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

#41
holmedog

holmedog

    The Holmedog

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 319 posts
I'm on the very far side of casual (play maybe an hour a day, and most of that isn't hunting) and I can still net 300k an hour if I'm trying. That's just running to miasma and swoop with a packie.

#42
EmersonBiggins

EmersonBiggins

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 103 posts

I'm on the very far side of casual (play maybe an hour a day, and most of that isn't hunting) and I can still net 300k an hour if I'm trying. That's just running to miasma and swoop with a packie.



I keep hearing about swoops, I think I'm going to try them tonight...

#43
EricVT

EricVT

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 74 posts
I'd rather Age of Shadows and insurance and all the wretched item-based madness have never happened. It's killed the excitement of the game.

Back in the days before insurance nothing got my heart going like taking a risk and packing my silver vanq axe down into lich lords to try to kill a few. Knowing that dying in the bottom of Deceit essentially meant forfeiting everything on your body made the experience that much more visceral and exciting.

Nowadays I might see a lich lord in the woods and it doesn't even phase me. You hit them 3-4 times and they die. If they managed to kill me then no sweat, get rezzed and come back to finish it off fully healed and equipped.

Common player interaction was also a bigger part of UO back before stuff like repair contracts and insurance came about. The blacksmith in Britain used to be completely packed with people all day everyday. Smiths would stand around doing free repairs and making money from the tips and crafting suits of armor and weapons for people who needed new equipment. You would show up and wait your turn and chat with everyone and it was just a more interesting experience.

#44
holmedog

holmedog

    The Holmedog

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 319 posts
Yes, but then you also had the case where yo uwould hand the smith your sweet weapon and he would log out.

I agree and wish there were ways they would have kept the community together better. I also agree that dieing in level 4 shame now equates to hitting help->I'm stuck and waiting to get teleported to a healer / recall back and get all of your stuff.

But, with items costing so much money now, if I lost something that I spent weeks farming money for, I would be pretty mad. It's just not the same game as it was back when there was no insurance. No one would play now days without it.

There are plenty of free shards for the people who want to. I hate to sound cranky but I'm tired of this debate.

#45
Deraj

Deraj

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 433 posts

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.


I see what you're saying, but this isn't about affecting prices. This is about correcting faulty game design, a far more crucial issue. Items can be very losable if they're easier to replace. If you do nothing but limit insurance somehow, what will happen is that people will wear less overpowered items into combat. If you remove insurance completely people will wear no overpowered items into combat. If you make overpowered items extremely accessible, people will wear them regardless of having no insurance. That's essentially the jist of it.

Our goal is to limit it so that 1) people wear less overpowered gear (the stuff that's eroding the game) and 2) to increase the penalty of death. This doesn't make the penalty of death overbearing, like removing insurance completely, and it doesn't make it more of a hassle (not to a player who is capable of using their brain). It just adds an increased element of risk.

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


Making them less powerful would be a better start. I'm thinking.... GM quality should do the trick, wouldn't you say? Hey, GM stuff is very easily available, yes?

Yes, but then you also had the case where yo uwould hand the smith your sweet weapon and he would log out.


Trust me, the few times this occured does not cast even the slightest shadow over all the good times we had at the Britain blacksmith. Not by a long shot.

There are plenty of free shards for the people who want to. I hate to sound cranky but I'm tired of this debate.


If you really understood why advising people to leave EA shards directly affects your gameplay in a negative way, you would not make that argument, especially in UO's current state.
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.

#46
ChromaticDevil

ChromaticDevil

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts
I always thought that the PKers should at least get the money you paid to insure the item. *shrug* I was never much for hiding out and ambushing and murdering people, but to each his own.

#47
Celle

Celle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
I think they should made insurance useless when you're being killed by a red-player in fel~~ cause red-player should be evil and bad, and they are suppose to loot everything that you got (I don't have any reds by the way, so not speaking for myself)

#48
ChromaticDevil

ChromaticDevil

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts
Not transparent, not at all. :P But reds should at least get something... maybe they should get points and be able to turn them in for things like anti-virtue items, things only PKers can get, a reward for being bad. We blues get items from anti-virtue dungeons for killing monsters, maybe they should get evil armor and weapons only murderers can use? A little bit of incentive aside from being mean at their cores?





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: insurance