|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kahega Amielden
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 21:58:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 06/04/2008 21:59:18
It's been said before. Reduced insurance wouldn't stop PVP. Who would stop PVPing?
0.0 Alliances? Rofl, **** no
Roving gangs? No, they'd just fly in smaller/cheaper ships.
Lowsec pirates? Hell no. If anything, this would help the situation; pirates would be more at risk when pirating in a powerful ship due to the huge losses. You would have more pirates (e.g. picking targets for cash or ransoming) and fewer killmail *****s because their losses are actaully losses.
Hisec PVP corps? Nope. They do it for fun, and it would mean they could get a bit more ISK out of targets...They would lose more ISK, of course, but this wouldn't stop them, and would add a needed element of risk to hisec PVPing.
Removing insurance wouldn't stop PVP, it wouldn't even lower PVP. It would just cause people to be more careful flying expensive ships. Rather than going out in a battleship, some people might opt for cheaper cruisers. Saying that loss stops PVP makes no sense. If this was true, then WoW would be the most PVP-centric game there is due to no real death penalty.
If you want to protect newbies, then maybe still allow full insurance for T1 frigs, and maybe partial (or -maybe- full) for t1 cruisers.
|
Kahega Amielden
Legacy Syndicate space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 23:31:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 06/04/2008 23:31:43
Originally by: ViolenTUK Insurance needs to stay. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with insurance as it stands. The net effect of funding a ship for it to be lost and the insurance to pay out is still a loss. A loss of a ship is expensive for anyone and removing insurance would discourage pvp type activities.
Sigh.
1) It's still a loss, but a tiny loss. Losing a ******* battleship should cost more.
2) Read my above post. This "zomfg it would discourage PVP" **** has no basis.
If you REALLY need to keep insurance in for some stupid reason, then at least make it max 50% mineral cost for BC/BS
|
Kahega Amielden
Legacy Syndicate space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 00:34:00 -
[3]
It was introduced at some point I believe.
|
Kahega Amielden
Legacy Syndicate space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 02:36:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Jhonen Senraedi Not sure I agree with removing insurance totally as when you add mod costs to those of the ship...everyone is looking at a significant hit to their wallets... Perhaps a way forward would be relating it to sec status...i.e..count positive sec like a no claims bonus and neg sec a higher premium...say 5% per point either way...thus a plus 5 would pay 25% less..and a -5/-10 25%-50% more in premiums? I do agree with removing insurance from high sec aggressors though(Not war situations)...as it make for suicide gankers choosing their targets more carefully!
THe only time the extra cost is significant is when you CHOOSE to fit t2 stuff. Even then, it's minimal.
|
Kahega Amielden
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 23:44:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus All insurance needs to be removed across the board. Period.
Not necessarily. I could see keeping insurance -maybe- for t1 cruisers and definitely t1 frigs, if for no other reason to stop the noobs from getting totally ****** over. By the time you're in a battleship, you should be able to support it.
|
|
|
|