EVE General Discussion

this would work. they could beef up corp tool to allow for automactic ship replacement plans and payouts. they talked about this during AT10. Think about it, join a corp, you'll get paid whe you lose a ship. Stay in noob corp, and you have to pay more per loss. which should be less anyways. becuase your in high sec running missions.

that's a poor excuse, removing self destruct from ships isn't the same as removing it from your pod.

I mean I'm willing to hear why ships should be able to self destruct. I think it would be awesome if you could come across empty ships in wormhole space to steal, since the players had to jump out and self destruct his pod.


what do you think?

yeah let's further punish people for living in nullsec

how about removing all profitable PvE from hisec first

Just get rid off any insurance altogether - it always has been a flawed mechanic and doesn't fit with eve.

Also, lol about idiots being butthurt about how they didn't get a little picture card to show around.

The other guy lost his ship - and nothing else matters.

Bit of brainstorming. Don't take this too seriously. Or do, if you like it.

What if there were a way to remotely prevent a ship (but not pod) from self destructing? Perhaps a combat use for the codebreaker: you have a chance of remotely preventing the self destruct by gaining access to the ship's systems.

This could be used to hold down those capitals while you destroyed them, or for REAL piracy where you tackle a ship and demand they eject. Of course the longer you use it to hold someone, the more likely they are to get help. Again: this WOULD NOT work on pods, so it would be impossible to hold a person indefinitely. They could simply eject from the ship and fly off or self destruct.

Could be fun. Could get really stupid. I dunno. Just a thought.

There will always be scuttling, no argument there. It's just that some people have wandered off the topic of how to make self destruct less stupid and started talking about getting rid of it entirely because they can't imagine how people could abuse it.

Insurance should be removed. Losing a ship - losing a ship, not here's some money, go buy antoehr, because we are such nice guys...

There's a saying in EVE my friend and that is:

"Don't Fly what you can't afford to lose."

make moon mining either less profitable, or make interaction required irst, then we'll talk

removing insurance hurts newer players. if they get a new ship, they think they're ready for a mission, they aggro the wrong ship (as noobs can tend to do) and things go wrong. why should we punish this noob twice for the same mistake?

self destructing needs a huge high damage area efect fireball. mindset: If i'm going down, i'm taking you with me!" why shouldnt wormhole players be allowed to overload their ship's reactor before ejecting from their ship? i'm fine with a codebreaker module preventing certain ship functions (but not self destructing) as long as it's very difficult and is counterable.

The problem with removing insurance is you completely lose the safety net for newer players. Insurance as it exists prevents someone from losing that first battlecruiser and ragequitting because they just watched a month of PVE go down the drain. Insurance softens the blow and lets them keep going.

Now if you want to void insurance on PVP, fine. But don't gut the new player experience just because experienced players can get by without it.

edit: thinking about it, there's only one form of PVP combat that isn't consentual: ganks. If you're at war and in space, if you've been canflipped and aggress, if you're outside of highsec...you have put your ship at risk of being shot. I'd say that insurance should cover two kinds of losses: losses to NPCs, and losses to GCC players. That way a ganked hulk still gets insurance, but a hulk mining at war does not.