These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

Insurance payout rebalancing.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#41 - 2012-04-17 19:56:38 UTC
Jake Warbird wrote:
Yea,few people clarified that. But would it help to update prices weekly atleast, instead of weakly now?
Nah. That would just open it up to market speculation and insurance fraud, which was part of the reason they changed the insurance system to begin with. You want it to lag behind the market by a fair bit so it doesn't become a part of the feedback loop that pushes prices in any specific direction. It should be the players that make the prices go up and down to the largest extent, so giving those price changes a wide berth lets the market play more freely, rather than constantly being constrained (or reinforced) by the “destruction subsidy” mechanism.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#42 - 2012-04-17 19:56:59 UTC
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:

simi kusoni wrote:

+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?

Who said anything about high sec? Ever seen a fleet of doctrine battleships get wiped out? I can assure you every single one of them will have been insured, the amount of ISK insurance injects into the game is staggering.

Personally I'd prefer it if CCP nerfed insurance instead of bounties, create greater consequences for those that lose their ships and reward those who do not.

Hell, maybe they could even add an insurance "allowance". Make too many insurance claims, and the price of the contract goes up as a result. Or they could just limit people to insuring x number of ships in a certain time period.

[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]
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#43 - 2012-04-17 19:59:16 UTC
Jake Warbird wrote:
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?


I also agree I should have clarified on the average price.

As for basing the average mineral price on that of a major trade hub, that's something that even I wouldn't suggest to CCP. Jita was not always THE STANDARD. If I remember correctly, Yulai use to be the biggest economic hub of New Eden before it broke off into four small hubs (Jita, Amarr, Dodixie, and Rens) with one for each empire.

Not only that, the prices change greatly outside the hubs as they are based on the need of the ships. A ganker looking for a Thrasher RIGHT NOW would rather spend extra getting what he wants if it's in the same system he is in rather than make 10 jumps to Jita where the price is lower due to the volume. The same can be said for a mission pilot who found a nice system to work in but doesn't want to bother making 8 jumps to Amarr for his Apocalypse so he would rather spend more buying one that is closest to him.

Now we have to consider what might happen if Jita is burned to the ground. Will it rise back up and remain as the economic unit of measure for New Eden, or will it stay weak and allow Amarr to take over?

Not only that, you have to consider market speculation and pilots attempting to corner the market. If the average price of a ship in Jita is too low compared to other systems and Jita is the used as a reference to update the insurance index, then the insurance payout drops lower for the ships in other regions and therefore you end up getting less in insurance for a T1 ship that is capable of being nearly fully covered.

Adapt or Die
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#44 - 2012-04-17 20:01:40 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Personally I'd prefer it if CCP nerfed insurance instead of bounties, create greater consequences for those that lose their ships and reward those who do not.
The effect would be too small and would put too much of a damper on one of the key parts of the industrial engine.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#45 - 2012-04-17 20:04:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Personally I'd prefer it if CCP nerfed insurance instead of bounties, create greater consequences for those that lose their ships and reward those who do not.
The effect would be too small and would put too much of a damper on one of the key parts of the industrial engine.

Hmm, really? How is ship insurance a key part of the industrial engine?

[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]
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
#46 - 2012-04-17 20:08:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Pohbis
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.
Didn't stop them from basing PI export/import taxes on prices from a PI bubble tho?

Insurance prices change tho, PI tax does not :(
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
#47 - 2012-04-17 20:10:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Pohbis
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Tippia wrote:
The effect would be too small and would put too much of a damper on one of the key parts of the industrial engine.

Hmm, really? How is ship insurance a key part of the industrial engine?

Do you know what "insurance fraud" was?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#48 - 2012-04-17 20:12:17 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Hmm, really? How is ship insurance a key part of the industrial engine?
Insurance isn't. Destruction is, and you don't really want to disincentivise it any further by jacking the prices up to solve an issue that's better solved through other means.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#49 - 2012-04-17 20:14:54 UTC
Pohbis 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.
Didn't stop them from basing PI export/import taxes on prices from a PI bubble tho?

