And you must be in tears, presumably?

Sure chance is the highest risk there is GÇö it's when the probability factor in your Cost +ù Probability equation is 1. I just find it rather telling that it is so pointless to insure your ship for every-day highsec activities. It suggests to me that the risks are a bit too lowGǪ

That depends. What is the purpose of the insurance company? Is it to make money and to try to not get thrown in jail for aiding crime? Then yes, you won't be able to insure against it and any such actions will void the contract you haveGǪ

GǪbut again, that is not the purpose of insurance in EVE, so there is nothing to say that you shouldn't/wouldn't/couldn't insure against such eventualities or that it shouldn't pay out. Real life is a great argument if you want to remove insurance completely (because everything that happens to you in-game that would make it pay out would void the contract if it were real life).

GǪif you assume that it is a business, not a game mechanic. Unfortunately for that line of logic, it is a game mechanic; it is not a business. So the logic of business does not apply, whereas the logic of game mechanics does GÇö within that logic, paying out insurance for criminal acts isn't strange in the least.
Yes! And my point is that this is where the debate should lie, because that is where the logic of the payouts comes from GÇö arguments about real life businesses completely miss the point and are utterly irrelevant because they have nothing to do with the logic of the mechanic. This is why I keep asking GÇ£whyGÇ¥: why is this adjustment of risk vs. reward (for both parties) needed? Why do the gankers need more risk and the victims less? Why can't/don't/shouldn't the victims do that adjustment on their own?

Since you were actually quoting me, not Ryllic SinGǪYes? Just because it is GǣhighGǥ security doesn't mean it should be without risk, nor does it mean that it can't use more risk than it currently has. Over time, GǣhighGǥ sec has edged closer and closer to complete sec, which has a number of harmful consequences. I would prefer that it was edged back towards being merely high security (relatively speaking, compared to the low security of low sec and the no self-made security of nullsec).
Yes? It has become a bit too rare, moving more towards scam spam and various aggression juggling (can flipping and the like), making it rare to see proper crime in space. Such acts rather seem to need a bit of encouraging in this day and age, to bump up that risk of flying in space a bit and to further stimulate the economic effects of such crime.

That's the funny thing about EVE: the way the game is set up, criminal behaviour is not a bad thing GÇö quite the opposite. Rampant criminality in EVE can have a silly amount of very positive effects.

No, your statement is more of a Gǣwhy?Gǥ kind of thing, because you elaborate on the Gǣhow soGǥ partGǪ

Why is curbing ganking a change in the right direction?


GǪalso, I liked your first version of the post better.

They're not. The largest one is bounties. The second largest is mission rewards. Insurance comes third, and fourth and last comes NPC buy orders.

If you need to GÇ£control the floodGÇ¥ then a minute reduction of the bigger one is a far better way to go.
Since that sentiment is not being expressed, no.
Well, maybe if the victims stopped being such victims, they wouldn't tear up quite as often.