The problem here is we're at cross purposes. You're strictly looking at things in a gameplay mechanics sense, whereas some of us are also looking at it from a verisimilitude sense. Note that doesn't mean realism, just the illusion of realism.
Not really, I believe we all want to help make ED a better game.
What I'm looking at is how people want that illusion of realism applied piecemeal, but not wholesale. How they are willing to apply suspension of disbelief where they think it's convenient, but not anywhere else.
So, yes, you CAN abuse the PowerPlay system as you described. But it's pretty obvious that's not the intention of the mechanic. From the perspective of the Power they're not going "You know, let's set up our reward system in a way that people can destroy us from within and we reward them for it."
That's not to say you shouldn't be able to do it if the mechanics allow it - from a story perspective you can imagine yourself being a double agent of sorts, sabotaging your enemy from within. That's fine. But don't confuse that with in-world intention.
I'm not confusing anything. I'm just pointing out that Powers currently don't seem to have the means or the will to enforce their policies on their own agents, so it's not a long stretch to imagine that they also don't have the means or the will to control how insurance companies are using the modules they buy.
Look at it this way, insurance doesn't make a damn lick of sense as it's implemented. They're constantly losing money, but the game "feels" more real by having it than not having it.
I disagree. There's nothing real about the way it works, yet everybody accepts that - because it is convenient.
But the idea that insurance companies can get all the special modules they want and give them to whoever they want, that makes in-game sense to you?
Why is it that this specific issue needs to make sense and follow logic when the whole insurance business doesn't?
So a guy who was with Aisling but defected and now actively fights against her gets a limitless resupply of her proprietary technology? Nobody is going to say "Hey, that guy who has cost us over a billion dollars in damages, should we keep sending him replacement prismatic shields?"
"Yeah, it's in his insurance policy." "Oh, well hey, can't argue with that."
The Powers do not replace anything. The insurance company does.
What bothers me is that people are perfectly comfortable with the fact that nobody with the insurance company ever said "Hey, every single one of our customers has cost us millions of credits in losses, we should stop sending them replacement ships", but then you want to take stuff away from people because "it doesn't make sense".
What I (and presumably anikaiful) are talking about is trying to have a chain of logic that feels consistent within a world that obeys its own consistent rules from a story perspective.
From where I'm sitting, you're not realy proposing a consistent chain of logic. You're advocating for selective application of logic here, but not there - and that would only make the game even more illogical and imbalanced.
NONE of the Marvel movies make a lick of sense in the real world, but they follow their own consistent world logic.
And as I've been pointing out, the game world logic can only be consistent if it applies to everything and, more importantly, to everyone.
Having total insurance is a consistent policy, and so is having no insurance at all. Having partial insurance based solely on what feature you like or dislike in the game isn't consistent.
And claiming otherwise is inconsistent reasoning on your part
why would they authorize a replacement if you defected or work for the enemy now?
I believe they just don't care, for the same reason they give you the exact same reward regardless of whether you're helping or sabotaging them.
I believe it is a perfectly acceptable outcome, for the same reason that the insurance company eats a huge loss at every deal they make.
I believe it should not be changed solely on the grounds that "it doesn't make sense", because the whole insurance business doesn't make sense either and I'm yet to see anyone asking to have it removed.
Those mechanisms aren't there to make the game more realistic. They're not there to make sense. They are in place so you can actually have fun and do interesting stuff, instead of wasting all your time with grinding and worrying about your digital holdings.
One bit of latitude I could see from an in-world perspective is that you COULD get it replaced if you left on good terms (not defect) and are not currently aligned with a Power considered an enemy. Then I could see it as a legacy thing they honor.
Once you bought it, it belongs to you. It doesn't belong to them anymore. The 4 week requirement is just to make faction hopping more difficult, it doesn't mean they treat those modules as a badge of honor. Otherwise they would give it to you in a ceremony, instead of selling it to you at EVERY SINGLE STATION IN THE GALAXY.
Now just think about this:
If you meet the requirements, you can buy as many Imperial Hammers in Archon Delaine's space (or any other for that matter) as you want, because
every single station in the galaxy that offers outfitting has an infinite supply of every PP module from ALL FACTIONS.
Now tell me again how hard it would be for the insurance company to acquire those modules, when even the enemies have free access to a Power's premium stock. Please explain in minute detail how thorough and strict their control is.
Not everyone who plays Elite goes with the "it's just a game" line of reasoning. If you're crating your own story as you play, and living in that world, you want the mechanics of the game to at least somewhat reflect it - if only in a comic-book logic sense.
Every one of us play the game for our own reasons, and you're well within your rights to state yours.
But when you try to justify it by saying "this should be changed because it doesn't make sense, but that should NOT change even though it doesn't make sense", you're only invalidating your own argument.
You can't really advocate for "consistent logic" if you're only willing to apply it inconsistently.
Now sometimes story-sense and game-sense can't work together. That's why we have arguments like this in the first place. So the whole point is to try and find a balance.
Arguing for a change that will take away from other people the ability to use the prizes they worked to obtain just for the sake of "making sense" cannot be construed as striving for balance when you're reaping immense benefits yourself from similar aspects of the game that also don't make any sense.
You're rationalizing and accepting absurdities that you see as convenient, while applying a completely different set of standards to another absurdity.
You want it to be consistent, that's fine, but be consistent yourself, lest you end up coming across as selfish and short-sighted.
