Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I'd like to point out that your idea for insurance is very different from the current game mechanic of insurance. How is criminal activity determined in EvE? I can think of only one method.... GCC's. Extrapolating on your view point, it really sounds like you'd deny insurance payouts to anyone with a GCC. While the implications of this in hi-sec are mostly limited to suicide gankers, there are enormous reprecussions to this in low-sec. You can't get a GCC in null, so it doens't matter there.

Considering you Low-sec PvP often starts at the BC level, this is pretty harsh to beginning pirates. Also, its quite common to get a GCC during pos bashes and some FW activities.

I'm strongly against the modification of insurance to Low and Null sec, as that's where its most useful.

No, actually my idea of insurance is not that different from the actual insurance system, only a little more advanced to avoid abuse and make it more balanced/fair.
Regarding this thread it's a change as simple as not paying insurance to any ship killed by Concord. That's about it.
But in the other, broader, thread I was trying to say that IMO we should have standings with the insurance company. As we insure ships and time passes those standings should increase, but also decrease when we loose an insured ship. Insurance cost should be based on those standings and have a significant variation. You should still be able to insure your ship, only difference is that it'd cost you more than it'd cost to a miner (just to give an example). As you can see that is not related to GCC. In fact GCC doesn't matter in this specific topic either, only how/why you were killed. If your ship was destroyed by local authorities then you shouldn't get any isk from insurance. GCC is more relevant to the authorities but not to the insurance company as I see it.

They don't show up until the victim is dead anyway. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a point to this.

Also, if you shoot at somebody, and the cops are called, yeah - you're going home with holes in your chest.

Instant death is a possibility, not a concrete guarantee. The CONCORD arrival timer starts immediately upon aggression, and is determined by system security status.

Being killed as a pod pilot is an inconvenience; one not any more severe than a non-fatal car crash in real life. It's the NPC belt rat folk that don't come back to life after you pop them.

It's the pilot's choice to use implants, and/or expensive ships and equipment. If it's too expensive for you to lose, then use cheaper stuff. I've personally lost billion-ISK pirate implant sets, multiple times, and never blamed anyone but myself. I never asked CCP to change the game because I was inconvenienced by lost progress that stemmed from my own decisions and imperfections. From day one, I, and other rational players, have accepted this game for what it is: a competitive environment that rewards initiative and punishes complacency.

And taunting? Really? You're not obligated to read local or accept chat requests.

The only rational argument you can make is that as a paying customer, you're entitled to voice your opinion and try to influence the developers into changing this game's core concepts to better suit your own play style. Fine. But know that people like yours truly will be here, fighting you tooth and nail every step of the way.

I'm tellin' you pops, you're playing the wrong game.

I don't know how many times you need to be told that removing insurance will have limited to no impact on suicide-ganking.

Are we going to shoot haulers carrying 300+ million of stuff if our sunk costs rise from 40 million to 90? Absolutely. Are we going to shoot week-old Retriever pilots sucking away at .9 Veldspar? No, because we already don't, aside from very specific cases where a message needs to be sent.

Finally, even if the costs associated with suicide-ganking with battleships become unbearable, we will compensate by using smaller ships, and more shooters. You can get a third of the damage with a Rupture, at about ten percent of the cost. All we need to do is get two more people, which is a simple task.

Removing insurance from deaths to CONCORD won't get rid of "90%" of suicide ganking (and this, I think, is your true goal); it won't even get rid of 5%. What it will do, however, is make life slightly more difficult for the truly new players who make rookie mistakes.

Honestly, I don't need to be told that at all. I know it will have an effect because all the gankers are losing their minds on here trying to defend it.

I'm trying to suggest an in-game, reasonable solution to the problem. If I was ignorant, or just being pissy, I'd ask CCP to make it impossible. I just want it to be a little more difficult, and not reimbursed by the game mechanics.

We're defending suicide-ganking, not insurance. From a mathematical standpoint, the only thing the removal of insurance would achieve is it will increase the overall time needed to regain security rating by people who gank with their mains, due to needing more shooters since we'd be using less expensive ships. Considering that time spent ganking and regaining sec rating is usually much less than time spent door-watching, you'd see no actual difference in the amount of suicide-ganking if insurance was removed. However, you'd see alt usage skyrocket, because people would now have even more incentive to bypass the system.

And Tippia is absolutely correct; you've given no rational argument for your demand, especially not from a gameplay perspective. Making real-life parallels simply won't cut it, because EVE isn't real life.

Opinion. Get me hard numbers.



No... paying insurance to people who lose ships is to encourage them to get another ship so they can then blow that one up too... thereby driving the EVE economy.

As far as "suicide gankers" and "repercussions" go... the gankers have already accepted the loss of their ship and the sec status penalty they incur through their actions. Increasing penalties will not change that. Moreover... it's a separate mechanic from what the intention of "high-sec" is supposed to be (i.e. in high-sec, you pay a higher cost for aggressive actions... but you can still allowed to do those aggressive actions).



A about a fifth to a third of the ISK injected into the EVE economy through insurance is eaten up by paying for the insurance itself.
More than that... the ISK gained from insurance FAR eclipsed by other "ISK faucets" (e.g. NPC bounties inject over a trillion a week(month?) while insurance injects about 100 billion a week(month?))



Newer players are already protected by being of little "ISK value"... so the gankers who are in it for "profit" overlook them. When said newer player does something foolish (like smacktalk) then profit and loss become irrelevant and a gank occurs to "send a message."



Indeed... more production means more stuff... more stuff means lower prices... lower prices equals less profit for your average miner/industrialist... less profit means that it becomes less and less worthwhile to actually mine and build.

It's actually in the interest of many miners and industrialists that more stuff gets blown up.

One of the central themes in EVE is that EVERYTHING affects EVERYTHING... even if you don't want it to.
You can be a lowly miner just chewing away rocks... but in mining those rocks and putting them onto the market for an equal/cheaper price than what you see you have now affected someone else who has also mined some rocks and put them up for sale. And if you continue to do so, said other player is well within his/her rights to "get rid of the competition" (e.g. you).



I disagree. Newbies tend not to learn anything (or WANT to learn outside of what they want) until they get a "taste" of it... for better or worse.

Put it this way... who do you think will be able to speak Portuguese better? Someone who studied for 2 years but has yet to actually talk to a person from Portugal... or someone who was dumped in Portugal for 2 years and told to "make the best of it"?
My vote is for the second guy.



You're flying in a game where ships operate like submarines... bolts of energy and projectiles operate in a way that they make instantaneous contact with their target... where the bigger, more advanced, moon-like ships have locking times slower than fragile, easily assembled, 747s...

... and you're here griping about a factitious insurance company ruining immersion?



I can agree to this. There was a thread a while back that proposed making sec-status gains ONLY possible by ratting/doing missions in low-sec.