These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Insurance payout rebalancing.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#21 - 2012-04-17 18:54:50 UTC
Henry Haphorn wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
The insurance rates were nerfed from being "true 100%" of mineral cost because of the rampant self-destructing exploits that happened when for some reason the mineral cost was higher than what the ships were being sold for (market shenanigans). It was also nerfed so there would be a more significant risk to PvPing in battleships or other big ships.


Isn't it the other way around? Wasn't it because the insurance rate was at a fixed amount based on the hull and class and that the cost of producing said ships was so cheap that people self-destructed them because the payout was worth more than what the ship was worth? Or did I I misunderstand you?

Disclaimer: I might just be talking out of my ass since I think I started playing after the change.

Come to think of it, the insurance might have been a set amount? That sounds like an even worse idea, actually.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#22 - 2012-04-17 18:54:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Henry Haphorn
Garibaldi Sinatra wrote:
Tanya Powers wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Current ship prices are a result of a market bubble on mineral prices. Doing any balancing of the game based on this would be a bad, bad, bad idea since the bubble is only a temporary occurrence.

That said, insurance is dependent on the material cost of the ship. As mineral prices go up, insurance payouts should also go up. There is nothing wrong there.

We also don't need a return of self-destructing ships for profit.

Insurance is fine as it is now.



Isn't the insurance payout alreay an automatic operation taking in account current mineral prices?


Also: if you really want gameplay to change you need to keep gank miners, this is crucial for a future better pvp game Lol



YES and this is the issue its based off of Current Mineral prices NOT off current ship prices. Thats my beef i guess!


Ship prices are based on mineral prices as well as quite possibly the prices of T2 components if you want to include T2 ships. How they calculate the index for the T2 components? I don't know.

Therefore, for T1 ships, you might as well base insurance payout on mineral prices.

Adapt or Die
Garibaldi Sinatra
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2012-04-17 18:55:55 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
scooter Kondur wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Garibaldi Sinatra wrote:
The Values for insurance should be and could be floating values updated on a monthly basis by the devs with *presumably* very little difficulty.
Maybe you should read this two year old patch note. Specifically, the “Miscellaneous” part of the ˘Changes” section, or use the fixes link and scroll up a bit…


know it all ruining the game for everyone again, probably goon or spambot as well


Let me guess: pretty much everyone you meet eventually turns out to be a "know it all"?



I think everyone would like to think they 'know it all', sadly no-one does!

No YOU dont

**Conquering Eve Online One Pint at a time. **(Excuse my bad spelling and or grammar ive never really valued such things especially when everyone knows what im saying regardless)
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2012-04-17 18:56:52 UTC
So insurance doesn't take into account current mineral prices?

Sugar Von MurdererTits : Jake Warbird gets my vote for most intriguing and attractive male character in Eve.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#25 - 2012-04-17 18:58:45 UTC
Garibaldi Sinatra wrote:
Tanya Powers wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Current ship prices are a result of a market bubble on mineral prices. Doing any balancing of the game based on this would be a bad, bad, bad idea since the bubble is only a temporary occurrence.

That said, insurance is dependent on the material cost of the ship. As mineral prices go up, insurance payouts should also go up. There is nothing wrong there.

We also don't need a return of self-destructing ships for profit.

Insurance is fine as it is now.



Isn't the insurance payout alreay an automatic operation taking in account current mineral prices?


Also: if you really want gameplay to change you need to keep gank miners, this is crucial for a future better pvp game Lol



YES and this is the issue its based off of Current Mineral prices NOT off current ship prices. Thats my beef i guess!


Well CCP had this awesome idea of aurum, players could just buy their ship with aurum at the end, this was nice you need no effort, just fun and blow stuff.
Then some nerds said "no no no" and aurum became plex 4 the win and now "no no no" nerds are crying. Awesome Lol
Cavel Avada
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2012-04-17 18:58:55 UTC
I agree with the topic. It's bad enough that insurance covers less than half the price of the ship, but when you factor in mods on top of that, it just doesn't feel like it's worth the amount of money you're paying for the insurance.
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#27 - 2012-04-17 18:59:51 UTC
Jake Warbird wrote:
So insurance doesn't take into account current mineral prices?


By current you mean this very moment? No. It doesn't update that fast I believe. Even updating it on every downtime sounds like too much load on the server as there is a **** ton of data to go through. Eve Online's economy is vastly complex after all.

Adapt or Die
Garibaldi Sinatra
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2012-04-17 19:00:21 UTC
Jake Warbird wrote:
So insurance doesn't take into account current mineral prices?



It absolutley does, but who cares i only care about the ship prices. Teh current insurance cover is not adequate too cover the cost of the ship price.


Who said Ship price = mineral prices?


Hell wasnt that why insurance was nerfed in the first place.


un-nerf Ship insurance.

**Conquering Eve Online One Pint at a time. **(Excuse my bad spelling and or grammar ive never really valued such things especially when everyone knows what im saying regardless)
Garibaldi Sinatra
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2012-04-17 19:01:21 UTC
You know what at the end of the day Ship insurance is totally optional, but lets make it a realistic option shall we ? EH EH ?

**Conquering Eve Online One Pint at a time. **(Excuse my bad spelling and or grammar ive never really valued such things especially when everyone knows what im saying regardless)
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#30 - 2012-04-17 19:03:20 UTC
I'm giving a 7/10 because I had to figure out by my self I just got owned. Lol
Funny thou.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#31 - 2012-04-17 19:05:06 UTC
Garibaldi Sinatra wrote:
You know what at the end of the day Ship insurance is totally optional, but lets make it a realistic option shall we ? EH EH ?

