Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The cost of insuring a ship is disproportionate to the actual risk it mitigates. As things stand right now, insurance basically reduces the cost of losing a ship to almost zero. This should not happen.

I suggest that the frequency of being killed is actually factored into the insurance price, proportionate to the relative cost of the ship. Throwing away a frigate or cruiser won't make insurance premiums go up that much, but if you lose a battleship or larger, the insurance price needs to be a significant percentage of the ship itself. Players would then actually have to pick and choose what they insure.

Tracking the ISK value of the pilot's insured losses for the last six months should be a relatively easy way of determining the cost of insurance.

Also, how about conditional insurance? Highsec-only insurance should be relatively cheap - but if you venture into lowsec or nullsec, then your highsec insurance will not pay out. Obviously, lowsec insurance would be considerably more expensive, and nullsec even more so.

Ultimately, insurance needs to be rebalanced to stop people from exploiting it, and having the cost go up as the pilot loses insured ships should work nicely.

Once the exploit situation is taken care of, there is no reason that modules, implants, T2 ships, and strategic cruisers couldn't be insured. Obviously the cost of the blueprint would have to be considered, but that should be a relatively incosequential addition.

I just don't get it OP. I don't see the problem.

*climbs up on the soapbox next to OP*
OMG! Insurance is an exploit! Again?!?

OMG! I can see my house from here!

*climbs down from soapbox*

Wait a minute, CCP fixed insurance. So you can't possibly be complaining except that its a "crutch" to continue PVP because it reduces the risk not helps smack it across the face with a brick that risk just MUST BE HARSH!!!! (caps, bold, and 4 exclamation points for sarcastic effect) so you must lose it all. This is a game is it not? You can lose it all in real life, but why does EVE need total loss instead of reduced loss?

As for anything not T1, it doesn't insure for full cost because thats the risk of bringing something better then your opponent. T2/T3 have way better stats then T1, so you obviously have the edge. Having the edge is the risk, so if you lose it it should cost more amirite?

Eh, no. It reduces the cost of losing a ship to maybe 20-60% if you're flying a T1 hull.

No. Quite the opposite. Insurance is there to encourage people to lose ships, not to discourage it. The “exploits” you're talking about is the system doing exactly what it's supposed to do.

It's not a business — it's a game mechanic meant to make people willing to get blown up more often.

I have to say I dont even pay insurance premiums ingame anymore for most PVP ships. The amount you get back just inst it worth premium for t2 and faction ships. May as well loose the extra 7mil and put the time to do it or the money invested into playing the market with some skill books or doing an extra faction warfare mission.

Although yes it would be good the insured sum was a better percentage of the actual average market sell price, not average market price (which I believe currently includes those stupidly low buy orders). Please tell me if I'm wrong there.

Ships, modules, implants, and the like should be insurable to 100% of value - but with risk. Namely, the risk of losing them while insured and getting screwed with not being able to cheaply insure such things again for a while. Even the 20-60% mitigation of the repeated ISK losses for T1 hulls is a disproportionate mitigation of risk in return for ISK spent.

Insurance should not make ships disposable. It should not assist in making them disposable. Insuring a ship needs to be a calculated choice, with a calculated risk attached.

Eve is a cruel and heartless game universe. IF any sort of risk-mitigation exists against losing ships (insurance), then it certainly should not be a viable choice in the long run.

punish pvp'ers, only incentivise low-risk activities and areas

surely this will be a step foward towards the grand vision of EVE

Among the ISK faucets, it's the next smallest one. If you want to reduce the influx of ISK, it's far better to cut all bounties by 10% — it would have the same effect as completely removing insurance, but would not have nearly as drastic an effect on those affected since it's spread out over far more people.
That would make it rather pointless, and if anything it should be the other way around.

I found this old thing — that was before the nerf, and back then it was a ratio of 8:1 for bounties to insurance on the payouts alone; 10:1 if you included the costs to actually get those insurances to begin with.

…and I don't even want to think about where incursions would fit on that list these days.
Insurance is a means to incentivise combat and large-scale losses to keep the economy going. Disincentivisng them where such losses are more common doesn't make any sense (but neither does it make sense to remove the incentives for highsec combat — the whole idea of gradating insurance by security is pretty silly to begin with).

Then you should buy game time and sell us plex. Fail at Eve in style.

This would give carebears even less reason to venture into lowsec, it's already hard enough trying to find good bear as it is.