These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[New Feature] Insurance Contracts
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#1 - 2014-03-03 03:58:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Swiftstrike1
I was thinking about T2 ship insurance earlier today and wondering how it might be improved in a way that couldn't be exploited by the forces that be. I decided it can't be, so I came up with a better alternative: let players insure each other's ships.

DISCLAIMER: Yes this is highly abusable, scammable, potentially tear inducing, etc... It's still a good idea because all those things are what makes Eve unique and they generate gameplay experiences people never forget.

When an insurer issues a contract in real life they consider the risks involved, the client's history, and profit margins. There's no reason why enterprising capsuleers couldn't do the same thing in New Eden. All Player to Player insurance contracts would last for 30 days and would be voided in the same way as NPC insurance.

Why?
Insuring anything that isn't T1 is broken. This is a nice little workaround that potentially fixes that problem while adding content and providing a new career path (insurance broker).

How it would work
  • Player A approaches Player B about an insurance contract.
  • This would be done through a right-click context menu just like the direct trade option.
  • Then the new "Player-Player Insurance" window pops up.
  • Player A drags the ship they want to insure into a special window and...
  • The value of the ship will be automatically calculated by the server in the same way that kill mails are valued.
  • Player B then enters an amount he/she is willing to pay out and an amount they will charge for the contract.
  • Then there's haggling.
  • If Player A and Player B reach an agreement, they both click the "insure" button.
  • The money is held by Concord until such time that the contract expires or pays out.
  • In the event of Player A's ship being destroyed, Concord transfers the ISK to Player A.
  • In the event that the contract expires or is voided, Concord transfers the ISK to Player B.

    • Example 1
    A 3 week old RvB pilot comes to you asking you to insure his/her meta fitted corax. They insist that you insure the ship for 20 mil and won't budge from that amount. You look up the pilot's combat record using online killboards and find they have a 73% efficiency rating, but loses several ships during each play session. You decline to offer an insurance contract.

    Example 2
    You are approached by a veteran wormhole pilot asking you to insure his/her Proteus. You haggle over price for a while, but eventually come to an agreement. After checking the pilot's killboards, you find that this pilot hasn't lost a ship in months and has never before lost a proteus. You agree to the insurance contract.

    Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
    Riot Girl
    You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
    #2 - 2014-03-03 10:52:30 UTC
    You can do this yourself, you don't need an in-game system designed for it.

    Oh god.
    Swiftstrike1
    Swiftstrike Incorporated
    #3 - 2014-03-03 18:42:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Swiftstrike1
    EDITED
    Riot Girl wrote:
    You can do this yourself, you don't need an in-game system designed for it.

    You are correct of course, but I don't see the relevance. The following is a list of in-game features that you don't need because you can cobble together the functionality they provide manually or using 3rd party software:

  • Chat channels
  • Eve voice chat
  • Autopilot (the route planning aspect, not the 'automatic' aspect)
  • Notepad
  • Calculator
  • Journal
  • In-Game Browser
  • ISIS
  • The Fitting window
  • The statistics available on the Starmap

    • Those are just a few I thought up while my client is patching. The gist of what I'm trying to say is that just because it's possible to do something without the aid of a specially designed in-game feature, that doesn't mean there's no point in having that feature anyway.

    Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
    Anhenka
    The New Federation
    Sigma Grindset
    #4 - 2014-03-03 18:51:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
    Who would use such a "feature?"

    Not I. Not any PvP player. Nobody will insure us.

    PvE players? Hell no. Get it insured, strip your mods, have an alt or a friend kill you, take the insurance payment, profit.

    It wouldn't be worth developer time if one dev could slap it together in an afternoon, since the only people who would use it are people using it to scam younger players who don't understand why it's a terrible idea to agree to a contract like this with another player.
    Batelle
    Federal Navy Academy
    #5 - 2014-03-03 18:56:40 UTC
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:

    DISCLAIMER: Yes this is highly abusable, scammable, potentially tear inducing, etc... It's still a good idea.


    You're taking all the reasons why this system would be pointless and completely unused and trying to spin them as strengths.

