Insurance/Re-buy changes - less frustration, same price

[Dewar]

Wait, the manual states that you can get up to a 200,000 cr loan to cover re-buy costs (page 40 under the insurance fees section.) Is that not actually true? I had no idea how much of a risk I was taking if so.

 

[Rhonda]

While iRL insurances are mostly evil corporations and some sort of scam, they are doing one thing right and I think ED should copy that business practice: Pay the insurance police before you actually have an accident. It's still up to the player if he wants/can afford an insurance or not. No handholding, but if you bought one you don't have to care about it anymore. You might still readjust your police, when you buy more expensive modules.

 

[Corwyn]

Not everyone who'd quit the game over a big loss of progression is a "whiner" - I'd guess more people would quit the game in silence than decide to take it to the forums, honestly. It's not a free way out of risk and danger either, as they're paying the same price for death as everybody who decides to fly in a more careful manner by keeping money on hand. They just pay their price in retrospect rather than on the spot. They still suffer more than somebody who keeps the re-buy cost ready, as they'll have to earn it back through less effective means than somebody who gets their good ship back right away.

It's unbalanced and unfair, a double standard. It should be the same for all or it's not fair.

If you feel your fun would be destroyed by being offered an easier way to deal with death, it sounds like the upcoming ironman mode is exactly what you're looking for, and could solve your personal gripe with this suggestion. Will you still oppose this once the ironman mode is offered?

Ironman mode is too extreme for me.

The penalty system is fair the way it is, people need to stop expecting things handed out for free to them. Grow up and accept the risks, plan more, be responsible.

 

[Riepah]

Wait, the manual states that you can get up to a 200,000 cr loan to cover re-buy costs (page 40 under the insurance fees section.) Is that not actually true? I had no idea how much of a risk I was taking if so.

It is true. I've never needed to take advantage of it, myself, but I've heard enough people talking about it by now to say, you're safe as long as your ship costs under 200k to re-buy, or you have enough cash on hand to pay for your re-buy cost if you add those 200k on top. However, you'll have to pay 220k back, I believe. It's a fine little safeguard. Seeing that limit extended would also go a long way in mitigating some of the potentially gamebreaking frustration people may come across if they lose their more expensive ships.

 

[Riepah]

It's unbalanced and unfair, a double standard. It should be the same for all or it's not fair.



Ironman mode is too extreme for me.

The penalty system is fair the way out is, people need to drop expecting things handed out for free to them. Grow up and accept the risks, plan more, be responsible.

It would be the same for all, it's not a double standard. Deciding to take the hit and refusing to make use of the "pay us later" safeguard is your own call, your own decision. None of your options are taken away, nobody gets an advantage over you.

You say Ironman mode is too extreme for you. I completely understand that - I won't be touching that mode, either, myself. However, our current default may be too extreme for other players.
Your insistence on not allowing a change to a postponed re-buy, is rather similar to someone who thinks Ironman is how the game should be, because the game is called Elite: "Dangerous", advocating that Ironman should be the only mode there is, because our current default insurance caters to whiners. They could turn your own statement against you and tell you to "drop expecting things handed out for free to them. Grow up and accept the risks, plan more, be responsible."

Different people deem different levels of frustration or punishment appropriate or bearable in games.

If Ironman were the default, would you be happy with that, or would you support safeguards to be implemented?

 

[Corwyn]

It would be the same for all, it's not a double standard. Deciding to take the hit and refusing to make use of the "pay us later" safeguard is your own call, your own decision. None of your options are taken away, nobody gets an advantage over you.

Making it a player chosen option makes our unfair, if someone can just jump back into their ship, albeit not able to earn money, while another it's to start over, is unbalanced in the extreme, is quit If it's done. (Talk about rage quit)

You say Ironman mode is too extreme for you. I completely understand that - I won't be touching that mode, either, myself. However, our current default may be too extreme for other players.
Your insistence on not allowing a change to a postponed re-buy, is rather similar to someone who thinks Ironman is how the game should be, because the game is called Elite: "Dangerous", advocating that Ironman should be the only mode there is, because our current default insurance caters to whiners. They could turn your own statement against you and tell you to "drop expecting things handed out for free to them. Grow up and accept the risks, plan more, be responsible."

Yup, true. I don't like the idea of ironman mode either, but it also becomes an irreversible choice.

Different people deem different levels of frustration or punishment appropriate or bearable in games.

If Ironman were the default, would you be happy with that, or would you support safeguards to be implemented?

