EVE General Discussion

Focusing on Isk Sinks/Faucets is a moronically shortsighted way of viewing economic issues in Eve to the point of being either useless, misleading, or both.

So of course it's the only thing that the eveo forums talks about.

We're all Keynesians now, right Einstein?

If someone was able to purchase an insurance policy that paid out the exact cost they spent on the ship, wouldn't that mean that the person who sold the ship took a loss.

I'm just trying to understand this because I've never been able to get a policy that paid out the exact amount I paid on a ship. And sinse the policy is based on mineral cost, then that would have to mean that the ship was sold for less then what it potentially cost to manufacture. That is assuming that the person who sold it was the same person who manufactured it, and that they didn't also mine all the minerals themself.


Anyways. Could you please direct me to the person that sells you your ships please. I'd like to take advantage of them as well.

I was thinking this as well. Further I bet more than 50% of the insurance policies sold expire never being paid out for destroyed ships. All of that is an ISK sink. Only CCP has all of the data on this.

But it would be kinda cool if CCP built in a slider for insurance premiums. Sort of to make sure the insurance companies did not lose ISK. Insurance costs go up as payouts mount in a high payout month. Costs drop in a low payout month. Then they also slide towards the individual. Premium goes down for every month without a claim. Premium goes up for every claim made in that month. End goal is for the insurance program to show a profit every month. More premiums paid in than damages paid out.

But this last part will never happen because it would discourage PvP.

But maybe encourage ganking as gankers do not get insurance payouts anyway but their target does.
What an evil way to increase your targets insurance premiums if you keep targeting his ships during a month.

You assume that every ship profits from insurance.

How about a high-tier Frigate which costs several tens of millions ISK and only gets insured for less than a fraction of the price? Between ships that never get blown apart and ships which you don't get diddly-**** for insuring, insurance is an ISK sink in the grand scheme of things.

It does reduce the collective amount of ISK across all players.

Actually, it's about risk aversion, but we're into splitting hairs territory now.


Let me reply to an argument from authority with a not so subtle attack towards said authority : you mean, the guys that practically created the global crisis we're now in ? For something to be cited as shining example, it must first still be a shining example, if you know what I mean.


Not really, no. The closest to anything similar that I've ever said was that "most" of them do.
I just posted numbers that devs have made public in the past regarding actual values paid to and claimed from insurance.
Then I try to explain how such numbers occur.


You're confusing networth/NAV with ISK. ISK is a subset of networth.

Yes, blowing up a T2 frigate (or anything else currently, for that matter, not just T2 ships) indeed does reduce the NAV, but it certainly does NOT decrease the amount of ISK, it actually increases it.

Let's say you have a T2 ship that sells for 500 mil ISK on the market, but platinum payout is 100 mil ISK. Player B has 530 mil, player A has the ship. There's only these two guys in the game (for simplicity' sake)
Total game NAV is 1030 mil, total game ISK is 530 mil.
Player A sells the ship to player B. Player A gets 500 mil (ignore market taxes for now, doesn't change much anyway). Player B platinum-insures ship, pays 30 mil for that.
Total game NAV is 1000 mil, total game ISK is 500 mil.

Now, at some point before his platinum insurance expires, player B loses his ship and gets 100 mil back from PEND. Player A still has 500 mil, player B now has 100 mil, nobody has a ship.
Total game NAV is 600 mil, total game ISK is 600 mil.
What if player B would have not insured his ship and left it with the basic/default/free insurance, he would have gotten 40 mil back and not have spent the 30 mil he still had, so he would end up with 70 mil. Player A still has 500 mil ISK.
Total game NAV 570 mil, total game ISK 570 mil.
What if insurances would not exist at all ? Player A would still have 500 mil ISK and player B would have only 30 mil ISK (the ones he didn't pay for any insurance).
Total game NAV 530 mil, total game ISK 530 mil.


With platinum insurance -> NAV down, ISK up.
With basic/default insurance -> NAV down a bit more, ISK up less.
Without insurance existing -> NAV down even more, ISK constant.

I really don't like it when people claim a logical fallacy, but don't understand the logical fallacy.

There was no argument from authority. I never claimed I was right because big business uses insurance, I cited it as a counter-example to your narrow conception of how insurance works.

If I had said, "You are wrong because of big business, bla blabla" then that would have been an argument from authority.

Instead, I said, "Tell your narrow conception to this segment of high level operators who think otherwise".

I am not right because Harvard MBAs don't work with your world view. I am right because you don't understand insurance, and that was a great example of an "edge case".

As far as the global crisis, it was created by the idiot plebes who vote for corrupt government to give them things stolen from other people. It's irrelevant. The little guy is hurting more than the big guy, as it has always been, because the big guy is smart enough to buy insurance, politically and socially.

Since you don't have an argument, please remain silent. There are enough people acting foolish on this forum, you can certainly take a day or two off.