Jump to content

Welcome to Ultima Online Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account

Welcome to UOForums

If not already a member, take a moment to join our awesome community. It is free to sign up and there are no ads.

 

When you click on CREATE ACCOUNT, the sign up form will appear at the bottom of the forum.

 

If you have issues, like not receiving a validation email. Then please contact us by email help@uoforums.com and we will help you get set up.

 

If you wish to contact us about our site for other reasons, then please contact us by using the contact form in top right corner of the forum


Photo

The Insurance!!

- - - - - insurance

  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#21
Deraj

Deraj

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 433 posts
The idea of "insurance deeds" seems a bit complex, no matter how it is implemented. If the point is to lessen the amount of insuring going on, why not just drastically raise the price of insurance, or limit the number of items that can be insured in some way, or both?
Still we loom in the mists as the ages roll away,
And we say of our folk, "they are here!"
That they built us and they died and you'll not be knowing why,
Save we stand on the bare plains of Wiltshire.

#22
kingtony

kingtony

    How do you tell when you run out of invisible ink?

  • Members
  • 2,538 posts
raising the prices might be hard with new characters but say having only 3 items insured at max that might work.or just nix the whole idear completly have a patch with no more insurance for everyone unless item is blessed it will be left on your body till you return
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

#23
Deraj

Deraj

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 433 posts
Okay then, how about this: scale insurance costs based on a system devised to rate the power of an item. For example if you insured a regular, iron dagger, that would cost... say... 100gp, but if you insured a higher-end artifact-ish dagger, the cost might be 10,000gp (example). Then newbies can run around insuring their lousy gear, and the "leet" folk will have a better use for their vast riches. Plus, there is a clear incentive to use lesser gear.

Of course, this would require the developers to be consistent for once with item design in order to rate items, something I fear will never be done.
Still we loom in the mists as the ages roll away,
And we say of our folk, "they are here!"
That they built us and they died and you'll not be knowing why,
Save we stand on the bare plains of Wiltshire.

#24
Dentrix

Dentrix

    Gimp of Pain

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 262 posts
That might work, but what if you have "leet" items, but your kind of poor.. like you got the ornament of the magician in doom? you might not be rich, I was thinking maybe the more items you have the more it cost.. example
If you have 1 item it might cost 600gp each
If you have 2 items it might cost 700gp each
3= 800gp each
4= 900gp each

Unless you have items below a certain standards.. say less than 40 resistance and a certain amount of LRC ect.. this is just the way I look at it, it might be a bit complicated, but then it would either be, have good items.. and no gold, or have lots of gold, no items.. you see what I mean? feed back please =)

Posted Image
I'm back. :D


#25
mitch nz

mitch nz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts
I've only been playing UO about 6 months, but I have pretty strong views about this, formed when I played another MMPORG.

I firmly believe death should be painful - very painful.

In the aforementioned MMO, death could be costly. The basic system was that when you died you got to keep the 3 most expensive items you were carrying (equipped or in inventory). That was it! It certainly encouraged you to think about what you carried when you went somewhere dangerous.

But I would still advocate more draconian penalties. While stopping short of perma-death (though it has its merits) I would certainly like to see some pretty severe skill penalties for death.

For arguments sakes, let's say that death costs you 5% in each of your top 3 ranked skills. No buying your way back for the mega-rich, you gonna have to grind to make up the loss. If that sounds a bit harsh, a "death timer" option might suit. The first time you die, the skill penalty is relatively insignificant (perhaps even zero). But if you die again within a set time, the level of penalty increments. And this happens every time unless you lead a death-free existence for the set period of time, with the increments becoming incresingly steep.

I only really play PvM (or PvE), but an interesting PvP twist to a skill penalty for death would be a skill transfer. You get a successful PvP kill, you get transferred some of the losers skill. You could even use this to increase over the skill cap.

Let's face it, the Grim Reaper is currently sitting drinking tea and watching his scythe rust in the corner.

#26
Deraj

Deraj

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 433 posts

In the aforementioned MMO, death could be costly. The basic system was that when you died you got to keep the 3 most expensive items you were carrying (equipped or in inventory). That was it! It certainly encouraged you to think about what you carried when you went somewhere dangerous.


Interestingly enough, the penalty for death used to be, conceivably, all the stuff on your person (less the very few blessed or newbied items; spellbooks, newb clothes etc). In fact, even in Trammel, when your corpse decayed into bones, anyone could loot your body (obviously this has changed since then). Hell, even monsters to this day will loot things off your corpse. You want death to be costly and I certainly understand why, but being allowed to keep the three most expensive items kind of negates that costliness.

