kyoukoku
The Scope
   |
Posted - 2008.07.04 02:37:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Celeste DeVall
I've read through this forum, and see valid arguments on both sides of the coin.
As to the discussions that T2 ships should not be the standard, or the risk of loosing them should be high, I agree to an extent. But in a game where skill points continue to grow, and characters gain more skills, there is the assumption prompted by the design of the game itself that T2 ships and tech are the natural progression for players “graduating” to the next level of play in EVE. (If you gain skills, and gain ISK, then you may buy X)
^This. I look forward to the day when I can afford to fly a T2 vessel but I can see how it will be a right royal kick in the teeth if no sooner than I take my shiny new craft out for a shakedown, some <RP mode on> jumped up little punks </RP mode off> in a bunch of lowly T1's come and end it at very little risk to themselves and they are the ones to get insurance payouts! Obviously if I take a T2 out without the supporting skills & modules to properly defend & tank it in the first place that's another story altogether!
Originally by: Celeste DeVall
I offer a couple of potential scenarios that would resolve the issues as I see them to be:
1.) Leave insurance as it is, but allow insurance to be gained to cover specific modules/implants, etc. Players who knowingly enter into high risk areas/activities have the option to purchase the additional insurance on said items to lessen (not negate) their potential losses.
^This I also like. I really can't see why we can't also insure modules . Some of them can cost just as much as the ship itself and often more. I agree that it shouldn't be a full payout but still about 60-80% would help towards replacing costly modules.
Originally by: Celeste DeVall
2.) Increase pay out amounts of insurance to 60-80% of purchase amount. However, subsequent insurance claims/payouts decrease with each subsequent claim in X time frame. This version of insurance protects the casual player that makes a single bad decision, but minimizes exploitability, and doesn’t coddle those that choose to live and die by the sword.
^This. If you consistantly go out and lose your ships then you should expect your premiums to increase just as it would in RL. Whether you keep losing them due to you being a suicide ganker or just through your own darned stupidity in not learning from your prior losses is moot.
Originally by: Celeste DeVall
3.)Some said that the influx of insurance ISK would cause inflation. How about increasing intial insurance amounts exponentially, but upon loss of a ship, the player received a new ship in lieu of ISK.
^This.   Maybe there would be an option when you insure a ship that in the event of a loss you either have the payout as it is at the moment or you could choose to have a new ship issued instead. There could then be a delay so that if you choose a new ship you won't receive it immediately but there is a 24hr delay for it to be delivered to a designated station hanger.
Originally by: Celeste DeVall
In closing, I think that a review of insurance is necessary. Providing a little bit more in insurance, I think, would help a long way in retaining players, without sacrificing much of the hard core environment that many players enjoy.
^This, above all, at the very least is needed.
Ninja Salvaging ain't stealing
from desusig.crumplecorn.com
|