These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Self-destructing your ship should not give you insurance money

First post First post
Author
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2012-07-25 17:54:48 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Gritz1 wrote:
Othran wrote:
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.


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.


If that did happen, you would not see any complaints about self destructs
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2012-07-25 18:04:49 UTC
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
EVE insurance is an isk fountain anyway just plain remove it. Eve insurers would have gone bust one billion times over as there premiums would never cover the pay outs. CCP should remove NPC insurance company's and allow insurances company's to become player run. SO no you can't insure your combat ship any more. High sec bears in orca's and freighters would probably still be able to get insured by an other player.



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.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2012-07-25 18:09:19 UTC
Dusenman wrote:
Chribba wrote:
In this case, the black box of the ship would record that SD was activated, so unless you have a friend that loots the black box from the wreck, the insurance company would know you activated SD.

Why not remove insurance completely... make EVE that dark harsh place it is. Also it's not fair that supercaps cannot insure their ships - and ofc even more unfair that the base payout for a titan is like 650m...

/c


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?


if they are in a noob npc corps, then not much as it would only effect losses to missions. Maybe this happened to peole at 1st. but overall, missions are a very small % of ship losses.

In a PvP corp, most corps have ship replacement programs. If ships were less expensive, and there was no insurance, it would be a great excuse to start paying your players to PvP when they die. let corps cover that extra cost, instead of the magic npcs doing it for us. In fact due to the replaceent programs I never insure my ship anyways during a war.

I get a new one anyways

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2012-07-25 18:11:15 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Gritz1 wrote:
Othran wrote:
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.


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.

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?

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Dusenman
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#45 - 2012-07-25 18:12:47 UTC
Jiska Ensa wrote:
This was suggested ages ago when people were still self-destructing to MAKE money off of a ship.

It was also pointed out that if SD'ing didn't pay out insurance, people would just blow up their own ship with an alt.


This is fine, as it would hurt kill board stats.

GM Homonoia: In other words; feel free to use the tactic, but don't be an utter and total ***.

CCP Tallest_: _And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.

Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2012-07-25 18:14:02 UTC
Shantetha wrote:
I was thinking something similar Chribba, but not quite the same. Lowsec, Null, and wormholes are suppose to be dark harsh places, empire not as much but still dark and harsh.

So ya can loose your ship in Highsec and get a refund. Lowsec you risked and lost and the insurance company is penalizing the pay out for that extra risk. Nullsec you have a corp and alliance and the insurance company isn't going to risk any money out there in the wilds.

So the actual figures might come out something like this.

  1. Highsec hull reimbursement at current insurance prices.
  2. Lowsec 50% of hull reimbursement at current insurance prices
  3. Nullsec/WH 0% of hull reimbursement at current insurance prices.
  4. no insurance on SD irrespective of location in space.


yeah let's further punish people for living in nullsec

how about removing all profitable PvE from hisec first

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Gritz1
Ice Fire Warriors
Wild Geese.
#47 - 2012-07-25 18:17:07 UTC
I don't get why this is such a hot topic. Ever hear of scuttling? We destroy ships in our time for tactical reasons or others, and I'm sure as hell that idea would still live on in the future.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#48 - 2012-07-25 18:28:54 UTC
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.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#49 - 2012-07-25 18:50:00 UTC
it should give you at least the money you payed for the insurance since it is now invalid. lol

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#50 - 2012-07-25 19:01:35 UTC
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.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#51 - 2012-07-25 19:02:18 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
it should give you at least the money you payed for the insurance since it is now invalid. lol

You don't get your premiums back when you destroy something you insured.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#52 - 2012-07-25 19:04:42 UTC
Gritz1 wrote:
I don't get why this is such a hot topic. Ever hear of scuttling? We destroy ships in our time for tactical reasons or others, and I'm sure as hell that idea would still live on in the future.

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.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2012-07-25 19:23:41 UTC
MotherMoon wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Gritz1 wrote:
Othran wrote:
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.


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.

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?

So long as loot isn't dropped there is still a valid reason to SD a ship. Also the aforementioned issue of being pointed and add something like being perma-jammed and your ship is in about the same situation as the pod in the example above.
Patrakele
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2012-07-25 19:29:45 UTC
Insurance should be removed. Losing a ship - losing a ship, not here's some money, go buy antoehr, because we are such nice guys...
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#55 - 2012-07-25 19:37:32 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:
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.


i agree, only members of super rich alliances should be able to afford to lose ships

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
#56 - 2012-07-25 19:47:02 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Large Collidable Object wrote:
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.


i agree, only members of super rich alliances should be able to afford to lose ships


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

"Don't Fly what you can't afford to lose."
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#57 - 2012-07-25 19:57:26 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Large Collidable Object wrote:
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.


i agree, only members of super rich alliances should be able to afford to lose ships

as a member of a super rich alliance looking for new ways to make wreched highseccers suffer, i agree as well
Stan Smith
Ixian Machines
#58 - 2012-07-25 19:57:58 UTC
Quote:
how about removing all profitable PvE from hisec first


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.

☻/ /▌ / \ This is Bob, post him into your forum sig and help him conquer the forums.

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#59 - 2012-07-25 20:04:37 UTC
Another +1 for removing Insurance entirely, but especially in the case of Self Destruct.

Further more regarding Self Destruct, make it a means for people to potentially capture ships.

* As soon as you activate SD, your pod is ejected from the ship.
* Hacking Mod can be used to shut off a SD timer and pass ownership to the Hacker.


FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#60 - 2012-07-25 20:23:26 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
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.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.