner similar to car insurance on earth. Why assume so? Why try to force a real world concept on a game, especially when the concept doesn't match. It would be far closer to marine insurance to begin with. Or maybe a completely different system. Maybe when you purchase a ship, some of the tax is.invested in a special insurance fund at a high return rate? Or it's just a complex scam? Who knows, but it would not be comparable to car insurance.

They's rob your corp, that's how they maintain the payouts on their ponzi scheme.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?