Let’s be clear here. IIRC, plat insurance at that time only covered approximately 55% of the cost of the hull. This did NOT cover the coat of fittings and rigs etc, which meant it was never isk posiive to lose a ship with plat insurance.
Someone needs to dig out hard evidence with the numbers.
The Engaget article you linked was fluffy with the numbers, it quoted 70%? Is that right? I’m recalling from memory that full ship insurance never achived that level of return, and even if the number 70% is right, it is never 100%, so you are always losing isk…
Re-read the article. You’re getting the ratio reversed. Let me explain this part specifically: note how he says the mineral costs are 70% of the insurance payout. That means the insurance payout is 1.43x of the mineral costs, not that the insurance payout is 70% of the mineral costs.
At that time, a battleship cost around 140-ish million ISK (the lower-tiered ones, like the Armageddons that we used to gank, cost even less pre-tiericide). But the platinum payout was close to 200 million ISK. Platinum insurance always cost 30% of the payout. You can kind of do the math on that to see what that meant.
I was a prolific ganker at that time, and used Armageddons to do it. The cost was effectively just a few million ISK, mostly from the portion of the guns and damage modules that got destroyed.
I remember self-destructing a few dozen Ravens in Jita once because I netted about 5 million per Raven after factoring in insurance costs. Then we found a more efficient way to do it via criminal timers.
Ah sorry, this change to insurance probably happened before my time. When was the change introduced? What year exactly? Sounded totally broken, I don’t understand how such a change could have passed CCP design reviews, as it was obviously flawed.
I can’t see how it would make you isk positive, given fittings, modules, ammo etc as well though.
You will notice, most of that article is lost in time - the webpages no longer exist… I don’t have the time to go digging in the internet webarchives for lost pages…
No, it wasn’t. To say it more accurately, it oscillated within a range of a few million ISK, but for the most part, after considering the loss of the destroyed modules, the costs were about 2-4 million ISK per gank. That is less than the cost of a T2-fit Catalyst today, and is equivalent to a T1-fit Catalyst today.
Additionally, a battleship did twice the damage of a Catalyst, so using Catalysts was even more expensive in that regard (since you’d need two for the same damage). Plus there was the subscription cost on top of that, as a second Catalyst would require a second player/account, and that was a sunk cost because there was no SP extraction.
Suddenly a large number of nullsec players and others in hisec decided that they could afford it and started doing it because Catalysts became effective and a single one could take down a Hulk. The whole comment on insurance is just one big deflection.
No, this is just you being once again concretely and definitively proven wrong, and just desperately throwing words around to try to save face despite everyone shaking their head in shame at you making an utter idiot of yourself in public.
I absolutely will get personal with anyone arrogant enough to try to replace historical facts with their own narrative in order to further their own anti-player agenda.
You really live in your own bubble don’t you. So you are telling me that nullsec players and others did not start ganking because it became possible to do with a really cheap ship. Hell I must have imagined my own alliance mates in Pirate Nation doing just that because of this change. I must have imagined watching Fawlty7 go into hisec to do just that in 2011 because of this change.
The problem I think in a lot of this stuff, is that history fades, and most long-term players have knowledge which does get corrupted over time, as you can only keep so many things in your head at one time and stuff fades over time… like facts.
There must be some EVE History website somewhere (perhaps even curated by CCP?) - an idea perhaps?
That might document the evolution of EVE mechanics and stuff over time. It’s horrendously complicated and hard to document I guess.
Correct. This is just conjecture on your part. Your entire argument is rooted in the assumption of the motivation of people who aren’t even you.
How about acting like someone with a shred of integrity and intellectual honesty for once, and actually putting some concrete numbers on paper and doing some research to provide some time-relevant data and observations for your claims?
The old archived forums are available, and Google searches will reliably hit them if you search for the right things. Plus you can read dev blogs and patch notes going all the way to pre-release.
So you look at the small subset of people who were ganking prior to this change and define that as what happened. So those large numbers of people who started ganking with throw away ships in 2011 did not happen according to Destiny Corrupted. What a ridiculous point of view.
You just hoisted yourself with you own petard again.
So the removal of the -25% ROF penalty was not a factor in this according to Destiny Corrupted? It is simple to go back and check what ships were being used after this change.
Destiny is just talking about one period in eve’s history, which is just an interesting insight into the chain of events that led to how we are today.
Yeh I remember the insurance thing, yeh I remember when it got nerferd and everyone with a battleship had to adapt and I don’t even go to Destiny’s school.
“weeeeellll achtually” quoth the cheeto covered keyboard warrior
Players used the most efficient thing possible to perform suicide-ganks. At the exact same time that they could no longer use Armageddons or Tempests, they moved on to destroyers because that was the most cost-efficient way of performing suicide-ganks. The removal of criminal insurance and the removal of the destroyer RoF penalty happened in the same patch.
I genuinely don’t mind destroying him in public like this.
My point was that the removal of the Destroyers ROF -25% resulting in an easy to procure and a cheap option increased suicide ganking, you have just gone off on a tangent about insurance to justify something or other in your head. Weird…
You are destroying yourself actually and having another faceless alt turn up and agree with you is meaningless.
Except it was cheaper to use battleships. If the two changes were never made, players would’ve simply continued to use Armageddons to suicide-gank, which was cheaper than using destroyers post-Crucible.
Just stop talking. You’ve made an utter mockery of yourself by this point.
I can barely remember yesterday, rather than recall game knowledge from 11 years ago lol.