If T2 and T3 had full insurance, why would anyone ever use T1?

If T2 and T3 had full insurance, why would anyone ever use T1?

As long as the price difference between T2 cruisers or even faction cruisers stays as it is now, you need to reduce the current Drakes and Canes dead before people are going to consider flying something else, by making that gap a little smaller you might get people in the T2 hulls.

That might sound like a reasonable arguement, though now every body is complaining of the over use of T1 Battlecruisers.

If the Insurance of T2 ships would be reasonable there wouold be a bigger variaty of ships arround.

Usualy the top insurance is about 30% to 50%, of the total price of the ship fitting included, if the insurance concerning T2 and faction hulls would be arround the same percentage it would boost the divercity of ships, while it still is a big (Financial) step to take.

It would work as a nerf to all T1 ships considering cost efficientness, As long as the price difference between T2 cruisers or even faction cruisers stays as it is now, you need to reduce the current Drakes and Canes dead before people are going to consider flying something else, by making that gap a little smaller you might get people in the T2 hulls.

The cost of T2 ships isn't the issue why people don't fly some of them anymore.

Assuming they have a reason to exist. Shield Harbingers outperform Zealots.

Your experiences don't really coincide with mine. The cost of T2 ships isn't the issue why people don't fly some of them anymore. It's simply because the T3 and T1 ships outperform them in all important aspects. Point being the insurance/cost isn't the reason people don't like flying them. The reason is they aren't as competative ships as they used to be. Flying a pirate cruiser, T3 or T1 battlecruiser is almost always a better option performance wise these days. With T1 ships the lower cost is a bonus, but not the main reason to use them, unless you're fighting an ISK war.

A more effective solution to get people to fly more T2 again is simply to give a reason to do so and that means buffing them especially compared to T1 battlecruisers and faction ships. Going with insurance changes will just increase the all ready too abundant ISK faucets in the game even more and won't solve the problem, since you would still be better of flying something else.

I just paid a billion isk for my faction battleship and someone killed me.
Why do I only get insurance like a T1 battleship?

Simply because you are paying more than the ships are worth.

If T2 & T3 insurance paid out more than they would a huge ISK sink would be removed from the game. Money that comes into the economy needs to be able to leave it, and the amount of 'free isk' being injected into the game economy is already higher than the sinks that are around to reduce it, without making the situation even worse.

Besides which, there should be a drawback for using T2/T3.

If T2 & T3 insurance paid out more than they would a huge ISK sink would be removed from the game. Money that comes into the economy needs to be able to leave it, and the amount of 'free isk' being injected into the game economy is already higher than the sinks that are around to reduce it, without making the situation even worse.

It is not simply a question of how 'easy' it would be to redesign the insurance formula to include T2/T3 ship production costs, the wider economical implications also have to be considered and it is these implications that mean what you're asking for will never be put in game.

Besides which, there should be a drawback for using T2/T3.

I'd be up for them reducing T1 insurance to 50-60% and removing insurance on T2/3 completely.

The whole insurance mechanic makes absolutely no sense anyway. What insurance company in their right might would insure ships specifically designed to be taken into a combat situation?

Also, new players leaving because they can't afford T2/T3? Is that some sort of joke? I've never once met or heard of anyone that has claimed to be leaving because of T2/T3 ship price levels. Maybe you need to learn how to make more isk....

T2 costs aren't the issue, T1 costs are. Several T1 ships have become increasingly more expensive and it's making the low-cost PvP alternative less and less viable.

You shouldn't be crippled in PvP just because you don't wish to invest (I say invest but most people don't expect to see a return on their isk spent) in T2 or faction ships. We're not at that point yet but we're getting there as the arsenal of ships available to the impoverished PvP'er has greatly been reduced in size.

Cheaper PvP would mean more people pew-pew'ing (= more fun) and a little more forgiving profit margins to the for-profit PvPers.

A Rupture Fit, Rigged, Droned and with ammo is a mere 35m isk. Cheap as ****. Buy 10 of them stage yourself in a low sec entry system undock fly around kill or die, come back rinse and repeat. 10 chances of pew pew fun, and all for 350m isk. This is cheap pvp.

However if you're stupidly poor replace rupture with rifter and 35m a ship with 4m and go be a poor ass scurb pvp'er for a while. You'll have fun, but its frigs and only poor people fly frigs.[/i]

The message given by this to many players is: forget T2 and T3, they are a huge ISK sink.

