These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Lifetime insurance?

Author
Charcal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2016-06-03 11:18:25 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:



Your system effectively means that the only thing I will ever have to spend my billions of ISK on ever again are modules. And I will be able to afford lots of sweet Faction and Deadspace modules because a HUGE part of my expenses will effectively be GONE.





I would like to address this because i don't think the industry or the economy will be affected that much. on the super expensive stuff it will have a bigger impact yeah, but let's put this into perspective.


Let's pretend for a second we are pre- goonswarm war (no hate vs them, just a good example).

People have their Lifetime insurance, we have our smaller wars, we have our random clashes. once in awhile we get the larger wars that involve a larger use of assets. So we blow up everything we own, for the cause! And it cools down for the loosing party for about 14 days, then they retalliate. WHAM, ok another 14 days, the other loosing party retalliates.

--

Then came the war.

--


You blow up your ships, but oh my god we have an ongoing war that requires more presence. so we start making ships, and we start buying ships and oh my this is gonna cost, and we still need people with industry and we still need ships actually, oh my the market just spiked on demand! wooo! I LOVE INDUSTRY!

Are you catching my point? because honestly, i don't think this will affect the economy to a major extent, it will affect it, but it might actually give people the incentive to join in on a fight with a ship they normally wouldn't wanna bring into a fight and to be honest you're not gonna lifetime insurance all your ships if you know you're gonna hop in and out of various ones in a large scale war, but that one favorite you got. that will get it.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#22 - 2016-06-03 11:25:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
so industrialists should only be able to play when there is a major war? something that generally only happens once a year?

considering most high end modules are dropped by rats and are not built

or we keep our player run market where almost every thing in eve was built by a player using materials mad by a player from resources mined by a player.


and yes i would insure all my ships because its for life and the odds are i will lose each one more than 3 times
Charcal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2016-06-03 11:27:04 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
okay lets look at this from the "every one else in the game"

I have enough wealth to buy 7 titans just in liquid isk and if you told me i would be able to get mine back after i lost it in a fraction of the normal time + i would never have to buy one again why the hell would i not do this

and what the hell does a new players isk and titan train time have to do with that

and i know there would be a lot of players new and old that we buy ore from to build them that would be a bit upset by this



Let's look at this for everyone else's point of view, how can you claim to know that? I am a part of that, and just to clarify one thing, this is a suggestive forum section. Not a "omg put this **** in!" forum. I'm merely debating my suggestion, and the perspectives i have on the matter. but i'm not claiming to know what the entire EVE community feels regarding this.

A new player has alot to do with this. if you forgot how it was starting out, you see a massive ship and you ask around what ship is that! how can i get that ship!? you aim for something! and then you get blown up. That's EVE, you set a goal and you die repeatedly on your way to that goal.

People still have to make the initial ships, they can still do industry on ammo, which is by far in a bigger demand pool then a Titan. Ammunition is a source of income if you did not know. Yes ships can give you a substantial income pr. sale, but the quantity? check out ammo on the market. i own 80 blueprints, 79 are non-ships.
Charcal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2016-06-03 11:31:19 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
so industrialists should only be able to play when there is a major war? something that generally only happens once a year?

considering most high end modules are dropped by rats and are not built

or we keep our player run market where almost every thing in eve was built by a player using materials mad by a player from resources mined by a player.


and yes i would insure all my ships because its for life and the odds are i will lose each one more than 3 times


No this is not what i'm saying.

And you just confirmed it. Small scale to large scale wars are costly depending on the corp size.

Now, let's say you do a lifetime insurance on your ships, and you loose one of those ships, regardless of war, peace.

Would you seriously wait 14 days to get back into the fight, or would you buy 20 more ships and insure them, or just buy ships with lower insurance and then get back in there with a cheaper one to stick to the fight? in all honesty, put this post aside, really think about that for a second.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#25 - 2016-06-03 11:33:36 UTC
so your argument is "eve is hard pls nerf?"


if there has ever been a time when HTFU applied its right now



what makes eve great is that loss is permanent taking that away does not help the game for anyone. If you can't deal with loss go play an arena game
Lan Wang
African Atomic.
Dreadnought Diplomacy.
#26 - 2016-06-03 11:34:58 UTC
so some investigation? "Lan Wang we have done some investigations on your claim for your 1bil tengu that you lost, seems you got drunk then proceeded to jump into nullsec with it with great determination to kill things solo, im affraid we cant pay out for this sort of stupidity, thxbye, please keep up the payments for any future claims to be assessed"

something like that or am i wrong?