They knew the rules going in, they cry foul when they are subject to them.

Go to a casino, risk losing it all, then cry foul and you want it back when you lose, see what happens.

 

[Krait_79]

Hi there.

As you've undoubtedly seen, people keep coming to the forum after losing everything they had. The circumstances vary, but the end result is pretty much always the same; immense frustration, a huge feeling of loss and in some cases, the person will quit the game over it.

I think a rather small change to the whole insurance/re-buy system could make it much less frustrating, and cause less players to quit, while retaining the feeling of "death is expensive".

Allow us to pay the re-buy cost at a later date. Rather than a system that offers us to re-buy us now or never, make it now or later. Dying would still cost the same as it does now, the difference is only that, rather than losing everything you had, your beloved ship and modules are frozen until you earn back the re-buy cost.

People who go without insurance will still find themselves in the free Sidewinder after an accident, they'll still hate having died, but they'd at least have the option of getting their old assets back in a reasonable timeframe, rather than being forced to start from scratch.

I think this change would make a lot less people quit - and dying still wouldn't be cheap. Keeping the re-buy cost on hand would still be smart, as it'll save you from having to earn the money back in an inferior ship.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you have any suggestions of your own?

Kindly keep posts along the lines of "They deserved it" out of here. Everyone knows that flying with less than the re-buy cost isn't a great idea - but that doesn't mean it's a great idea for the game to keep things as they are, either, because the current system WILL drive players away, be it their fault or not.

I've got a better plan. Now stick with me here people because it's hard to get to grips with and it's a bit 'out there' as far as ideas go.... but what if people made sure they had enough to cover their insurance before they upgrade their ship? Imagine if they made this game so you had an option like that?........ oh wait!

 

[DCello]

Altough the current system does work nicely, I agree that tweaks can be good. Instead of a fixed 200k loan, a loan that scaled to the price of your insurance would be better - it would keep the game how it is, but in cases of losing everything and lacking like 1k or something, you could take a loan that covered the cost of the insurance.

No reason to make this game purposefully obnoxious when you can improve it's little facets without destroying what makes it special.

 

[Corwyn]

I've got a better plan. Now stick with me here people because it's hard to get to grips with and it's a bit 'out there' as far as ideas go.... but what if people made sure they had enough to cover their insurance before they upgrade their ship? Imagine if they made this game so you had an option like that?........ oh wait!

It's crazy, truly crazy, but it could work at that, I'll back this idea.

 

[Nemesis74]

In my opinion, if people are quitting the game 2 weeks in (even though they are painful losses..) then I reckon there will always be something around the corner that would stop them playing. Changing the handling of insurance would be a short term fix.....
.
Let's face it, the people whining over lost ships due to insurance problems have largely known the risks. They have chosen to launch with empty bank balances. The posts I've read haven't said "I didn't know I'd lose everything"... but more "I took a risk, it bit me, now I'm quitting.. *whinge*"...
.
And really the game shouldn't just be about having the biggest the ship.. the trading, exploring, pirating to get that ship are part of the game too, now they get to do it all again!

Sorry, I'm in the 'leave it like it is' camp!

(P.S. why can't I get paragraphs to work!)

 

[Riepah]

They knew the rules going in, they cry foul when they are subject to them.

I actually don't think that the majority of players really research about this game in-depth before purchasing it. I think many players are quite surprised to find that they can lose all their progress if they make a bad decision, and I'm sure there are quite a few who, if they had known prior to their purchase, just how punishing this game can be, wouldn't have bought it in the first place. This game wasn't really marketted as what it is - unless somebody did some thorough research, rather than just going by the trailer and a review or two, they'd probably go in expecting more action and content, and less trading and punishment.

 

[Corwyn]

I actually don't think that the majority of players really research about this game in-depth before purchasing it. I think many players are quite surprised to find that they can lose all their progress if they make a bad decision, and I'm sure there are quite a few who, if they had known prior to their purchase, just how punishing this game can be, wouldn't have bought it in the first place. This game wasn't really marketted as what it is - unless somebody did some thorough research, rather than just going by the trailer and a review or two, they'd probably go in expecting more action and content, and less trading and punishment.

If they're beyond the sidey, they've played enough to know the risks. There's enough publicity about it, if they don't know, i question if they know how to dress themselves or cross the street safely.

We're all subject to the same rules, yet a small number cry foul when it bites them. It's not the rules that are bad, it's the few players that don't want to be subject to them that are. They are a vocal minority.