This has heavily turned off numerous players from flying T2 and T3 and therefore continuing to explore the game.
This means after players have maxed out their skills on T1 ships, sometimes they just quit the game as the other ships seem to expensive to replace and are therefore just not worth using in PVP, PVE and training for.

However, balancing ship classes on top of an uneven insurance system is like making furniture assymetric to balance on a sloping floor!

CCP said they would resolve the technical debts of the features of past years instead of just adding new features.
The poor T2 and T3 ship insurance is exactly such a debt that holds the game back from greater popularity.

What you are in effect saying is that PVPers should fly obviously inferior ships because the competitive ones are being priced more and more out of their hands.
The performance bar has already moved on from Ruptures and Rifters.
Ruptures are a joke when T3 cruisers are not uncommon sights in PVP.
Rifters are a joke when frigate PVP is now dominated by AFs.
This in no way contradicts the point that PVPing is becoming more and more expensive in general.

Assuming they have a reason to exist. Shield Harbingers outperform Zealots. Sacrileage, Cerb and Eagle have 99 problems but being effective isn't one. Diemost is well... Ishtar needs some CPU but is a great ship. Vagabond is fine while I don't think the Munin has a right to exist peacefully while the Hurricane exists.

So, make HACs competitive across the board rather then specific examples of HACs being competitive

35 or 350 million isn't cheap PvP, 900k is cheap PvP.

I don't care about insurance on T2 hulls and fly them all the time, but I think some people need some ISK perspective.

The last BC I bought, I got for 17 mil. They work fine; T2 is not required.

I also think some people are focusing too much on solo PvP. In 2-3 days a noob can be helping out in a gang/fleet.

PvP is not expensive, nor is it hard to find.

A Rupture Fit, Rigged, Droned and with ammo is a mere 35m isk. Cheap as ****. Buy 10 of them stage yourself in a low sec entry system undock fly around kill or die, come back rinse and repeat. 10 chances of pew pew fun, and all for 350m isk. This is cheap pvp.

However if you're stupidly poor replace rupture with rifter and 35m a ship with 4m and go be a poor ass scurb pvp'er for a while. You'll have fun, but its frigs and only poor people fly frigs.[/i]

I can't believe you scrubs actually want more insurance. The whole system needs to be removed from the game. This thread is bad and if you posted in it, you should feel bad.

I can't believe you scrubs actually want more insurance. The whole system needs to be removed from the game. This thread is bad and if you posted in it, you should feel bad.

How do keep a sub long enough to max all T1 ship skills of all races and still not be able to at least afford a T2 or T3, at least as a mission boat?

The question is not if 1 T2 or T3 can be afforded for PVE.
The question is if their replacement cost is reasonable for regular use in PVP by the non super ISK rich.

The cost of a T2 cruiser size ship is more then affordible for over half the players in the game to pvp with.

Just as it should be. You must not be part of that half yet. Get to work.

150-200 mil+ per ship loss with modules uncovered by insurance is something half of players don't care about losing regularly?
Doesn't sound correct. That amount is still very substantial to many people.

I disagree, on both points.

For one, 35m is a lot actually for a T1 Cruiser. It'll buy you a Hurricane hull and a Hurricane with T1 mods will perform better in nearly every way. The Rupture has a bit better agility and sig res as well as being a little less intimidating, that's about it.

35m may also seem little to you but for a lot of players it's a lot of isk. You have to realize that a lot of players have to mission run for many hours in order to afford a ship like that. All this work for what is a very basic PvP ship that's found nearly at the bottom of the food chain.

Also, at a cost of 35m the vast majority of Ruptures won't survive long enough to pay themselves off. More people should be able to profit from PvP (actual PvP and none of that suicide ganking nonsense that's nothing short of glorified griefing), there's plenty of risk for everyone but very little reward for most. A lot of players just seem to look at PvP as a fun way to waste isk and the fun of EVE PvP is being diminished too with baiting, blobbing and whatnot.

- It's no surprise so few players are wiling to venture into danger even with relatively cheap ships.

However, balancing ship classes on top of an uneven insurance system is like making furniture assymetric to balance on a sloping floor!

