|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Matalino
Gallente Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 18:57:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Matalino on 14/08/2008 19:03:05 The entire premise of this proposal is flawed.
Insurance is not there to be realistic in any way shape or form.
It is there to take the bite off of ship loses.
Adding realism is not a factor when designing game mechanics.
"Realism" is used as a means to justify game mechanics after the fact.
The developers didn't start with the idea "Hey, we should allow players to buy insurance for their ships, how should that insurance work?"
They started with the idea "Hey, we should give some ISK back to a player when they lose there ships so they aren't totally screwed, now what "realistic" reason can we use to justify giving them that ISK?"
Try designing your idea with the game mechanic in mind, then try to make it "realistic" by adding fluff around it.
Your attempt to start with what is "realistic" and develop game mechanics from there will fail.
|
Matalino
Gallente Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 20:07:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo I appreciate what you've said, and I agree. However, let us not ignore the state of the game - many people wanted a solution to capital ships online..I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping to one day see more combat taking place in smaller ships e.g. cruiser warfare and all...wouldn't you?
I admit that this idea would perhaps give titans a bit too much of an edge, however...
Scagga
So why the garbage about making insurance more "reaslistic"?
If you think that insurance payouts should be decreased to encourage people to fly smaller ships, then bloody well say so.
That is a far more reasonable proposal. I am not sure if I support it or not, but atleast you would be stating a valid reason for changing insurance.
With the goal clearly stated you might get some reasonable ideas on how to acheive that. You can worry about making it sound "reaslistic" later.
|
Matalino
Gallente Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 21:01:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo If the result is fewer cap-blobs and more small-ship warfare, perhaps it is?
Your system favors those who lose ships less often.
Therefore, those who form up capital ship blobs to minimize their loses will receive better insurance coverage than those roaming small gangs who frequantly lose ships.
You might want to rethink your entire mechanic given your stated objective is to encourage the use of small roaming gangs instead of large capital blobs.
|
Matalino
Gallente Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 22:06:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo *Scagga's 2-stroke 35bhp brain putts along merrily while it works out a possible solution to this uphill task...was that the wind changing direction? Damn...*
Well said!
I look forward to seeing a new proposal.
|
|
|
|