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Lugh Crow-Slave
#27 - 2016-06-03 11:39:32 UTC
Charcal wrote:

Would you seriously wait 14 days to get back into the fight, or would you buy 20 more ships and insure them, or just buy ships with lower insurance and then get back in there with a cheaper one to stick to the fight? in all honesty, put this post aside, really think about that for a second.




just capitals alone yes and each one of those lowers the demand on minerals more than if i did this with 1 billion frigates or 100 million cruisers. not to mention now that we all have free capitals there are fewer people flying and losing smaller ships to keep the demand up for them.

or crap why not JFs now we are looking at 350 T2 frigats worth of T2 mats no longer being demanded per JF pilots
Charcal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2016-06-03 11:41:21 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
so some investigation? "Lan Wang we have done some investigations on your claim for your 1bil tengu that you lost, seems you got drunk then proceeded to jump into nullsec with it with great determination to kill things solo, im affraid we cant pay out for this sort of stupidity, thxbye, please keep up the payments for any future claims to be assessed"

something like that or am i wrong?


LOL, i like your angle, last weekend i did just that with my Stealth bomber only it was a player. This alcohol.. *shakes head*

But yeah, that would be a typical msssage, not in those exact words though.

-

But i'm a little bit uncertain about your angle with that post, are you positive on this or negative on this?

Actually that brought a good point to my attention, should this be solely affecting pvp or pve, or both. Now contract transport voids the insurance, as it's a player risk. and Contracts can easily be abused.
Charcal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2016-06-03 11:48:04 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Charcal wrote:

Would you seriously wait 14 days to get back into the fight, or would you buy 20 more ships and insure them, or just buy ships with lower insurance and then get back in there with a cheaper one to stick to the fight? in all honesty, put this post aside, really think about that for a second.




just capitals alone yes and each one of those lowers the demand on minerals more than if i did this with 1 billion frigates or 100 million cruisers. not to mention now that we all have free capitals there are fewer people flying and losing smaller ships to keep the demand up for them.

or crap why not JFs now we are looking at 350 T2 frigats worth of T2 mats no longer being demanded per JF pilots


There will always be new players.

There will always be new alts.

Meaning. There will always be smaller, cheaper ships that are uninsured.

Now, if a player fails to pay his EVE account, what happens then? Yes exactly like all normal insurance, it's actually terminated?
Think about that for a change, do you wanna loose the 3x cost of a titan because you didn't pay for EVE that month, or does that take your isk?

And not to mention, on the way to the biggest baddest capitol ships, how many ships do you plow through regardless? People still have to fly them from A to B, they still have to ship stuff from A to B.

--

Actually thank you for pointing this out. Because the part about insurance actually voiding when account is inactive i totally forgot about. if this is not the case anymore. then this can actually be a safeguard. if you don't pay, your insurance is away or maybe it can be 3 months. just to give people a tiny buffer.

Thank you Lugh.
Charcal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2016-06-03 11:49:54 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

just capitals alone yes and each one of those lowers the demand on minerals more than if i did this with 1 billion frigates or 100 million cruisers.


Can i be your main man when you plan on buying this many ships? :D i'd make a fortune!
Lugh Crow-Slave
#31 - 2016-06-03 11:53:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
.... every time someone buys a cap that is the strain on the mineral market

Also the fact that you didn't catch the math error is amazing
Lan Wang
African Atomic.
Dreadnought Diplomacy.
#32 - 2016-06-03 11:55:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Lan Wang
im negative because it gives a player too many factors to determine if he should risk or not, player thinks yeah ill do this as my insurance will cover it so who cares, or player thinks hmmm maybe i shouldnt do this because the insurance might not pay out.

i really dont know how someone can determine if you should pay out insurance or not, focussing it on pve players is a bit meh because they dont lose as much ships as pvp players nor do they take the risks, maybe they will risk if they have full insurance, its just making dedicated pve players richer while the pvp players who take risks to create content are penalised, bit like real life insurance which is just cancer

how real life insurance companies work out costs is way beyond me, mostly is just pulled from thin air, and pulling things from thin air isnt really a good thing

so yeah just get rid of insurance completely

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Charcal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2016-06-03 12:03:47 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
im negative because it gives a player too many factors to determine if he should risk or not, player thinks yeah ill do this as my insurance will cover it so who cares, or player thinks hmmm maybe i shouldnt do this because the insurance might not pay out.

i really dont know how someone can determine if you should pay out insurance or not, focussing it on pve players is a bit meh because they dont lose as much ships as pvp players nor do they take the risks, maybe they will risk if they have full insurance, its just making dedicated pve players richer while the pvp players who take risks to create content are penalised, bit like real life insurance which is just cancer


As i thought your previous post was a joke, not a sarcastic comment on the insurance claim. i would like to point out that the insurance was ment to be paid out in PVP/PVE, so it will be paid back.
If you get killed you will get it back. just like the current payback on the current active insurance system.

The only thing that voids it are the contracts as i previously stated.

What was the purpose of your first post? Because i'm now confused.
Charcal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2016-06-03 12:05:31 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
.... every time someone buys a cap that is the strain on the mineral market

Also the fact that you didn't catch the math error is amazing


i'm not here debating math, i'm here debating my suggestion.