150-200 mil+ per ship loss with modules uncovered by insurance is something half of players don't care about losing regularly?
Doesn't sound correct. That amount is still very substantial to many people.

Perhaps those players don't die every time they undock? Ever think of that one?

Sure, they never die because they don't engage at worse than 50-to-1 odds.

Don't fight without 3 falcons. Never ever take any risk.

Anyone would be super cautious when the ship loss cost is 150-200mil+

However, this directly causes the nature of PVP to be less and less exciting.

However, the fun PVP is in NOT playing safe and risking your ship in closer odds.

You have to risk your ship in closer odds to have more exciting fights.

Untrue that is one of the best parts of EVE. Rush PvP is the boring part. Planing out your moves 3 jumps ahead, scouting and spying, using fleet counter tactics to maximize effectiveness these are the best parts of EVE. Fairness and Pointless Bloodshed is for Arena Combat while EVE works like a War. You counter their cowardliness, trap their numbers and tear them to pieces despite all of the preparations they made to win.

You do risk your ship because the enemy setup is designed to break your safety, murder your Falcons, Ceptors, Logi and leave your range gang at point or their DPS at Range.

This is the greatness of EVE not cheap losses but the constant struggle for superiority through tricks and traps designed to surprise and counter. That is better then any mindless mash up of ISKnet defended ships any day. EVE is about wins and loss, how you go about forcing that is the good part.

Yes 35m for a full fit Rupture is cheap pvp. Its not hard to make 35m isk in eve, not at all.

Costlier ships means less people willing to join fleet -> Less regular PVP.
You went out PVPing X times this week.
If ships replacement costs were cheaper people would probably go out PVPing more, meaning more fun.

Oh yes, this sounds very enjoyable. For the FC. Not fun for the poor schmucks in fleet just obeying orders and more often than not, not getting a fight at all.

Shock and horror, but not all PVP in EVE is scripted for ISKwar.
Some people actually go out roaming solo or in very small loosely coordinated groups for the fun of it.
It is common knowledge that free-flowing small gang PVP is the most exciting part of PVP, not very structured ISKwar blobs.

You do risk your ship because the enemy setup is designed to break your safety, murder your Falcons, Ceptors, Logi and leave your range gang at point or their DPS at Range.

Of course, the risk is what makes EVE Fun.
[quote=Alara IonStorm]
Costlier ships means less people willing to join fleet -> Less regular PVP.
You went out PVPing X times this week.
If ships replacement costs were cheaper people would probably go out PVPing more, meaning more fun.

150-200 mil+ per ship loss with modules uncovered by insurance is something half of players don't care about losing regularly?
Doesn't sound correct. That amount is still very substantial to many people.

The question is not if 1 T2 or T3 can be afforded for PVE.
The question is if their replacement cost is reasonable for regular use in PVP by the non super ISK rich.

This means after players have maxed out their skills on T1 ships, sometimes they just quit the game as the other ships seem to expensive to replace and are therefore just not worth using in PVP, PVE and training for.

Sure, they never die because they don't engage at worse than 50-to-1 odds.
Don't fight without 3 falcons. Never ever take any risk.
Anyone would be super cautious when the ship loss cost is 150-200mil+
However, this directly causes the nature of PVP to be less and less exciting.
However, the fun PVP is in NOT playing safe and risking your ship in closer odds.
You have to risk your ship in closer odds to have more exciting fights.

For years, EVE has given <1/3 of the price of T2 and T3 ships in ship insurance.
The message given by this to many players is: forget T2 and T3, they are a huge ISK sink.
This has heavily turned off numerous players from flying T2 and T3 and therefore continuing to explore the game.
This means after players have maxed out their skills on T1 ships, sometimes they just quit the game as the other ships seem to expensive to replace and are therefore just not worth using in PVP, PVE and training for.

I think CCP is doing a fantastic job starting to balance all the ship classes.
However, balancing ship classes on top of an uneven insurance system is like making furniture assymetric to balance on a sloping floor!

CCP said they would resolve the technical debts of the features of past years instead of just adding new features.
The poor T2 and T3 ship insurance is exactly such a debt that holds the game back from greater popularity.

Suggestion:
Fix the insurance formulae for T2 and T3 ship insurance to cover at least 50% of the ship cost.
Do give likes to the topic if you support this. Thanks.