    I can't believe you were able to type out the entire OP without realizing that this would be 100% wasted effort on the part of CCP.

    "**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

    Never forget.
    Swiftstrike1
    Swiftstrike Incorporated
    #6 - 2014-03-03 18:58:45 UTC
    Anhenka wrote:
    Who would use such a "feature?"

    Not I. Not any PvP player. Nobody will insure us.

    PvE players? Hell no. Get it insured, strip your mods, have an alt or a friend kill you, take the insurance payment, profit.

    It wouldn't be worth developer time if one dev could slap it together in an afternoon, since the only people who would use it are people using it to scam younger players who don't understand why it's a terrible idea to agree to a contract like this with another player.

    Well obviously the insurer would not offer a payout worth more than the value of the ship + rigs. That would be inviting insurance fraud. There is a sweet spot where it's worth it for both parties. Finding that sweet spot is what will make the difference between successful insurance brokers and unsuccessful ones.

    Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
    Batelle
    Federal Navy Academy
    #7 - 2014-03-03 19:02:55 UTC
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:
    There is a sweet spot where it's worth it for both parties.


    That's a dubious assumption.

    "**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

    Never forget.
    Anhenka
    The New Federation
    Sigma Grindset
    #8 - 2014-03-03 19:06:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:

    Well obviously the insurer would not offer a payout worth more than the value of the ship + rigs. That would be inviting insurance fraud. There is a sweet spot where it's worth it for both parties. Finding that sweet spot is what will make the difference between successful insurance brokers and unsuccessful ones.


    There is no sweet spot. The only people who would want to get insured are those who feel their ship is at significant risk of exploding in the near future. The only people who would insure are those who would insure a ship that has no chance to explode.

    See the complete and total incompatibility? I wouldn't insure someone's ship with an insurance policy that payed out only 10% of the hull on the off chance of a payout worth 50% of the hull, because I know without a doubt that every person looking for insurance does so because they believe that the ship is going to explode during that period at a chance much greater than 20%.
    Swiftstrike1
    Swiftstrike Incorporated
    #9 - 2014-03-03 19:08:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Swiftstrike1
    Batelle wrote:
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:
    There is a sweet spot where it's worth it for both parties.


    That's a dubious assumption.

    It's not an assumption. Consider T2 ship insurance. What would the existing insurance system offer you? 3 mil perhaps on platinum payout? Pathetic.

    With a system like this I could offer you insurance of 100m on a HAC at a cost of 20m. That's a hell of a lot better than what you can get in-game right now. It's still not worth it for you to take the contract and then go lose that HAC on purpose though. You'd only make an 80m "profit" from your insurance fraud but it would cost you a 200m+ HAC. There wouldn't be any net profit. It would be in both of our best interests for you to survive the length of the contract.

    Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
    Swiftstrike1
    Swiftstrike Incorporated
    #10 - 2014-03-03 19:15:53 UTC
    Anhenka wrote:
    There is no sweet spot. The only people who would want to get insured are those who feel their ship is at significant risk of exploding in the near future. The only people who would insure are those who would insure a ship that has no chance to explode.

    You obviously don't understand the concept of Risk vs Reward very well. Insuring someone else's ship would be a big risk. You would have to have a great deal of confidence in that pilot and/or their corp/alliance.

    Here's the bottom line. Insurance exists because insurers make a profit if they get the numbers right. It would be the same in Eve.

    Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
    Anhenka
    The New Federation
    Sigma Grindset
    #11 - 2014-03-03 19:16:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:
    Batelle wrote:
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:
    There is a sweet spot where it's worth it for both parties.


    That's a dubious assumption.

    It's not an assumption. Consider T2 ship insurance. What would the existing insurance system offer you? 3 mil perhaps on platinum payout? Pathetic.

    With a system like this I could offer you insurance of 100m on a HAC at a cost of 20m. That's a hell of a lot better than what you can get in-game right now. It's still not worth it for you to take the contract and then go lose that HAC on purpose though. You'd only make an 80m "profit" from your insurance fraud but it would cost you a 200m+ HAC. There wouldn't be any net profit. It would be in both of our best interests for you to survive the length of the contract.

