Comments on: “So, are you in good hands…..”

By: Ga'len

Ga'len — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:09:52 +0000

CJ, any insurance system should be insuring and paying out only on the destroyed items. I think that would balance this a little better. That way there is another facet of risk still present along with all the other risks of combat.

By: Cj Didge

Cj Didge — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:50:26 +0000

I just think the insurance of modules, specifically those that aren’t destroyed when a ship is but an insurance payment is made, will lead to even more insurance fraud. I agree the insurance system needs looking at but then I believe the whole money system does. I wonder if CCP even look at that part of the game.

By: Ga'len

Ga'len — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:43:30 +0000

“The amount of the paid insurance would be a percentage of the actual purchase price of that ship and modules at say, 65 percent. Is that the cost to insure or the amount paid out?”

I was referring to what you paid to insure your ship and modules.

By: PsycheDiver

PsycheDiver — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:25:25 +0000

Interesting concept. I think ultimately a corp and alliance should negate the losses endured by its pilots as much as possible in whatever fashion agreed upon.

Personally I cost my corp 0 isk, but pay an average of 35 million through taxes. In this way a mission-runner can support a nullsec effort. I intend to always keep my person to corp balance in the green.

By: Cj Didge

Cj Didge — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:08:01 +0000

Don’t get me wrong, I believe the insurance system needs looking at, as my Bestower with rigs is worth close to 100mill and the insurance payout is close to 600k. However if the payouts start to increase beyond what was paid for ship and modules, then there could be a situation were people profit from being blown up. This appears great at first glance but also appears as if it could break the money supply within the game. Although in your post you say “The amount of the paid insurance would be a percentage of the actual purchase price of that ship and modules at say, 65 percent.” Is that the cost to insure or the amount paid out?

By: Ga'len

Ga'len — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:30:53 +0000

In game insurance currently is abused in many ways that lead to the situation you describe right now. Any system that is used will be abused, there is no way around it.

The best insurance you can have in game is to simply put isk aside and always have enough to replace what you are flying. Personally, I don’t fly any ship without have a replacement with fittings sitting in my hanger.

By: Cj Didge

Cj Didge — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:36:29 +0000

I think there could be a problem with insurance paying out larger values, as there are several ways to earn isk through the NPC base, completing missions, bounties and some trading, and ways in which to earn modules from loot drops. There seems very few ways in which isk leaves the system, tax on sales, factory and research costs, insurance costs, broker costs, which all can be reduced with skills and standing, and I cant think of anything else. Wouldn’t an insurance scheme which pays out on most of the value of the ship including modules create a large increase in the money supply, thus as I understand it pushing up all the prices, causing large inflationary rises?