Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Insurance is based on ore mineral build cost. This is intended.

Part of the risk of a T3 is the lack of decent insurance. This is intended.

Same with T2, same with Faction. All of it, intended.

Here's the thing...

if you were comfortably reimbursed for the loss of a T2/T3/Faction ship... why would you ever fly T1 stuff again? One of the big reasons T1 ships remain [more or less] viable after so many years is due to insurance.

The whole point of T2, T3, and Faction ships is that you're supposed to pay through the nose for the extra ~15% edge it gives you.

Because the material cost is subjective. Basic minerals have what one could argue is a baseline effective cost (ability to repro loot etc.). Whereas all equipment for t2 is produces through moon reactions, so the prices are subjective, and t3 materials are produced through wormhole goodies, of which the prices are also at the whim of the player.

Never.


Because losing a T3 is supposed to hurt.


That's nice. No.


No.

Not so.

You're advocating an insurance system which was created before TII even existed and that hasn't been addressed since TII's inception. < This.

If it was the material costs it would be intended. The problem is there is no ore costs for TII ships aside from that of the TI hull needed to manufacture the TII variant. The 'TII materials' should be counted in the cost of insurance (only if even modestly so). It's ludicrous to imply that there is nothing 'wrong' with insurance beyond T1.

Note: I'm not saying TII insurance payouts should cover the costs of the ship lost or even take the sting out of it. What i'm saying - (not just me, but everyone i've ever talked to ever, ever) - is that TII insurance should be desirable - it should be in one's interest to insure every ship they fly. And at the moment, it's simply not.

In the real world, we seldom insure our 1970's shitbox's but sure as hell insure our Ferrari's. In EVE it's the direct opposite and the most overtly glaring oversight for any new player to the game (or to TII - I think faction insurance is also unintentional yet the material costs there would need to weighted against required LP to be at all sensible). I'm neutral with regard to faction at this point, but hostile to the current TII insurance situation for good reason.

A related point however, is the cost of faction items with regard to tag requirements in particular. IMO, either make faction items significantly superior to TII versions (while remaining only able to use T1 and Faction ammunition) or radically lower the tag requirements across the board. I'm inclined to think that the stats of Faction gear and Deadspace gear should be switched. Deadspace drops are far more common (in EVE as a whole) then the vast majority of high tag required faction items while being superior in every way. And this despite the carebear majority and their literally billions of Empire LP (ie, even those in the best position to buy/use the faction items i'm talking about are not doing so). It just seems a bit upsidedown.

In the "real world", people who crash a lot or have a lot of accidents end up being unable to insure their stuff.

T1 is the common workhorse. T2 is its expensive cousin, losing one is supposed to hurt more than losing the T1 equivalent. T3 is T2's more expensive cousin, and losing one is supposed to hurt more than losing a T2. Suck it up.

But what would be enough?
I expect that when you ask anyone, who would like to see it done they will give you different answer.



Busy.
Dealing with stuff that is actually important and haven't been discussed 10000000 times before.



Apparently this simple fact is too hard to comprehend.



But why should it be?

Uh ... all of them?

Yeah, getting the payout on a 'cane or brutix (or other T1 ship here) is nice ... but with as cheap as (T1) ships are, it doesn't matter so much to insure them all the time.

Then again, it depends on one's financial situation ... I have enough ISK to replace the occasional uninsured ship.

I normally despise real life analogies.

But this one is funny.