Let's make insurance have a small monthly rate for each ship will full payout for the ship if it is lost. However, if you lose lots of ships, your premium goes through the roof and since the SCC has a monopoly on ship insurance, you're screwed.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Sigurd Sig Hansen
Doomheim
#32 - 2012-04-17 19:08:30 UTC
I think the insurance payout should reflect the market cost of the ship.

50 mil payout on a 300 mil ship is a bit silly

Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#33 - 2012-04-17 19:10:33 UTC
Garibaldi Sinatra wrote:
Jake Warbird wrote:
So insurance doesn't take into account current mineral prices?



It absolutley does, but who cares i only care about the ship prices. Teh current insurance cover is not adequate too cover the cost of the ship price.


Who said Ship price = mineral prices?


Hell wasnt that why insurance was nerfed in the first place.


un-nerf Ship insurance.


You're right. Ship price doesn't equal the price of the minerals. It equals the price of the minerals and the markup set by the seller. If you do the math (open that spreadsheet, dude) you will see that the vast majority of the cost of the ship is based on minerals. The rest is just to cover the minuscule cost of using the manufacturing slots and gaining profit.

Also, please read my previous comment on why insurance was changed.

Adapt or Die
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#34 - 2012-04-17 19:20:52 UTC
A quote from the dev blog here: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=746

Quote:

So ship insurance will be marked to market?

Yes, ship insurance will now revalue itself periodically based on a trimmed mean of the ship's manufacturing materials global market weighted average prices. This means the insurance quote when you are buying insurance will be now estimated and may change if the payout occurs during the next insurance period.

But there is more to discuss!

Our new insurance system recalculates the value of all ship classes which includes Tech 2 and Tech 3 classes establishing the base material cost of the ship. To this we have added the ability for us to define more precisely how much of the total material value of each ship class should be paid out. Our intention is that we can make certain ship classes pay out much less, some closer to the full value.

Here we can then say that a tackler class which is a highly dangerous role and prone to see you dying a lot might pay out more than say a specialist covert ops class of ship has a higher survival rate. So players who fly the ships with short life expectancies will be more sustainable to fly on lower incomes, and the same can be applied to more casual ship classes such as cruisers or battlecruisers used more by newer players to allow them to get to grips with the game whilst not losing everything constantly.

On the high end game play side of this is the role of strategic ship classes as valuable targets. Here we refer to them as supercapitals, the largest classes of ships in the game which cannot dock in stations. Currently they get a default payout of 40% of the old static value of the ship which is around 5 billion ISK for supercarriers and 20 billion for titans.

The idea is that these are cut to a fraction of their current payout values so they might only get 1-10% for example of the base build value of their ships. This is done with the intention of making strategic ship classes be more valuable targets and their death have much stronger meaning and value.

We have our own ideas for how much of the full insurance value we want to payout for each ship class which generally is 100% for Tech 1 ship groups, 20-60% for Tech 2 and 100% for Tech 3 ships (those this is only a portion of the value of the entire ship since subsystems are not included currently). However we are interested in your feedback on what you think they should be for each ship class and why.

Adapt or Die
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2012-04-17 19:29:46 UTC
Yes agreed on the complexities of the Eve market. Also if I understand correctly, setting insurance based on the ship cost would be a bad idea,correct? Or am I too noob to get it,heh...

Sugar Von MurdererTits : Jake Warbird gets my vote for most intriguing and attractive male character in Eve.
Mashie Saldana
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#36 - 2012-04-17 19:30:25 UTC
Jake Warbird wrote:
So insurance doesn't take into account current mineral prices?

Nope, it is using the average mineral prices for an unknown set of time, probably a month or two.

How to win EVE
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#37 - 2012-04-17 19:38:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Simi Kusoni
JitaPriceChecker2 wrote:
insurance should be scrapped !!!


+1

If CCP are looking to remove ISK faucets they should start with insurance.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2012-04-17 19:40:41 UTC
Mashie Saldana wrote:
Jake Warbird wrote:
So insurance doesn't take into account current mineral prices?

Nope, it is using the average mineral prices for an unknown set of time, probably a month or two.

Yea,few people clarified that. But would it help to update prices weekly atleast, instead of weakly now?

Also,Henry H,is it really so much data to be taken into consideration? Wouldn't something like averages over major trade hubs be a reference point?

Sugar Von MurdererTits : Jake Warbird gets my vote for most intriguing and attractive male character in Eve.
Sigurd Sig Hansen
Doomheim
#39 - 2012-04-17 19:47:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigurd Sig Hansen
why arent gankers frothing at the mouth over this? they took away your insurance an now theyre gonna pay your targets more

Simi Kusoni wrote:
JitaPriceChecker2 wrote:
insurance should be scrapped !!!


+1

If CCP are looking to remove ISK faucets they should start with insurance.


isnt one of the biggest QQs about ppl in high sec that they DONT lose ships? So shouldnt insurance payouts be a small factor?

Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#40 - 2012-04-17 19:52:07 UTC
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:

isnt one of the biggest QQs about ppl in high sec that they DONT lose ships? So shouldnt insurance payouts be a small factor?

Everyone else does lose ships, and in massive quantities. Each ship loss pours ISK into the economy.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Previous page123Next page