EVE General Discussion

Yes, cause blowing up ships lowers mineral demand.

Remove the ability to self-destruct would seem to be the best solution.

If self-destruct actually caused area of effect damage to other ships there might be a valid reason for retaining it but it doesn't so there isn't.

Get rid of self-destruct.

This.

Ship insurance is ********. The time limit where it "runs out" is a disincentive to be a competent pilot and not lose your ships.

Replace it with mechanics that allow player run insurance companies?

I used to agree with this notion, but then I thought it through.

If you aren't self-destructing in combat, then it would likely be viable to destroy the ship by more "conventional" means (shooting it) in order to get the insurance payment. So removing the insurance payment for SD outside of combat has no practical effect.

If you self-destruct in combat, it accomplishes two things: it denies the attackers a killmail, and it denies them loot as the contents of the ship are destroyed. Were I operating an insurance company, I'd *prefer* a doomed freighter self-destruct and deny the pirates their spoils. It keeps profit out of the hands of bad men who cost me money. I think what is at issue here is the lack of a killmail.

If you generate killmails for SD, then it functions ONLY as a means to deny loot. I find that perfectly acceptable and the victim--who was losing their ship regardless--should be compensated by insurance. The knowledge that a killmail will be made regardless of SD might also encourage cap pilots to fight to the bitter end rather than hit SD as soon as things go bad.

One step at a time, guys. Let's get SD killmails, and then see how things stand.

Player run insurance would be amusing...

I think the artificial ISK generated by insurance is healthy for regular gameplay, but perhaps it should go down based on the security level of the location you're in?

I think what should probably happen instead is if someone is losing a lot of ships and claiming a lot of insurance, their premium should go up for insuring, meaning they have to pay more for losing more ships. Although this is a bit of a "punishment", it does make a bit more sense in the grand scheme of things, if you're a dangerous pilot your insurer will start to go... WTF?

This should be on the order of tens of ships lost in a span of time, rather than just a couple ships lost.

I lose ships relatively rarely, so I almost never insure, because in the span of 2 insurance cycles I could have bought another XYZ ship for the cost of insuring it. I tend to insure right before I go into a situation that is along the lines of "Yes, this ship is gonna go boom!"

I can't recall the last time I insured a ship. So this is ok with me. But I wonder how hard this would hurt the newer players?

I'd be in favour of removing the Insurance mechanic entirely along with clone costs; the value of the ship, its modules, and your implants should be the price tag.

SP loss on death would be relinquished to the realm of Tech 3 and possibly some of the more snazzy implants.

e: Of course, removing Insurance is by itself also a step in the right direction...

So you get pointed in the middle of no where, say, in your pod. And you have no way of self destructing, and now these bad people can hold you there for hours. See a problem?

It would also suck to get stuck in a wormhole system with no probes and no friends. You should always have the option of putting a gun to your head.
If that option results in a killmail, no insurance, a loot-drop, a nice AOE fireball, or a mark-of-shame on your character, that is one thing. But getting rid of self-destruct entirely is not really an option, for reasons such as those mentioned above.