But if you want to elaborate and explain, instead of trying to point out my personal flaws, then go ahead. i'm all ears.
Lan Wang
African Atomic.
Dreadnought Diplomacy.
#35 - 2016-06-03 12:14:43 UTC
Charcal wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
im negative because it gives a player too many factors to determine if he should risk or not, player thinks yeah ill do this as my insurance will cover it so who cares, or player thinks hmmm maybe i shouldnt do this because the insurance might not pay out.

i really dont know how someone can determine if you should pay out insurance or not, focussing it on pve players is a bit meh because they dont lose as much ships as pvp players nor do they take the risks, maybe they will risk if they have full insurance, its just making dedicated pve players richer while the pvp players who take risks to create content are penalised, bit like real life insurance which is just cancer


As i thought your previous post was a joke, not a sarcastic comment on the insurance claim. i would like to point out that the insurance was ment to be paid out in PVP/PVE, so it will be paid back.
If you get killed you will get it back. just like the current payback on the current active insurance system.

The only thing that voids it are the contracts as i previously stated.

What was the purpose of your first post? Because i'm now confused.


the purpose of my first post was to basically give a scenario on someone who took a risk with something to then be denied the insurance because he took a risk, you mentioned investigation, investigations usually mean a way to not pay out and to see why someone took said risk to determine who was to blame for the loss ie in that case it was me that was to blame for suiciding a ship.

ive confused you yes but ive also confused myself by trying to confuse you now we are both confused What?

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Lugh Crow-Slave
#36 - 2016-06-03 12:14:58 UTC
Charcal wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
.... every time someone buys a cap that is the strain on the mineral market

Also the fact that you didn't catch the math error is amazing


i'm not here debating math, i'm here debating my suggestion.

But if you want to elaborate and explain, instead of trying to point out my personal flaws, then go ahead. i'm all ears.


The math for the t1 stuff was of but a factor of a million

The point is your suggestion does have a major effect on industry
Charcal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2016-06-03 12:19:04 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Charcal wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
.... every time someone buys a cap that is the strain on the mineral market

Also the fact that you didn't catch the math error is amazing


i'm not here debating math, i'm here debating my suggestion.

But if you want to elaborate and explain, instead of trying to point out my personal flaws, then go ahead. i'm all ears.


The math for the t1 stuff was of but a factor of a million

The point is your suggestion does have a major effect on industry


So what you're saying is, from your mathematical perspective, and with your current economy, doing industry on 100 million ships and 1 billion other ships is not profitable?

I'd say if 500.000 players do this, we'd still have an economy, and how many of them will eventually have bigger, better and more expensive ships. most likely more then before.

So after all the newbeans, less fortunate players and the ones proned to death more often have actually managed to get a certain amount of isk, to get a more expensive ship. They will order their part of the market.

Correct?

Not to forget new players.
Charcal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2016-06-03 12:25:00 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Charcal wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
im negative because it gives a player too many factors to determine if he should risk or not, player thinks yeah ill do this as my insurance will cover it so who cares, or player thinks hmmm maybe i shouldnt do this because the insurance might not pay out.

i really dont know how someone can determine if you should pay out insurance or not, focussing it on pve players is a bit meh because they dont lose as much ships as pvp players nor do they take the risks, maybe they will risk if they have full insurance, its just making dedicated pve players richer while the pvp players who take risks to create content are penalised, bit like real life insurance which is just cancer


As i thought your previous post was a joke, not a sarcastic comment on the insurance claim. i would like to point out that the insurance was ment to be paid out in PVP/PVE, so it will be paid back.
If you get killed you will get it back. just like the current payback on the current active insurance system.

The only thing that voids it are the contracts as i previously stated.

What was the purpose of your first post? Because i'm now confused.


the purpose of my first post was to basically give a scenario on someone who took a risk with something to then be denied the insurance because he took a risk, you mentioned investigation, investigations usually mean a way to not pay out and to see why someone took said risk to determine who was to blame for the loss ie in that case it was me that was to blame for suiciding a ship.

ive confused you yes but ive also confused myself by trying to confuse you now we are both confused What?


lol ok :D

Well i think i initially started the confusion. the purpose of the "investigation" part was to make a reference to a real-life company using a periode of time before re-imbursing something. so the investigation part was only to explain why we have to wait 7-14 days.

Nothing more.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#39 - 2016-06-03 13:56:49 UTC
The only good thing about implementing this would be the potential elimination of the sad "already replaced" comments about kills and that is not worth destroying the entire economy over.

Oh wait, who am I kidding? Those comments would still be there...
Charcal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2016-06-03 14:04:04 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
The only good thing about implementing this would be the potential elimination of the sad "already replaced" comments about kills and that is not worth destroying the entire economy over.

Oh wait, who am I kidding? Those comments would still be there...


I can mention several points that is good about this system, InFact i've already done that. But regarding your annoyance on the "already replaced" comment, you should make a post on that if you feel it's a big annoyance, there is a section in the forum regarding feedback, they'd probably like to hear it.

Regarding your note on destroying the whole economy. please elaborate. include us in your vision on this matter.