That might work, but what if you have "leet" items, but your kind of poor.. like you got the ornament of the magician in doom? you might not be rich, I was thinking maybe the more items you have the more it cost..


Man, I sure wish my auto insurance was cheap because I'm poor. But seriously though, you're idea makes sense. Ultimately the point is that if you want to limit insurance in some way, you need to either force a cap or significantly raise the cost of insurance.
Still we loom in the mists as the ages roll away,
And we say of our folk, "they are here!"
That they built us and they died and you'll not be knowing why,
Save we stand on the bare plains of Wiltshire.

#27
Blesh

Blesh

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

haha!

I know this is similar to the topic "Being a Thief",but I just had to post it.. I mean insurance changes the whole game. Your gear actually ment more because you know you could lose it anytime you died. Monsters could loot it etc..

No insurance makes for the best PvP scenarios also.

Here is an idea I thought of that might work also..
Two people mentioned having no insurance in fel in the thread I mentioned above ( sry couldnt remember ur name guys).

What if there was a killers insurance?

After you kill (x#) of people you recieve a Killers Insurance deed in your pack.

This deed can "Killer Insured" the item.

How this would work would be you kill people for the deeds and when you place the deed onto the item it's insured for (x amount of time) so in order to keep anything insured in fel you will have to keep killing people.

To prevent people from exploiting this you could only get so many "Killer Points" (which you would have to have so many of the points before getting a Killers insurance Deed) from one person. This way you couldn't kill the same person over and over for the deeds.

That's just something I thought of, and it really wouldnt be to hard to implement into the game. I'm sure I didnt think of all the bugs that could come with this, but Im sure it could be done.



Sorry, But if i was forced to PVP just to insure my gear, I would quit.

I think no matter how many posts like this are made, insurance is here to stay. thats why they have siege. you can loot gear allllll you want there. you just have to dedicate time to making your character.

#28
galefan2004

galefan2004

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 99 posts
They added insurance with AoS because they added insanely expensive items as well. Right now there are peices of people's sets that no longer even spawn and should be considered rares (Tokuno Items, etc).

Not having insurance was ok back in the day because the most expensive items would have been (for awhile) fire sandals (about 500k) and a decent set of armor could be bought for more than a decent artifact is sold for now. If you want to end insurance you need to end item based UO first, and neither of those will happen.

#29
EmersonBiggins

EmersonBiggins

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 103 posts
Frankly, I like the insurance AND it DOES cost something when you die. Currently, I have a cheap set of 100% LRC armor that I like. I can't afford another set and can't make one just yet (working on tailoring). So, while that's being worked on, and until I can afford a 70's suit.... I'm insuring this one. Let's see, that's:

Cap
Tunic
Leggings
Arms
Gloves
Necklace
Bracelet
Ring

8 items. When I go hunting, I have nothing but spell and rune books in my pack. If I die, and cannot get back to my corpse (which has happened a few times) or if it's looted by monsters (damned orcs), then I lose my loot AND it costs me 8x600, or 4,800GP. To me, that's significant. I can go to Shame and make 15k in a trip between jewels and such. If I try for more loot, and go to fight dragons, I might break even if I die a couple of times. But that's just me, a non-uber.

#30
Maroite

Maroite

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts
UO has changed too much for the penalty of losing items to be fair. Items now can cost into the 10million + range, and if you lose an item you spent 10mil or more on you're not going to want to play the game.

When UO first came out, items were relatively cheap, and had no real value, aka they didn't give you resists, or faster casting or anything like that. The gave you damage and an armor rating and you could get a new suit at the local NPC smith. Losing a suit of ringmail could be a pain in the butt, but it wasn't game stopping like losing your prized orny would be for some.

Getting rid of insurance would never happen. If it did, they may as well shut down the servers, or revert the servers back to classic UO and then I am sure that all of the pvpers and thieves would just complain that the only thing they can steal/take thats worth anything are people's reagents... :eusa_eh:

Oh not to mention there wouldn't be spawns, and there really wouldn't be anything to pvp over other than pvp itself...

#31
Pennywise

Pennywise

    Crumbpicker, dat der Renaissance Manz of da Werlds!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 380 posts
I'm glad I got it. But, it would be nice if we didn't have it. Would make running back to town naked all the more excitin'....well, watching others run back to town.

#32
Himmelweiss

Himmelweiss

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts
Same thing like with trammel, adding insurance was one of the worst ideas.
Also same as trammel, it is too late now to remove the insurance system.