Insurance prices change tho, PI tax does not :(

They're not based on a bubble, they're priced to incentivize setting up your own POCOs.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#50 - 2012-04-17 20:18:37 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Hmm, really? How is ship insurance a key part of the industrial engine?
Insurance isn't. Destruction is, and you don't really want to disincentivise it any further by jacking the prices up to solve an issue that's better solved through other means.

True, but I've always been unconvinced of just how much insurance "encourages" ship destruction. Its a hard point to prove either way though unfortunately.

Still, my reasons for wanting to change insurance payouts aren't purely inflation related, partly it is just a matter of principle P

[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]
Sigurd Sig Hansen
Doomheim
#51 - 2012-04-17 20:32:54 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:

simi kusoni wrote:

+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?

Who said anything about high sec? Ever seen a fleet of doctrine battleships get wiped out? I can assure you every single one of them will have been insured, the amount of ISK insurance injects into the game is staggering.

Personally I'd prefer it if CCP nerfed insurance instead of bounties, create greater consequences for those that lose their ships and reward those who do not.

Hell, maybe they could even add an insurance "allowance". Make too many insurance claims, and the price of the contract goes up as a result. Or they could just limit people to insuring x number of ships in a certain time period.


Here, great idea then, if youre in null or low you cant insure the ship. Or hell if its a warship you cant insure it. Thats kinda silly anyways. What kind of insane insurance company would insure a ship thats willingly going into combat?

Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#52 - 2012-04-17 20:56:10 UTC
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:
Here, great idea then, if youre in null or low you cant insure the ship. Or hell if its a warship you cant insure it. Thats kinda silly anyways. What kind of insane insurance company would insure a ship thats willingly going into combat?
One that has an interest in seeing as many ships destroyed as possible, rather than as few as possible.

Insurance is a game mechanic to, if not reward, then at least provide incentives for risking and losing your ship — it's not a business meant to make money from you not losing stuff.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#53 - 2012-04-17 21:02:15 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:
Here, great idea then, if youre in null or low you cant insure the ship. Or hell if its a warship you cant insure it. Thats kinda silly anyways. What kind of insane insurance company would insure a ship thats willingly going into combat?
One that has an interest in seeing as many ships destroyed as possible, rather than as few as possible.

Insurance is a game mechanic to, if not reward, then at least provide incentives for risking and losing your ship — it's not a business meant to make money from you not losing stuff.

This, pretty much.

I hope CCP release some data on insurance payouts at some point, like amount paid out, distribution through high/low/null, average character age of recipients etc.

Would be really interesting to see.

[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]
Sigurd Sig Hansen
Doomheim
#54 - 2012-04-17 21:02:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:
Here, great idea then, if youre in null or low you cant insure the ship. Or hell if its a warship you cant insure it. Thats kinda silly anyways. What kind of insane insurance company would insure a ship thats willingly going into combat?
One that has an interest in seeing as many ships destroyed as possible, rather than as few as possible.

Insurance is a game mechanic to, if not reward, then at least provide incentives for risking and losing your ship — it's not a business meant to make money from you not losing stuff.


wow there are THAT MANY people that are so poor they wont rick a ship unless they can get 1/6th the price of it (using a hulk as example) when it dies?

Mining is the "Deadliest Catch" in this game
Seleia O'Sinnor
Drop of Honey
#55 - 2012-04-17 21:04:47 UTC
JitaPriceChecker2 wrote:
insurance should be scrapped !!!



100% supported, remove this feature. It can't be balanced.

Odyssey: Repacking in POS hangars for modules +1,  but please for other stuff too, especially containers. Make containers openable in POS hangars.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#56 - 2012-04-17 21:07:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Simi Kusoni wrote:
I hope CCP release some data on insurance payouts at some point, like amount paid out, distribution through high/low/null, average character age of recipients etc.
If you have a twitter account, you can always bug @ccp_diagoras for the numbers. He's been posting a lot of random stuff for a few months now, and of those, the amount of ISK paid out has been a reoccurring statistic.

It usually accounts for ~6-7% of the injected ISK in EVE.

Sigurd Sig Hansen wrote:
wow there are THAT MANY people that are so poor they wont rick a ship unless they can get 1/6th the price of it (using a hulk as example) when it dies?
Unknown, but it's difficult to imagine than it doesn't mean more players put more stuff in the field, which would otherwise be left rotting in someone's hangar.
Previous page123