EVE General Discussion

Insurance should be removed all together.

Insurance was a useful mechanic back when eve was new and the amount of Isk in the game was much smaller and losing a ship was a much bigger deal. Minerals were less abundant, and were more valuable, and in more demand. You wanted people to risk ships in combat but not be to put off by the risk of Isk lose.

Things have changed a lot since then, Isk flows much more freely now. There is a lot more Isk sitting around in game needing some place to be spent. Minerals are more abundant and a lot less valuable. There are more resources besides minerals of more value. Losing a ship ships has gotten to be a lot less of a consequence than it use to be. So much so that a lot of ships have become disposable.

Subsidizing ships through insurance when they are become more and more disposable, and the amount of Isk in game is increasing more and more. Is bad for the game, its bad for the economy.

Subsidized ships also make the new players to dependent on in game subsidization, dependance is bad. People don't really feel the pain of lost, and don't learn one of the fundamentals of Eve, don't fly what you can't afford to lose.

Subsidized ships are bad...Vote no to subsidized ships! Vote no to Insurance.

Lets remove it altogether.

Well, I thought it was pretty funny. I find it very difficult to understand how it could be perceived any differently. I guess we're just different people.



And you? What are your counter arguements? Risk? What risk? Sitting around in a cheaply fit insured ship waiting for a ripe target? Or is there something else I'm missing here? Please enlighten me.

And so what if I'm only rooting for one side of the arguement? Are you any different? This is a discussion, which ususally means people are of different opinions and trying to reach a common ground.



Care to point out where?

Oh, and while I have your attention, care to respond to my comments about recycling alts to get around security status losses?

Adapt, or die.

Nuff said.

Then CONCORD has to go as well.

And to be honest, it's far better the other way around: balance makes the game fun — realism does not. Balance is also far easier to strive for than realism.
Fair enough. Then the targets of these acts need to stop behaving like such victims and start to accept responsibility for their choice to haul so much loot, and have so little tank, as to make it a profitable proposition to blow them up.

I think CCP should accomodate these sad pathetic pubbies. Give them one system that has a station with no agents, no market, no services at all, one belt, and no anoms of any kind where they can laugh and play where all ships are invincible. Then, when 5000 people are in that system, CCP can turn off the protections (including concord) and we can give them a nice introduction to what EVE is really about.

Removing insurance altogether would gut the minerals market. Insurance is primarily a massive subsidy to the mining industry, and to a much lesser extent the moon minerals industry.

I'm almost tempted to advocate it, just to see the same people who are currently whining about it baww about 1.2 ISk/unit Trit prices.

you know, you're right. but you're missing the point I was trying to make. prices of ALL ships back in the day were way higher than they are now. it's partially because various people could monopolize prices, but it's also because you didn't have everyone trying to undercut everyone else and make having the more hard-to-get elite ships not as elite. I liked it when CCP would seed the market with t2 bpos that everyone had to scramble like mad to get. I liked the old RnD agent method, where you were put in a lottery to get t2 bpos. I liked where to stay on the top you had to continue striving to be the elite. these days anyone, and I do mean anyone can make t2 ships in high sec. the reason why most don't is that it's not really profitable to do so these days. markups of t2 ships vs the moon goo components almost always does not make it worth having a high sec pos with labs to do the needed invention to get the t2 bpc to make the ships at -1 ME or lower. now, on the other hand, if you have one of the almost non existant t2 ship bpos and it's researched to hell, yeah, it's worth it to buy the moon goo products in high sec and sell the t2 ships on the market still. Trust me, I personally know.

back to the point though, remove insurance from the game, and mineral (and ship) prices will most likely go up due to a higher value of the end product.

as for the point of responsibility and accountability, (keep in mind, I am an industrialist, and I do have 3 hulk pilot toons on separate accounts) when a person is in a high end high value ship with high end modules plus a potential for some nice cargo, and that person has relatively no tank, wouldn't they have to take responsibility for their actions which place them in a dangerous position to be killed for their modules and cargo?

CCP has stated they added insurance to encourage PvP - compensation for loss. Removing insurance would decrease ISK available for CCP, therefore less PvP. Not what CCP wants.

Also, suicide ganking is PvP in my mind.

Also, HA HA!

Any fool who uses smart bombs to do mission deserves the lost they would get. It is a lesson they obviously need to learn.

Smart bombs need to be renamed dumb bombs.

Insurance is a fairly trivial ISK faucet compared to ratting/anoming/missioning