#33
Elitz

Elitz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts
i would have to say the thought proccess this thread has turned to is wrong..... if you got rid of the insurance it would help to streighten the econemy of uo, when you can lose an item you will tend to pay less for it, people pay that much for an item now because they know they will have it for a long time..... look at the difference in artifacts that are cursed, and artifact that can be insured...... that in its self proves my point......
  • shadowstalker likes this
The wise man built his house upon the rock... EA bought the house and crushed the rock it stood on.... :o

#34
Deraj

Deraj

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 433 posts
It's fair to say that everyone understands that insurance cannot be abolished under the current conditions. Why? Because the game is too item-based (not to say it never was, but more so than ever before). One either needs to reduce the power of items, thus making the abolishment of insurance a saner proposition, or reduce the incentive to insure by increasing the price and/or imposing a cap of how many items a player can insure. The reasons in favor of such thinking are clear: greater penalties for death, which, scaled appropriately, can add a little spice and adventure to the game, adventure which UO sorely lacks.
Still we loom in the mists as the ages roll away,
And we say of our folk, "they are here!"
That they built us and they died and you'll not be knowing why,
Save we stand on the bare plains of Wiltshire.

#35
Elitz

Elitz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts
Removing the Insurance would steer people away from item based for the fact that everything they have and wear constantly, such as the uber suits and rediculous weapons could be lost were they to make a mistake..... would you pay 48 mil for an uber weapon if you knew you could possibly lose it tommorow? That would work extremely well to streighten the rediculous prices people are paying for stuff.
The wise man built his house upon the rock... EA bought the house and crushed the rock it stood on.... :o

#36
shadowstalker

shadowstalker

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
I would love for insurance to disappear. It is probably the single biggest issue I have with UO.

The game should have the challenge of creating an environment where the risks you choose to take have very real consequences if things go wrong.

Also at 600gp a piece and about 4800gp total for your whole suit to be insured is very little money in this economy. I can make that money back in about 10-15mins in Despise.

I think Elitz made a very sound point that prices have tended to increase as people are prepared to pay the higher prices as they know insurance will keep their beloved items safe.

However I dont think that anything that has been in the game so long is ever likely to be reverted.

#37
EmersonBiggins

EmersonBiggins

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 103 posts

It's fair to say that everyone understands that insurance cannot be abolished under the current conditions. Why? Because the game is too item-based (not to say it never was, but more so than ever before). One either needs to reduce the power of items, thus making the abolishment of insurance a saner proposition, or reduce the incentive to insure by increasing the price and/or imposing a cap of how many items a player can insure. The reasons in favor of such thinking are clear: greater penalties for death, which, scaled appropriately, can add a little spice and adventure to the game, adventure which UO sorely lacks.


Item based is exactly why insurance cannot go anywhere. When I started, vanquishing weapons and silver weapons were it. They were relatively common and could be found on loot by players soloing certain monsters. They were obtainable by the masses.

Now, you really cannot solo your way into many of the uber weapons, they drop less often, and they are harder to craft.

When I used to die and lose my equipment, I ran back to the bank, got some gold out, bought a GM plate or leather armor suit again, picked up another weapon, and went back to the hunt. If I didn't have the gold, I could hunt lesser monsters for a short while (few hours, half a day) and have enough gold to re-equip myself with great armor and weapons.

NOW if I died and lost some of the MEDIOCRE items that I have (can't really say I have ANY uber items), I'd be toast and it would take me weeks to earn the gold back to buy some of them.

Losing the weapons might make the prices come down somewhat, but in the end, people that have the uber weapons will just banksit with them. To REALLY effect the prices, they would have to be loseable, but ALSO they would have to drop more often as loot or be easier to craft. Supply and demand. The demand is there, but if the supply gets shorter (by not being able to insure them) that exerts upwards pressure on the price.

Make the items drop more often is the only way to make them cheaper.

#38
Gnomy

Gnomy

    Forum Legend

  • Members
  • 4,946 posts
I never bothered with armor till AoS :P was no expense for me then...

143 wars and chaos guild made it more or less impossible...


Now i think they should raise the price or remove it.. gold is easy enough these days. Economy is out of hand.. soo...

Posted Image


#39
EmersonBiggins

EmersonBiggins

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 103 posts
Gold's not really that easy for the casual player (hour or two a day)....

#40
Gnomy

Gnomy

    Forum Legend

  • Members
  • 4,946 posts
30mins preparing Melisande.. for 2 rounds or DreadHorn.

then do it with 3-4 people, split loot.. voila :)

Posted Image






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: insurance