Crime & Punishment

lol lookit this guy asking for sources...

Loss has to have meaning, otherwise it is just space-invaders.
Insurance mitigates that loss, it is bad.

People will replace their losses with whatever they can afford, and industrialists will always supply that demand.

Insurance does not increase ship destruction, it just means people are willing to throw away larger ships.
If people are more willing to fight in larger ships then you must counter them (numbers being equal) in those larger ships.

Insurance effectively raises the bar for competing in PvP, because to use those larger ships effectively you need more SP.
This results in less people engaging in combat and therefore fewer ships lost.

Without insurance, if you wish to use more SP as an advantage you have to put more ISK on the line.
Currently it costs me the same to lose a battlecruiser as it does a battleship - or a tier 1 battleship as a tier 3.

Advantage should come at a cost, and it should not be possible to mitigate that cost by allowing the game to prop you up.


Insurance is a crutch for the individual; and yet it cripples the game.

Ironic.

I don't insure anything, im well aware it wont stop small dedicated gankers im very familiar with using thrasher and thoraxes to gank people. My logic is behind making battleship losses and BC losses hurt quite a bit more so more people are inclined to fly cruiser and below or perhaps even tier 1 BC GASP.

As insurance doesn't cover fitting it is rather a moot point, but one that I do concede.

However, I don't think that invalidates my argument as a whole.

Reducing or removing insurance payout to ships lost to concord is a temporary solution to a permanent problem.

Most of highsec ganks can be avoided by either:

1) Avoiding overly expensive amounts of **** in your cargo or on your ship.

2) In the case of mining, staying aligned out of belt and warping as soon as something lands in your belt.

Both of which are possibly inconvenient to the potential victim but will be far more effective than removing insurance. This sandbox already provides you with tools to avoid ganks. Use them.

Most ganks are done for 2 reason's. Tears or Profit. Haulers are ganked for profit (in which case insurance doesn't matter because your getting paid anyways) and miners are ganked for the tears (In which insurance doesn't matter because a brutix is stupid cheap anyways and tears > ISK).

Hope this helps OP.

Only if it mitigates it to such a degree that the loss no longer has any meaning while at the same time not adding any additional benefits.

Neither of those are true: the losses still have meaning because insurance does not cover all that much, and the insurance has added benefits that remain in play even as the net loss decreases.
…which rather sounds like it incentivises losses. But fair enough, it's worth being clear here: it's a matter of resources lost, not just number of ships. If people start losing battleships instead of battlecruisers, then more resources are lost and more gathering and assembly of resources needs to take place — more ore is needed for higher mineral requirements and longer build times.
But that's already the case. It may not happen (quite) as much between BC and BS, but jump to T2 and that exact state of affairs kicks in.
If you want to play the realism card, we need to take a close look at the removal of the current omniscient, teleporting, instagibbing, unavoidable police force…

…and guess what, if you do it right, you're going to get that payout. In fact, if we want to go for some real logic, you'll be able to do that without even ruining the laptop.

So how about we apply that bit of logic to EVE as well?

So you agree, then, that CONCORD should be removed and that the faction navies in the current form should be the only kind of law enforcement in EVE?
I'm talking about how insurance is a game mechanic, so the real world is 100% irrelevant, and that, if you absolutely want to model insurance off of the RL business model of selling insurance, then it only stands to reason that CONCORD is removed as well since it's even more illogical than Pend is…

"The Hulk is the largest craft in the second generation of mining vessels created by the ORE Syndicate. Exhumers, like their mining barge cousins, are equipped with electronic subsystems specifically designed to accommodate Strip Mining modules. They are also far more resilient, better able to handle the dangers of deep space. The Hulk is, bar none, the most efficient mining vessel available."

I don't; maybe the hulk was designed to be fitted with a tank. The last 2 we suicide ganked had their tanks amounting to a single civilian shield booster and the rest of the mids empty.

I've mined on an alt account and fitted my ship with a reasonable buffer tank. It was pretty funny cause people would come in and scan me for a gank and then go to the next belt. Next thing you'd hear weeping and gnashing of teeth in local when some idiot who didn't tank his ship got his pod squeezed from his new wreck.

I've hauled billion ISK mods without gettting ganked simply because I hauled them in an inti or cov ops and manually flew to my destination. Not like some who put them in an untanked badger I and autopilot.

Pretty simple really.....take care of your own survival and you'll vastly increase your own safety. You can demand that new protections get put in place, but they won't help because the gankers will simply find another way too get you.

You show me one real world police force that is impossible to avoid.