Crime & Punishment

Agreed.

As I said earlier, I'd also remove isk penalty for clone/pod loss (implants are another story). Make the cost of a ship loss absolute and consistent and watch the good times roll.

CCP would have to see the real gains in that though, most players wouldn't support it as I think it actually scares the crap out of people to consider high SP players actually flying interceptors, dictors, frigates and destroyers. This is a different discussion for a different thread however

Anything that burns up liquidity in the game is a good thing.

And once again....the gankers have no risk. Either they lose exactly as much as they are willing to lose, or they get lucky and make a profit.

Gankers consider ships to be little more than "ammo". The cost of the entire process is precisely known and is an accepted amount for loss. If losses had a possiblity of exceeding the tangible costs, then you could describe it as having some "risk."

If I place a bet at the roulette table, one of two events will happen. Either I win and collect some winnings, or the bet is lost. If I know this going in, I'm not risking anything; I'm already fine with the loss of the bet.

Just to be clear, that is true whether insurance is paid on Concord killed ships or not.

The break-even point for reward becomes higher, but it is still a fixed risk for potential reward.

You're absolutely right. Nonetheless, when the cost of the activity is perfectly analogous to a missioner buying drones and ammo, that cost shouldn't be subsidized with any improved cash flow.

That's a good argument for increasing the incentives to destroy ships…
And once again, yes they do. Just because they can mitigate some of them doesn't mean they don't exist. The gankers have plenty of risks beyond the investment cost of materiel.
Removing insurance does not change that possibility. It just adjust the threshold for when for-profit ganks happen. In other words, it doesn't affect the gankers risks — only the risk of the victims… and the question is why they need to have their risks adjusted.
It's not being rewarded — it's being mitigated. Under the old system (with the help of clueless miners and industrialists) it was occasionally rewarded, but those days are gone.
Exactly. Reduce by a tiny amount something that a lot of people use, and it will hardly even be noticed, as opposed to hitting a small number of players with a huge hammer. A far more elegant solution, especially since it allows for a scaling of the measure that a simple on/off switch does not.

Seeing as how you're better off not losing that ship at all, I don't quite see the “reward”… With the old system, yes, because it gave you more than you sacrificed. With the new one, it's partial compensation at best, and a long way to go before it's a reward.
So how else do you propose to incentivise ship destruction?
…then again, the miners rather need that subsidy.

The problem with pvp in eve is not that there isn't enough interest in pvping as many people claim. In fact, just the fact that many people complain about that is proof that it is false. I bet there are maybe 5,000 players online at any given time that want to pvp. The problem is that instead of pvping one another like they are supposed to be, they end up blobbing up together and waiting for targets that don't want to pvp because they're in non-pvp ships. It's like 10 high school kids sitting around a basketball court complaining that nobody wants to play basketball against them and trying to convince the elementary school kids and old ladies that walk past to play them and then getting mad that they don't want to.

Best I can tell, that is happening because the risk/reward ratio for pvping against another pvp ship is terrible. The result is lame pvp in eve. Not enough fights and the ones that there are are lame one sided affairs.

I think the way to fix it would be to remove insurance, but make up for it with built in bounties on ships roughly based on their pvp potential. Ideally you could strike a balance where a pilot that fights opponents in his same class of ship is making a little profit if he wins 50% of the battles and a decent profit if he wins 75% of them, but he loses money replacing his ships if he only wins 25% of the battles.

no it wouldn't, most people with any brains don't insure anything over a BC because its a waste of good ISK.

the real problem is small ships, since they do all the ganking and tend to be at or better than replacement costs for the hull.

but guess what, its small cheap ships, nobody is going to win or lose EVE paying to burn a destroyer without insurance, so really theres no value from removing the valid isk sink that the insurance mechanic is at the larger ship level.

now stop crying about "the ganker's moon" and go play

I don't care if insurance is removed.

…but not at a sustainable rate. Even with the current incentive scheme, too few ships are getting blown up. The idea of, at this point, removing that incentive, seems rather counter-productive.
Somewhere completely different. I'm talking about giving industrialists and miners more work and a reason to churn out more stuff — you're talking about removing them from the game.
Yes. Last time we saw any specifics, it was some 100bn plus change paid out through premiums, and some 45bn in insurance cost — a net faucet of ~60bn a day. Just over one fifteenth of what bounties injected. Of course, the question is (for the purpose of this topic at least) how much of that is from ganks and how much is due to regular warfare…