These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

A Fix for the insurance system
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#21 - 2013-01-09 18:52:21 UTC
ORCACommander wrote:
We all know the insurance system by and large is not worth it since its all a based on ccp coded mineral values in the database and does not take into account market flux ever since they realized what an isk waterfall they made when people could manufacture and buy below value value and perform insurance fraud.
No, it already uses market values to determine the payout — the move away from mineral base values happened, what, two years ago? Three?

Quote:
since it is a server wide aggregate and does not track what was actually paid for ship the propagation of insurance fraud is minimal and requires long term monitoring.
Actually, that would allow for more fraud than the current system — buy cheap, drive prices up (or just wait for natural variance), and then blow it up.

Quote:
I just think things should be equitably applied or not at all, the insurance company of eve should make no distinguishing between a tech 1 hull, tech 2 hull or tech 3 hull. If anything insurance should cost more on ships that blow up most often.
No. Insurance is a game mechanic to take the edge off combat losses; it's not a business. You have to get rid of any notions about how actual insurances work before you start discussing the game mechanics because they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

In particular, the game mechanic is designed to have base ships be far more throw-away than the advanced ships, in keeping with the standard ”marginal increase for exponential cost” design pattern of the game. So it's entirely in keeping with the game that the more advanced the ship, the lower the coverage from the insurance.

Similarly, the idea of having an insurance history that raises your rates would go completely against the whole idea of having the insurance mechanic to begin with — if anything, it would have to be the opposite: the more you lose, the higher the payout (or the lower the insurance cost). The mechanic is there to make you lose ships; disincentivising loss makes absolutely no sense.
Previous page12