    Swift, the chance of any HAC used frequently in PvP surviving 12 weeks can be counted on the fingers and toes of a double amputee.

    I'd insure everything, even at a 22mil policy that costs me 20 mil, because I'm well over 90% sure it's going to die. That's PvP. **** dies. Mostly other people's stuff if you are good, but 12 weeks is a ridiculous assumption for a frequently used ship.

    The only people who would ever offer insurance to another person are people who know they can take it out of their hide if they lose the ship, or people who you honestly don;t mind subsidizing their stuff in the first place cause they are a friend of yours.

    But it has absolutely no appeal outside of very close groups of players.
    Batelle
    Federal Navy Academy
    #12 - 2014-03-03 19:21:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:
    Batelle wrote:
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:
    There is a sweet spot where it's worth it for both parties.


    That's a dubious assumption.

    It's not an assumption. Consider T2 ship insurance. What would the existing insurance system offer you? 3 mil perhaps on platinum payout? Pathetic.

    With a system like this I could offer you insurance of 100m on a HAC at a cost of 20m. That's a hell of a lot better than what you can get in-game right now. It's still not worth it for you to take the contract and then go lose that HAC on purpose though. See?


    I see what you're saying. But no, its still wrong.

    Swiftstrike1 wrote:
    Anhenka wrote:
    There is no sweet spot. The only people who would want to get insured are those who feel their ship is at significant risk of exploding in the near future. The only people who would insure are those who would insure a ship that has no chance to explode.

    You obviously don't understand the concept of Risk vs Reward very well. Insuring someone else's ship would be a big risk. You would have to have a great deal of confidence in that pilot and/or their corp/alliance.

    Here's the bottom line. Insurance exists because insurers make a profit if they get the numbers right. It would be the same in Eve.


    And you obviously don't understand why Eve insurance is fundamentally different from real life insurance. Even if you built this system, nobody would use it.

    "**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

    Never forget.
    Swiftstrike1
    Swiftstrike Incorporated
    #13 - 2014-03-03 19:22:31 UTC
    Anhenka wrote:
    Swift, the chance of any HAC used frequently in PvP surviving 12 weeks can be counted on the fingers and toes of a double amputee.

    12 weeks, huh? I see you read the OP thoroughly enough to make accurate and well reasoned criticism... oh wait, you didn't. In the OP, I stated that these insurance policies would only last 30 days. Frankly I'm inclined to making the duration another thing that could be edited by the broker, thus allowing for short term high risk contracts or longer term lower risk contracts.

    Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
    Anhenka
    The New Federation
    Sigma Grindset
    #14 - 2014-03-03 19:36:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
    Ok, I missed the length. Oh no.

    It still does not change the fact that nobody would ever have any reason to offer insurance to anyone they don't know very well and trust.

    Eve teaches you not to trust people, ever. Yet you propose a mechanic that runs largely off trust, because outside of situation were both sides trust each other to a great degree, the person asking for insurance will always be doing it because he expects to lose the ship in short order. The length of the contract only changes how quickly someone thinks they will lose the ship before they go searching for some poor sucker to insure it.

    Frankly, even only thirty days down from 12 weeks only gives that amputee back one limb. PvP ships used in gang pvp tend to have a very short lifespan unless you are extremely conservative about what fights you take.

    TLDR: No matter how you spin this, it's going to be a mechanic used by just about nobody, cause both sides in an agreement are looking to take advantage of the other, but it's the buyer who is in control.
    Ines Tegator
    Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
    #15 - 2014-03-03 21:32:17 UTC
    Swiftstrike1 wrote:

    Insuring anything that isn't T1 is broken.


    Everyone thinks this. Everyone is wrong. This is a classic sunk-cost fallacy.

    When an insured ship dies, you get paid more then the insurance cost. Done. Fin. End. Over. This is profit. You pay 500k, you get 2m. You pay 2m, you get 5m. Whether the hull involved cost 10k or 500k or 500m is irrelevant to the benefit of insurance. You get more money out then you paid in. Always insure your PVP ships. It's free money.

    Overhaul Dscan!